Epistemology and understanding

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Epistemology: is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature,
origin, scope and limits of human knowledge…
and one of the important questions of Epistemology is ''what
distinguishes justified belief from mere opinion?

for a philosophy site, we see mere opinion all the time around here…
one such example is the statement, by whom I don’t recall, but
the statement was: ‘‘Men are men’’ which implies men should
act like men…but leaving us with a question or even two,
what does it mean to act like a ''man?" much ‘‘ink’’ is wasted
around here trying to define gender roles in terms of what
‘‘men’’ are supposed to be/do and what ‘‘Women’’ are supposed
to be/do…with much ‘‘ink’’ about the loss of masculinity in men…
and I for one am confused with this because it is never stated or
shown to have validity, why is it so important for men to be
masculine?

And the answer often is, it is biology…so, we are to gain knowledge
about the idea of being masculine from biology… biology is the basis
of our knowledge about being masculine…but exactly how
confident are we in using biology as a base line for how men should
be masculine?

A male lion in the wild, and we watch him and declare that he
is acting ''masculine"…that certain behavior is declared to be
masculine… and other behavior is declared to be feminine…
but that in reality, as usual in fact, that we have interpreted
that male lion behavior as masculine…and another interpretation
make the female lion behavior as feminine…

from the lion/lioness standpoint, there is no such thing as male
or female behavior because male and female behavior as we
have defined it is an artificial abstract… calling a lion
masculine makes no sense because we have simply defined
it so… from the lion perspective they are just doing their thing with
no thought as to whether it is masculine or feminine because
those terms mean nothing to a lion/lioness… they are not playing
roles but they are simply being a lion/lioness with no thought
as to what that means… because only human beings think
about existence in terms of masculine or feminine… a lion
doesn’t care and doesn’t know…

or to say it another way, lions, no matter how hard they try,
they cannot overcome evolution… that evolution created both
the hardware and software of being lion…and lions, like
all animals are unable to overcome their software… there
is a limit built into lion by nature/evolution and a limit they
cannot overcome… a cat can only be a cat and a dog
can only be a dog in terms of behavior…and it is no
different for a lion…

But this leads us to being human…the entire point of being
human is that we can overcome our biology, our nature/evolution…
for example, one of the strongest evolutionary aspects is the
flight or fight aspect…and this evolutionary aspect is present
in all animals and all humans… but, we as human beings can
overcome this flight/fight aspect… we can and often do,
pick/choose a third option in the flight/fight evolution…
we can, at least some of us, can overcome this flight/fight option
and by making a third choice, we set ourselves apart from the
software of being human…

We can say this another way by saying that we are not forced to
act by our instincts… we can overcome our own instincts and act
apart from our biological tendencies/evolution…
and back to our old friends the lions, they can only act within
their instincts, they cannot act apart from their instincts, which
is software…

This is a rather long way to say that part of the human condition is
the ability to overcome our instincts… unlike animals like cats, dogs
and of course, lions… who cannot under any circumstances overcome
their instincts to be a lion or cat or a dog… part of being human is
the ability to overcome our instincts… and let us return to the opening
statement,

‘‘Epistemology: the branch of philosophy that studies the nature,
origin, scope and limits of human knowledge’’

the origin and one of the limits of knowledge is our instincts,
our software… to practice being human within our limits
of our software/instincts is one way to go, but as I have
indicated, part of the point of being human is to overcome
our software/instincts… and part of that overcoming lies
in understanding what it means to be human…

Is being human mean that we must always and forever follow
our instincts/ our software? I have said no… one of the points
of being human is to overcome our software/our instincts…
but Kropotkin, what is your basis for such a statement?
What knowledge do you bring to the table that would
suggest the point of being human is to overcome our
software/instincts? Epistemological, how do you get to
your statement?

