| Final-Fan said: |
1. I'm trying to figure out whether to you knowledge = truth
That’s what I was saying yes (with clarification) to.
2. No, every time I am either trying to find a new way to pierce your barrier of nonunderstanding of my objections or trying a new tack on which objections might best suit the discussion.
I understand what you’re saying but you’re missing the point I make every time you do this. It’s refusing to accept the meaning of absolute knowledge. If absolute knowledge existed in someone’s mind, there’s no sense in asking, in one way or another, “well how do they really know for sure they absolute know?”.
If you’re providing an argument as to why absolute knowledge as a concept cannot possibly exist or be given to us, that’s different than what’s being discussed here. As I’m clearing posing this as an answer to the question of epistemology (“Hypothetically” sure – sorry if that was unclear, I just thought the language I was using and the topic strongly implied that. Further I used plenty of “ifs” and “would be’s” if you read back. Even in the quote you posted under 3. I pose it with an “if” at the beginning.) it doesn’t make sense to literally contradict my proposition every time by saying ‘what if it isn’t what you’re saying it would be’. We’re discussing whether or not it’s an answer to the question of epistemology.
If revelation gave absolute knowledge then that would be a way of gaining absolute knowledge. In the same manner, if John wasn’t married he’d be a bachelor.
(In regards to point 7.) I’m curious how making it clear that this is a ‘hypothetical’ answer makes any problems go away. I mean, if (I say if for your sake) I had absolute knowledge then… it still wouldn’t make sense to ask me how I knew I had absolute knowledge.
Further, not to stray too far from that specific point, I’m also saying revelation is the only working answer presented. Other methods fail, thus either we get absolute knowledge from revelation or we get no absolute knowledge at all. Essentially true skepticism (Perhaps like what you’re already saying in denying truth – I think). But maybe something said here would distract from the main point. I’m only trying to make it clear that revelation at least would be “an” answer to epistemology (and not rationalism or empiricism).
(Have to say: Remember, empiricism does not mean literally sense data. It’s the doctrine that states we can know truth about the world [interpretations of sense data] by sense data alone.)
3. Well then as I see it the problem devolves back to how it is certain* that revelation confers absolute knowledge.
*"How IT is certain", not "How the recipient is certain".
Sorry, don’t understand what that means.
How do you propose to differentiate absolute belief from absolute truth in your own mind?
If I am able to doubt it in my mind, apparently it’s not absolute knowledge. If I can’t confess I’m 100% certain and that it can’t be anything else, then apparently it’s not absolute knowledge.
Keep in mind the point I made a while back about whether or not one thinks any knowledge is dependent upon also knowing the source it came from at the same time.
I say revelation only confers belief, not necessarily truth.
…
*** If you can't, then it would seem to me that you believe either (a), (b), or ( c ), since what one "knows" only in one's own mind, without proof that can be articulated, is simply a "belief" and not necessarily epistemological knowledge, IMO. Or, I guess, you take the more direct route and jump to believing that R is AK directly.
Basically you’re saying that “mere belief” is all that there is in our mind and that revelation could only give that mere belief (as opposed to absolute knowledge, like I’m proposing). Well, by your own standards I would think that’s something you’ll have to prove as well. (Although, as your position seems to deny such truth, it would mean you can’t do it). (Notice your statement is not an analytical one so it can’t be given any definitive status.)
(Again as my position is being offered 'hypothetically' I'm certainly not in the position to prove that it is indeed occuring. Although "proving" things is definitely what this whole general topic is all about, and if the hypothetical method I'm posing is correct, "proof", in the colloquial sense, either totally begs the question of 'how do you know' all over again and/or is entirely dependent upon revelation still.)
** On truth: Revelation could only assuredly confer absolute truth as well as belief IMO if truth only existed within oneself, whereas I have the position that it exists outside of oneself. Thus there is only one real truth set that we try to access.
What? This is what I’m talking about. How could I possibly understand that? It doesn’t even have any clear connection to anything else you’ve said.
Truth means truth (ya the “one truth” if that’s really a qualification) and “where it is located” in a literal sense would have no relation to that meaning. The only thing I could catch a hint of is maybe you mean “subjectivism” in reference to “within”. But I couldn’t possibly see any relevance in mentioning that (for the purpose I still don’t know) and I’ve already dealt with why subjectivism is meaningless.
4. Ugh. "Varying" could mean between 0% and 100% only and be just as valid.
And yet I still don’t know what you’re talking about in relation to anything you’ve been presenting. And I’m too afraid to ask what you mean by valid.
I took this to mean that "interpretation" implied uncertainty and I don't know how else I could have taken it. So I responded that no, interpretation did not necessarily imply uncertainty.
Sorry, don’t understand what that means or it’s relationship.
5. Empiricism is not merely “about” interpretations of sense data. Empiricism is specifically saying that one can obtain the correct interpretation of sense data by sense data (there’s more to empiricism than that but it isn’t relevant to what we’re discussing). So when I say revelation would give you the correct interpretation(s) it’s no longer empiricism at all. Since the doctrine of empiricism is to derive such truth from sense data.
Just in case: whether knowledge can be categorized systematically as input/output in relation to the world is not the issue. Just how we get knowledge in the first place (yes yes, absolute knowledge, something knowingly dependable).
One cannot derive absolute knowledge from input, except e.g. if I look at a mathematical proof and see that it is correct, then it is still correct even though the world may not actually exist. Other than that, I think I would agree with your argument.
Sorry, don’t understand what that means.
That's the third time I've said that phrase this post, isn't it? Please don't kill me! 
Okami
To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made. I won't open my unworthy mouth.
