Or perhaps power is not just knowledge, maybe power is also the action of applying what you do know to reality… to hasten/slow change.
Each human him-/herself and humans themselves are what we call “media”. Actually they do not need other media (books, newspaper, radio, tv, internet and so on) than themselves.
One can become more powerful by knowlege but also or even more by belief.
Power doesn’t have to always come about from knowledge. Abusive power can come about because of a lack of knowledge. Knowledge is a tool - just as knowledge in the wrong hands, mis-interpreting it, deliberately or otherwise, can bring about abusive power.
Applying what we know to reality is practical wisdom and intelligence. Crows are intelligent creatures because they are problem solvers.
We are at times unintelligible creatures because we add to problems rather than seeking ways to solve them, seeking solutions.
…or by a mis-interpretation of knowledge or by a mis-interpretation of belief, believing something which was not meant in the first place - to suit one’s own purpose…focusing only on what one chooses to see rather than seeing a fuller picture. That is the other, side-of-the-coin dangerous nature of belief.
“A different important point to consider is how Nazi officials, such as Alfred Baeumler (Bäumler) interpreted Nietzsche’s work. Alfred Baeumler was a pseudo-philosopher for the Nazis who played an important role of portraying ietzsche as the ‘godfather of fascism’. In one of his books called der Philosophund Politiker he writes about the relation (he saw) between the Nietzsche and Nazism, “The German state of the future will not be a continuation of Bismarck’s creation, but will be created out of the spirit of Nietzsche and the spirit of the
Great War”25. Wikipedia claims that he was “one of the few influential philosophers in Nazi Germany”. This leads to believe that the Third Reich would have been more inclined to accept what Nazi philosophers had to say about Nietzsche instead of what Nietzsche actually meant.”
For instance, Nietzsche’s Will to power …
“…On the other hand, what Nietzsche meant by the “Will to Power” was entirely different. The will to power (German – “der Wille zur Macht”) is a model to explain human behaviour, is the driving force of man; ambition for achievement, having a higher position in life. All these are symptoms of the will to power.”
The simplest formula is:
some knowledge is derived from belief , example>hypotheticals- as in 'what if, such & such
Most belief is derived from some knowledge of hypotheticals,
But not all belief is derived from knowledge- based on 'some knowledge is not hypothetical, because that kind of ‘knowledge’ is merely a pre-intuitive
automatic function of the sympathetic nervous
system.
The point being, is, that knowledge and belief are
vast umbrellas , covering their relative descriptions,
for one, and their post-criptions on the other.
Knowledge is described as = to belief at a time, when
description and inscription were undifferentiated,
they were tied to very basic functions of survival.
The critical doubt arose, at a time, when these definitions became more broad spectrum, and began
to be different.
Now, in common language, doubt is forced upon , with such expressions as ’ I don’t believe what you
say’- ; with belief differentiated from saying-
meaning.
Way before, common understanding was based on
purely literal and objective belief, forced on the fact
that few people wrote, and the spoken language had to be by various reasons taken at face value.
Some of these reasons were attributable to minimize variance , to minimize the effects of primal force which threatened to disorganize life. Adherence, reification,and social welfare were dependent on
maximum cogency of a unitary public narrative.
Variant private belief, developed from more control over the environment, especially after writing became more of a vehicle of evolving symbolic re-presentation, generally.
.
Yes why must I believe things automatically or even after the fact? Why can’t I remain agnostic until knowledge occurs?
I’ll tell you. It’s basically taking things with “a grain of salt”. How many times is the media/news in error about their reports? How many times do you believe what they say is true on “breaking news stories”, before the revise the story a dozen times, do you believe each revision? Or do you not just realize that you do not know, they do not know but are doing their best to give you what they can.
My wife, my kids tell me things - but do they really understand what they are telling me? People tell me lots of things. Some people like, some people forget. Why must I believe their account to be true? Why can’t I remain agnostic? Of course I can act on good faith of their accounts, but that doesn’t mean I believe it to be true.
WW_III_ANGRY
After the fact of what? Evidence and proof?