Kropotkin

2

We can think about this in a slightly different way…

with instincts, such as animals have, say lions, they
can’t overcome their instincts… in other words, they have
no choice in their actions because their actions are dictated
by instincts… flight or fight in animals in not optional, it is a
biological necessity… they have no choice…

But in human beings, we, by being able to overcome our instincts,
we have created choices… that is the value of overcoming our
instincts, in that we now have choices available to us…
Animals have no choice other than being an animal with
only animal possibilities within that…reaching our own
human possibilities is something that separates us from animals…
for within those possibilities lies choices… to be human is to have
choices available to us… as a human being, I have possibilities…
choices… I can travel, I can try to be the best philosopher I can
be, I can relearn German, but as a 67 year old man, my choices
become limited… I can no longer run, back and ankle issues, but
many years ago, I ran both cross-country and track…
that possibility is no longer a reality…

the answer to becoming human lies in our possible choices…
whereas instincts create no choices… one must, must follow
the instincts, exactly as animals do…
Or as Nietzsche suggested, we are animals trying to become
human… N. called it a ‘‘tightrope’’ I say road, it means the same
thing…and in traveling from animal to human, I increase or
engage in my own choices, my own possibilities… which is
something animals cannot do…

Those on the right/conservatives believe in having no choices…
for example, conservatives believe as Machevelli did,
that human beings are unable to change, they cannot change their
spots exactly the same way a leopard cannot change his spots…
but that lack of choice is exactly what we must fight…if I have no
choices, I am an animal…nothing more… but with choices, I can
become human…how do I want to be defined? as an animal
without any choices, instincts, or do I want to overcome
my instincts and become human, fully human? For that is the
question…

In terms of knowledge, epistemology, I can rely on my instincts
to create my knowledge, or I can overcome my instincts, my
software and become my possibilities… and here is where
the rubber meets the road… in created my own possibilities,
overcoming my instincts, I move away from a certain source of
knowledge, for instincts are a source of knowledge, but in
moving away from instincts, I can no longer rely on my instincts
to provide me with knowledge… I lose a source of knowledge…
and upon what rock do I now rely on to be my source of
knowledge? if I remove instincts, then where is my new
source of knowledge? on what do I base my decisions on,
if we remove instincts? that becomes the question…
we can think of history as a path of removing instincts,
and moving toward having choices in our possibilities…
and we can, perhaps, see our past 200 years as seeking out
a new source of knowledge if we don’t have instincts anymore?
on what rock are we to judge, base our actions and behavior on
if we don’t have instincts to use anymore?

Therein lies the history of the last 200 years…
we can say that Kant with his ‘‘revolution’’ in thinking tried
to create a base of knowledge upon which we can make our
choices on… and ever since Nietzsche, the history of
philosophy has been trying to create a base upon which
to judge morals and ethics on, outside of instincts…

On what rock do we judge our morals and ethics on, in this modern age?
Especially given the history of the last 200 years, two World Wars, the
Holocaust, the My Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib torture/prison abuse…

I would suggest that these events are, in part, an instinctual response,
an animal response, whereas we easily could have made other
choices, more human choices…

what does it mean to be human if we don’t have any choices
we can make?

Kropotkin

3

Let us take this a step further…

it seems to be that, around here anyway, that men must be men,
that the only response for a man is to be hyper masculine…
and yet, what exactly does that do for us? if men have no choice
and must play the role of being masculine, that means men
have no choice… they must play their role even if that role
is not what a man needs or wants…if one has no choice,
then one is nothing more than an animal… choice is the path
forward into becoming human… if one has choice, as for
example, who to love, then, then that is the pathway to becoming
human… I personally prefer women, but I do have a choice…
the real trick is this question of love… one of the primary
needs of being human is love, both as a physical/bodily
matter and as a psychological matter…in fact, one could
make the argument that seeking out love is one of, if not
the primary need of human beings… people will go to extremes
to find love…and a very large driver of human behavior and actions
are in seeking out love…and we can believe that in seeking out love,
fulfilling our needs, we are engaged in instincts… our needs,
but not all needs are bad… in fact, we need such things to live
as food, water, shelter, health care, education… and much of
our existence is seeking out both our biological and psychological
needs… much like animals in seeking out their biological
needs, we do the same… we engage with our instincts,
and there is nothing wrong with that for without our meeting
our needs, we die or at the very least, we are severely weakened,
which could lead to our death… and avoiding death is a
primary instinct that we have in common with animals…
but even overcoming our instinct to avoid death is not only
possibly but often, in wartime for example, desired and required…

So, the question becomes this, are you driven by instincts, or
do you have choices in front of you by overcoming your instincts?
the question requires us to evaluate or reevaluate our actions
and do they need to be done with instinct or by choice?
do we remain animal or do we try to overcome our animal instinct
by making choices and trying to achieve our own possibilities?

so, what is really needed is what the Buddhist believe in,
which is to be mindful of our being, our actions and our beliefs
and our possibilities that we can achieve…

overcoming requires us to be aware of who we are and what
is possible for us…mindfulness…are you mindful of your
beliefs and actions?

