When I say I know something, when I say I have knowledge, what do I mean?
Do I mean I know how to do something?
Do I mean I have experienced and become acquainted with some specific thing using my senses? (IE, this white cat with the grey spot on it’s face that is sitting on my lap)
Do I mean that have knowledge of the form of something, in general. (IE, a cat but not the cat)
It is said that I learn by 1)observation of things using my senses, and then I give them names (IE This cat is named Tabby) (In which case I might say I know Tabby) I then apply my observations and experience of specific things to Broad categories of things. Thus, by naming do I fill my mind with knowledge of individual things from which I can know gereral things. A cat but not Tabby.
Sometimes this is confusing and leads to error. For example, watching my video collection, I become acquanted with a particular Clown fish named “Nemo” Then I see schools of fish and I recognize that they are the general form of Nemo. Then I see a really big fish and am surprised to learn that it is not a fish at all but rather is a Whale and is actually a mammal not a fish at all.
Knowledge is a myth, or at best it’s assertion is unsupportable, and it’s use is a consistent misnomer. When people use that word in a manner other than theoretical (as in, saying “I know” as opposed to discussing the concept of knowledge), the concept they’re referring to is not knowledge, it is belief. Knowledge would be the coincidence of belief and fact, but if that ever actually happens it cannot be proven.
First, and most obviously, how do you know that “knowledge is a myth”? The Socratic saying, “All I know is that I know nothing,” is similarly self-defeating.
In plane geometry I know that the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. There’s nothing mythical or uncertain about this knowledge (knowing that, a priori).
Joshua Bell knows how to play the violin. There’s nothing mythical about his knowledge of how to play (knowing how).
I know my way around the streets of Montreal. If I’m standing on Mont Royal I know that if I walk in a certain direction that McGill University will appear in a short time. There’s nothing mythical about that knowledge (knowing as familiarity).
As for a posteriori knowledge, we possess it even though we’ve generally no metaphysically warrented basis of certitude for it. I can’t know for certain that I’ll live until tomorrow, and yet I’ve sufficient reason to think that I will survive that long such that I make plans for tomorrow. Knowledge of what is probable qualifies as very real and enormously useful knowledge.
I think there are 2 forms of knowledge; physical and spiritual.
Physical is to know not to put your hand in an oven.
and spiritual is inner wisdom.
Socretes said- you cannot know anything you do not already know if i understand correctly.And how i suspect he came to the conclusion; Every time he realised/learnt something new he thought; i already knew that!
But alot of learning is through repetition of mistakes, clarifying and adding weight to the lesson. Until it sticks. Trial and error- we have to make mistakes. It is neccesary.
Knowledge is no myth - it is a reality. Uncertainty is another, also, so we tend to know several things but may not be sure of some other things in the context. For instance, I may know the direction out the door of my friend’s place from his room. I may not know each portrait on his wall or some such detail.
Knowledge, in my view, is not assimilated in an information collection process - it is based on learning - experimentation, extrapolation of a previously observed concept or pattern, and such. Then the object at hand falls into a collective “basket”, uder a grouping or a class which is opened when some stimuli are recieved. For instance, we understand a loaf of bread to be different from a bun in its basic shape. If we baked before we knew we were making buns or loaves, or even knew about buns or loaves, we would see them as merely differently processed dough. However, when you say “bakery”, maybe bread loaves and buns register and surface immediately. So things are learned about empirically and for circumstance.
Knowledge could be said to mean an emprical understanding of objects, events and phenomena by means of prior experience.
Also there are responses in our bodies like reflex actions which we have evolved because of the way our nervous systems have developed. If a baby touches a hot object it knows how to retract its hand even the first time it encounters that because we have been “programmed” for some situations. But not all actions are reflex actions - most are learned.
Knowledge is a useful construct that allows us to make sense of, and function in the world. It is only useful to the extent that we remember that it is a construct. There is no “knowing” without referent.
How do you know that a triangle exists? How do you know that degrees exist? How do you know if Joshua Bell or his violin exist? How do you KNOW anything? Every instance of “knowledge” you asserted requires basic assumptions. That your senses can be, at least to some degree, trusted is one, otherwise you wouldn’t say you’ve heard Joshua’s violin or seen/felt/heard/smelled Montreal. The ego-centric predicament I believe it’s called, our “knowledge” of anything outside of our minds is dependent on our senses, and cannot be independently verified because they are our only vehicle for contact with everything. To say that you can show knowledge without any assumptions is impossible. You cannot prove anything without at least the assumption that there is something to prove. We may well know things, but we can’t prove it, because we have to make assumptions about our ability to percieve, about our own existences. We can strive for internal consistency between our beliefs and our perceptions, strive for what seems to be the most accurate, possessing the highest reasonable probability of being true, but we can’t prove any such thing. Knowledge is the coincidence of belief and fact. There is no way to prove that your belief does coincide with fact. It is possible that it does, but you cannot KNOW that it does, because you cannot independently verify it.
Kory,
It sounds like Alice In Wonderland. Everything that is, isn’t. Everthing that would be, wouldn’t. We can’t funtion in a world that isn’t what it is. Then, what isn’t is and what wouldn’t would. You see, from the other side its the other way.
Here is another, stronger Socratic saying, in the case you are right about the necessity of making assumptions to begin knowledge:
“…one thng I am ready to fight for as long as I can, in word and act – that is, that we should be better, braver, and more active men if we believe it right to look for what we don’t know than if we believe there is no point in looking because what we don’t know we will never discover.” – Plato, Meno 86b
Well, if we can get past our apriori assumptions, then constructing a base for “knowledge” is the next step. There can be as few or as many kinds of knowledge as you would care to construct. In fact, this has been the major preoccupation of philosophy throughout it’s history.
It is one of the fundamental axioms of my personal philosophy that knowledge is possible. While absolute objective point of view is not possible, we learn to accept the limits of our abilities and arrive at sufficient knoweldge. The endless asking of the question “How do you know…” as practiced by Korvas is the sort of radical parabolic scepticism that leads to nihilism.