Difference between knowledge and truth ?

I am kinda curious here…

What is the difference between knowledge and truth ? Is there a difference ?

While surfing I came across this :

And I thought well…all I have to do is change the word philosophy to knowledge and I would have my answer ! But then that implies that the word “philosophy” and “knowledge” are interchangeable ! What do U think ?

They all seem to go “hand in hand” but at the same time they seem like a comparison between “apples and oranges” !

knowledge? read hume… it is easily denied

truth? read nietzsche… it too is easily denied

truth and knowledge are not the same thing

“Your truth is not my truth.” B. Lee

knowledge (epistemology) is only one small branch of philosophy (the love of wisdom)… they are different things…

-Imp

Thanx for U’r quick reply…but… why isn’t “the truth is the truth is the truth” ?

In other words isn’t truth always objective ? And to suggest otherwise simply implies IT wasn’t the truth that was being discussed in the first place…it may have been “knowledge”, in which case IT is open for discussion (i.e it is subjective)…?

Thanx for your insight !

because not everyone agrees that the “truth” is the “truth”…

there is no objectivity…

there is the ego-centric predicament. period.

-Imp

DV,

Truth is when what’s in your head matches what’s outside of it.

Knowledge is a truth with a reason for believing it.

Philosophy is a love for seeking wisdom – the highest causes – the highest knowledge – the highest truths.

I don’t see philosophy as being necessarily subjective – first one tries to be objective, then it is subjective once one acts on it. What good is acting on a belief that you don’t hold to be true? What good is holding something to be true if one does not act on it? :confused:

Regards,
my real name

But because one does not agree with the truth does that mean it isn’t the truth ?

I am not so sure I follow…because from what U have said…I must be living a lie ! (But then that may very well be a possibility). Thanx for your input.

what does objective mean?

i dont really get the idea… in order to define it, the way most people seem to be using it, you have to talk about a lot of stuff that is really just making stuff up…

same with “truth”… we can talk about what it “is”, in which case we wont have much to say about it really… its just an endoresement of certain statements for certain reasons… all the other stuff that you can say about “truth” or something being “objective” is just a whole lot of made up jabbering about stuff that we dont know about…

Wow even the Truth’s font has “ideology” written all over it

Nothing is entirely objective my friend. Reality consists of two parts, the subjective and the objective. Things that are entirely one or the other are rarities. No matter what truth you take into acount, there is always some subjective experience involved in it. For instance, let’s take two religious fanatics who believe the bible to be absolute truth. One religious fanatic may not agree with the second due to disagreements in interpretation. Though they both believe in the same objective truths, their subjective truth still differs. This is the problem of epistemolology. Subjectivism is an indivisible part of reality. Without it there is no objectivism, or at least there is no way to determine that there is objectivism, which ultimately is the same thing.

BTW:

WELCOME BACK ME! GLAD TO BE HERE, THANK YOU!

Welcome back ACB.

I was going to ask you to clarify some of your thoughts here, but on second thought, i’ll just say: “Say what?”

On third thought, could you define some of your terms? reality, subjective, objective

By subjective, do you just mean opinion, and by objective, knowledge? (A distinction from Plato?) And by reality, our thoughts about the world?

A confused,
my real name

By subjective I mean an individual perception. By objective, I mean any collectively agreed perception. Nothing is entirely objective unless everyone agrees on it with no exceptions. Objectivity is measured by general consensus and consistancy. Everything is at least somewhat subjective, and most everything is much more subjective then objective. Perception is a personal and individual experience. Only a hive mind uniting all known intelligent life in thought could form a truely objective perception. Even so, that perception would only be objective because everyone agrees that it is. Since there would be no one to disagree with the truth in any said agreed fact, it would be entirely real to everyone, and no one would ever think of questioning it.

I do not think that whether you can see or feel a thing ever determines whether or not it is real. For instance, subjective traits can be placed upon imaginary things. Money is a good example. Money is not anything anymore. It was once gold, then it was paper, now… Nothing. On or off circuits of a mainframe, which represent a number which is assigned an agreed value. Both the number and the value assigned to it are just products of imagination. The circuits which record these agreed values are inherently worthless in a utilitarian sense. It is we who collectively decide that the values recorded in financial databases are real, and what their worth is. We assign the traits of worth and value to something which is just a numeric representation of an agreed idea. The idea is not tangible in nature, and neither are the traits assigned tangible in nature.

Reality on the other hand I believe is the only thing that is either entirely subjective or objective. Using it to mean the total sum of everything, it is the only ultimate objective truth. Every other perception which does not include the entire sum of everything is a completely subjective reality, which has no real basis except to the person whom that perception belongs to. To that person the only ultimate reality is what they percieve to be happening, all their thoughts, interpretations and memories. Anything beyond what they are able to percieve, or imagine is in fact non-existant, and cannot be proved otherwise, for to do so would have to make the perciever aware of the existance of that thing, at which point it would in fact exist on some level in his/her reality.

So in short, unless you are the total sum of everything reality is subjective. That however makes it no less real then the ultimate sum of everything. Every reality is entirely true, and partially false, as paradoxical as that sounds. It is entirely true because every reality exists as part of the multiverse. Thoughts and opinions are part of the multiverse, just as much as matter and space. So any perception is entirely true in the sense that they do exist as a valid existential piece of the multiverse. No reality can be denied, for if it were a false reality, then it would cease to exist in form and thought alike. To objectively falsify any subjective reality is to deny it’s existance altogether. Were any subjective reality to cease to be real, the multiverse would no longer be complete, thus truth would no longer exist, or at least no longer be knowable.