Kropotkin

4

a particular epistemology problem lies within the very human
notion of bias…This age in particular, mistakes our biases,
as knowledge…I have heard and once again will hear,
the chant, USA, USA, and combine that with ‘‘We’re number one’’
so, where do we stand in regard to that chant, epistemologically,
as knowledge… you have to create some sort of standard to be
able to define the U.S as being ‘‘number one’’… which is to say,
that chant is not knowledge but a bias…and we see that many times,
where bias is treated as knowledge… and bias isn’t knowledge, it is
an indoctrination… for example, a typically held belief in America,
is that whites are superior to blacks… that is a bias because there
are no facts or evidence to support it…and that matches many of
the biases we see, even here on ILP, where a bias is treated as
knowledge… there is a god, the Jews are/have taking over the world,
USA.. USA… USA… is another example of a bias pretending to be
fact…bias as defined by my handy dandy dictionary is:

Bias: is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea,
thing or group, usually in a way that is closed minded, prejudicial or
unfair…it is a cognitive shortcut or inclination that influences
judgement, often leading to decisions not based on objective fact…

We can see bias being practiced every single day by
MAGA and led by IQ45… with biases not in truth or reality,
but preconceived notions that have no bases in reality…
the ongoing bias of stolen elections for example…there is no
proof of any kind that any election was stolen in the last 40
years… and part of the proof that no election was stolen,
is the fact that to steal an election takes literarily thousands
of people… and any secret that needs thousands of people to
be quiet about is not really possible… which btw also removes
any such implausible conspiracies as the moon landings,
Jewish conspiracies, 9/11, and JFK was killed by
the government and Covid was engineered, all of which requires
hundreds if not thousands of people to be silent… it is not factually
possible for a large scale conspiracy to exists without people in the loop,
talking about it… any secret that more than 2 people know about, it
will have someone talking about it…that is human nature…

These are examples of bias pretending to be knowledge…
but bias isn’t just about conspiracy theories, no, bias passing
as information exists, here on ILP… when some claim that
‘‘men must be men’’ that is a bias…that men wearing
dresses are inherently dangerous… that is a bias…
now I am old, and when I was a kid, on TV, it was very
common to see men wearing dresses on TV… for example
Jonathan Winters practically made a career out of it…
and other men wearing dresses includes Milton Berle,
Robin Williams, Dean Martin, Bob Hope and I even saw
John Wayne wearing a dress on a TV variety show…
maybe a Bob Hope or Dean Martin show? and we know for
a fact that boys were often dressed in girls outfits when they were
young… We have pictures of Winston Churchill wearing girls
clothes when he was young… and that was very typical for
that age…

Part of the problems these days is the fact that people
often use their bias as substitute for true knowledge…
and one might say, well I don’t… but how do you know that
to be true? You don’t know what you know as a bias as oppose
to facts… there is a god, is not a fact but a bias… and then
making all your decisions based on that bias, is part of the
problem today… only a reevaluation of values can one
work out what is bias and what is fact…if it has
been indoctrinated into you, such as the greatness of America
and the existence of god/Jesus, odds are that is a bias, not fact…

So, do you know what information you personally hold that is
fact and not bias?

Kropotkin

5

All the time?

Aye, why?

We shouldn’t compare ourselves to lions and wolves. We are highly socially adapted primates.

Exactly.

You’re right.

6

I don’t suppose you’re referring to ‘software’ in a biological or philosophical context. The human brain and nervous system are often described as the “software” that directs the body’s physical “hardware”

Rather are you saying that the aim of self-awareness is to step back and observe the ‘software’. That realizing your conditioned thoughts are just code, you can choose to “debug” unhelpful habits and actively rewrite your mental programming?