Aside from that, there are some things which we realze that may not be proof of evidence in their totality. We’ve had that experience. Something once known and believed to be so, becomes uprooted and changed. So, being agnostic can be a good thing because we decide to withhold judgment.
At the same time, we can’t allow our agnosticism to make neurotics out of us. We don’t necessarily have to take a leap of faith in things which haven’t been proven but we can take a leap of faith in “knowing” that at least for now, the knowledge which has just been proven is real for NOW. That’s our relationship to reality and the unknown. Being human, we’re fallible creatures but at least we’re honest when it comes to admitting our mistakes; that is, if we value reality and truth.
If that made any sense. lol
Sure Moreno - I agree. I never said it was wrong, I said I am offering a superior method. Language is not the reason here. Yes, belief means a lot of different things, but look at the sense of belief I am pointing out in this OP.
Yes, sure, “We” - being who? Philosophers? Maybe more so than Joe Schmoe of course. But how about everyone else? Sometimes it can get very muddled.
I think you are using belief here as synonymous hope/faith as I did not refer to this sense of the definition in my epistemic frame. I did not speak or rule out that sense of the word in my frame of reference, myself, nor do i think we should. As I pointed out, hope is a more apt term in this discussion, rather than conflating that with the topic at hand, which is thinking something to be true, without justification of it being knowledge. Which I would say is not the same attitude as knowledge, which is why knowledge shouldn’t be categorized as a subset of belief. The problem many are having here is that belief has many different homophonous senses.
I think there is at times. Remember, epistemology is not a hard science. Who am I arguing against? Well if we agree, then great. For the things I didn’t quote in your response, I agree with what you stated. So as such, it seems we are close to coming to an understanding between each other.
Really? I don’t see how that is necessarily true. No Philosopher? How can you be so sure?
What is this based on? How isn’t it the real world? In what aspect are they not two little boxes belief and knowledge, Moreno?
Below is the JTB model - in a diagram and my model. Please forgive the differing size of the two diagrams.
Now my model:
Please note that I allow belief to be truths, but most aren’t. You can get lucky. Please note that some knowledge is not truth, but most is. Also please note the vastness of “truth” compared to belief and knowledge. Of course, it’s not to any sort of scale, but representative of sentiment that truth is far more voluminous compared to what we can ever know or believe.
What does your model for “truth” stand for - all that there is and isn’t known? I couldn’t find your meaning as I read the post above it.
I can’t really see the second model well.
It seems to me that your putting truth and belief along the same measurement.
Can you elaborate on it.
Yes - the truth bubble represents is all that there is and isn’t known except in the case where knowledge overlaps, then it is known. In the case where belief overlaps truth, is believed, and happens to be truth as well.
There is no ‘dismembered’ truth out there. There is a set of objects and there are relationships between those objects.
It is possible to make statements about those objects and those relationships. If the statement is consistent with what is observed, then it is said to be true, otherwise it is false.
So does this mean to you there are no facts about things unobserved? Like for example, there’s nothing true or false about what’s going on deep underground on one of Saturn’s lesser moons- until somebody goes and checks?
Stuff is happening there but until you investigate it and think about it , there is no truth to be said about it. Facts are statements that you make.
If everyone dies, then there are no facts and there is no truth, there is no knowledge and there is no belief. There is still stuff but there are no thoughts about that stuff.
So a consequence of that would be that a statement or proposition can’t be true by accident, right? Like, if I say “There’s a large chunk of ice shaped like a spoon on Europa”. That statement, as of right now, is neither true nor false, regardless of whether or not there is a chunk of ice shaped like a spoon on Europa, and doesn’t become true or false until somebody has a way to (dis)confirm it?
Okay, so somebody say this about a chunk of ice on Europa.
If is confirmed by another or others then it is taken to be truth.
If it is not confirmed by others, then it is not taken to be truth.
It may still be there.
This demonstrates the difference between what is and what we think we know to be.
What we take to be knowledge may not be the reflection of reality.
We are under no obligation to take this sentiment about a chunk of ice on Europa as being truth, regardless of how many people “confirm” it. It is a matter of how was it confirmed, what does it mean, is it possible, plausible, there are other factors to use in reasoning as to why it is taken as truth.