These realities are still partially false though, as they mean nothing by themselves. The existance of a greater whole is a prerequisite for the presuming the existance of any subjective reality. So without the whole, there could be no parts. The ceased existance of any individual part of the total ultimate reality would result in the impossibility of a whole. So even the most skewed and far out there perceptive realities are not only entirely real, but are actually in fact prerequisites for the existance of truth.

The following is my opinion:

Every philosopher cringes at the notion that philosophy is subjective. Except a few misguided early moderns and the fluffier new age thinkers among us, we tend to reject the notion of subjectivity.

ACB,

I’m not sure of everything you’re saying, but it sounds like, on your criteria, it would be very difficult to reach objectivity. Whereas in some philosophies, you only have to be rational to be objective. And isn’t the point that people often can be “objective” and agree on a principle, mean there is more to critical thought than just subjectivity?

my real name,
somewhat neo-Scholastic

Knowledge is what we know. What we know is what we know. It can be true, it can be false.

Philosophy attempts to know the truth. Philosophy is meaningless if it does not seek truth or if truth does not exist. Truth is the reason for philosophy.

We are all philosophers if ever we asked ourselves whether anything is true or not.

And the axioms of truth can be:

  1. Truth exists.

  2. Truth is that absolutely reliable, constant, unchanging and pervasive, applicable for all times and places, independent of whether it is known or not.

  3. Truth is humanly knowable, or at least some parts of it.

  4. Truth is discerned by means of both our minds and our perceptions.

  5. Truth can be reasoned or it can be revealed.
    We go about life implicitly assuming, or taking it as self-evident, that there are true things, ie reliable and constant, eg geometry in our architectural and mechanical designs, that the sun will rise again, that a legal contract continues to be in force today as it was yesterday, and a yes means a yes everywhere and everytime, and that there is such a thing as justice, etc etc. And of course there are more to truth than that which merely meets the eye.

Truth may be knowable, but not necessarily provable. We can, using our minds, make tests for truth. For example, as suggested by ABC, we say if a thing be true, it should be agreed by all. But this is neither a necessary nor sufficient test. For all can be deluded, and all but one, is still not all. All you need is one person in the world, perhaps yet unborn, to disagree and the test collapse. But it is not a necessary test in the first place, for how can a blind man agree that there is such a thing as a red thing, or everyone agree on evolution as the origin of species?

And logic is not the only means to attain truth. Truth is Beauty and Beauty is Truth too.

We should believe in only that which is true. This seems obvious, but not necessarily true in all of us. For we usually believe what we want to believe, the truth being irrelevant. Perhaps it just makes us feel good, or because this is what those people that matters to me also believe in, or that we were conditioned, consciously or otherwise, to believe so.

Faith is acting out what you believe. You sit on a chair because you believe the chair exists and it can support your weight. If your acts are founded on truth then your acts will be consistent with reality, if not then things dont happen as you think they should.

Oh come on! I know it would be easier to deny subjectivity, but in reality there is no way of getting around it. Five people see a car accident, all see the same thing, report five different stories. Are all but one of them lying? What we percieve is not reality, it is our interpretation of reality. We detect waves and patterns through neural sensors, which are then encoded in a form of electrochemical messages and further restructured into synapses producing thoughts depicting a representation of reality. How do you know that depiction of reality which is just a translated version of what you percieve to be tangible. To say that objectivity is common place is to assume that the process in which humans detect the universe is flawless. If there is anything that is lost in the translation from a part of the tangible universe to the individual perception of it, then that perception is NOT reality in any objective sense. I do not think that there is ANY method of completely accurately percieving the the tangible multiverse. Do you really think that human perception is flawless? I find that to be highly improbable. Also, to achieve a true objective perspective, yoiu would have to include causality. In order to include a causality accurate enough to be considered entirely objective, one would have to know all the workings and mysteries of the multiverse. Were there no such thing as time and motion, there would be no need to include causality in a true objective reality. But since the multiverse is entirely dynamic, the need to incorporate an omnicient understanding of causality becomes essential.

Oh, and by the way, how many great philosophers have you heard of that agreed with all the other philosophers of their time? If your ideas make other philosophers cringe, chances are you are onto something. Everything you hear from me are my own philosophies. I didn’t read any of this stuff in any book.

It is impossible to reach objectivity. However, there are different levels of objectivity. It is useful to assume objectivity in many cases, especially when dealing with such subjects as theology. I think a rational analysis versus a flawed one is MORE objective, but it is still not entirely objective. It is okay to assume objectivity, but always keep in mind that no matter how rational or objective your analysis seems, it is in most probability wrong anyway. Assuming there is only one real truth, that means that the vast, vast majority of ideas/perceptions are flawed or incorrect in some way. That is something that as a philosopher I think people just need to accept. You can never truly be right. All you can do is help to move humanity further towards that true objectivity. The goal itself is not reachable, however, that does not mean that the pursuit is fruitless.

No offence meant but how can you expect me to respond to something that shows you clearly did not read my post?

No one is denying subjectivity exists.

chanbengchin wrote:

If you try to elaborate your own understanding of these ideas, you might find a closer relationship between your existing understanding of truth, and that which you are about to form.

Let me reassert the fact that knowledge is what you know, and then state that knowledge does not have to be true or false. For example, we could use our own experience of cause and effect to say whether or not an event will or will not happen as we expect it to. A simple, physical interaction between two striking billiard balls has a predictable outcome. This does not show us that we can understand the nature of these physical interactions, since the scientific principles are those which we derive from a descriptive stance. There is no basis here for the understanding of any truth. Only a further understanding of how we perceive the changes around us.

I didn’t say you were denying it’s exitance, I was merely responding to your “rejection of it”

Also, note I did not say you were denying subjectivity’s existance, I only stated that you denied it, it meaning the notion of it, as you put it, not the existance of it.

Knowledge is what we know.

The knowledge that can be proved by science, is what we define as truth.