Truth is greater than knowledge

Truth is greater than knowledge

Can you think of an example where this is not so?

Examples of how it is so:

Infinity is greater than any description of it.

An object is greater than its description; if I described e.g. a glass of wine as its holistic object, it does not describe what it is as a collection of particles [esp in quantum flux], if I describe a collection of particles, that does not describe what it is as an information set from which their hologram derives, if I describe that it doesn’t describe what makes the information pertaining to the hologram, if I describe that it does not describe a glass of wine.


I’m reminded of that story of the Christian family in the States who left the sickness of their child in the hands of God. She died. They rejected the knowledge of modern medicine for their conviction in God (truth). Knobs.

you must not read very much good literature.

The Matrix.

As long as people behave by only what they “know” through perception, Man can control their perception, what they “know” and thus how they behave.

As long as you have “Knowledge”, you have Power. :evilfun:
Truth takes that power away for itself. :confused:

“How can I get everyone to do what I dictate if they are always dong what the Truth dictates?” ](*,)

Knowledge is unattainable, truth is nothing. It is no-thing. No thing is true of itself. No thing has an identity to itself. Identities are derived from a thing’s difference from other things. Difference is primary, identity is secondary. Difference is unlimited. Thus, identity is continual. The world is flux.



I agree with your concern [though i dont know why this reminded you of that?], but this is a philosophical point [release], it is not stating that we should ignore the facts, just that there may be something more ~ but naturally first one must make utility of knowledge.


Why? My point was that we can tread a path through all the descriptions on different levels, and the truth of ‘it’ eludes us, this doesn’t mean the knowledge is wrong in its own context as it is not.

James S Saint

Indeed, and perhaps humanity has always been in one manner of self created matrix or another, modern philosophy and science are no exception.

Our perceptions and descriptions thereof are inherently limited. Any notion of a thing in its totality is problematic because one must assume that we are able to perceive all of that thing. So, “truth” may not even be available to us but by the accumulation of knowledge.

There are some things we claim some knowledge of, but not enough to be certain. Could such a case not be an example of knowledge being greater than truth? We don’t know why we exist, for instance, but we know quite a bit about how to survive.

As for your example, infinity doesn’t exist as a truth. I see it more as an abstraction that points to uncertainty. The only “truth” to be found is the absence of any truth.


Indeed. I am thinking that even if we had all available knowledge of a given thing, and from all perspectives [micro/macro etc], we would not attain the whole description ~ its truth. Perhaps as you infer this may be because we can never envelop a thing so as to know ‘all’ about it, what tends to occur is that one thing leads to another and we just keep going off on tangents. I don’t think this lessens the knowledge we have, as I say its purely a philosophical point showing is a more poetic and fluid reality.

Equally we don’t know why survival is necessary, mostly no species survive and life itself wont eventually. Though I take your point, no theory or philosophy is complete, so even if we can find reasons why truth is greater than knowledge, we can indeed find reasons to the contrary.

I agree truth is fluidic, I don’t agree infinity is not a truth, indeed all knowledge is an abstract when put against it, hence infinity is a perfect definition of truth. Hmm to agree further with your earlier point, we can of course say that a true infinity can only exist where there is nothing else [universe etc], though that is only true if infinity is a thing rather than stateless.


What the fuck does ‘greater than’ mean here? Is an apple greater than apple pie? Is a cow greater than a hamburger? In what sense are you using greater? I mean, greater is usually a quantitative term. You measure things, and if one thing has more things than the other thing, than the first thing is greater. What things are we measuring when we measure truth and knowledge?

Well we measure and describe particulars. I think what he’s getting at, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that “knowledge” deals with those particulars [of a thing] which we recognize and perceive, whereas “truth” would entail a complete, comprehensive description of a thing in its totality. So, when we describe an apple, for example, we describe particulars that are most recognizable rather than capturing all of which constitutes an apple.

The problem, as I see it, is that even if we did manage to gather all possible knowledge of an apple, we wouldn’t know it because we’d still be perceiving and describing particulars.

If there can be knowledge of particulars (and I’m not sure what you mean by this word), then there must be truth about particulars. Truth is a necessary component of knowledge. You can’t have knowledge without truth.

What do you mean by knowing an apple? Knowing everything there is to know about it, namely its essential and accidental properties? Why can’t there be knowledge of what there is truth? In other words, why is knowledge limited to the particulars? Are you saying there is some truth that can’t be known? If there is some non-particular truth about apples, then why can’t we know that truth?

That one would be a tough sale these days. [-(

I still don’t get what math has to do with anything when we’re talking about what is, and our representation of what is. Is all being said that a thing that exists out there in the world can never be fully duplicated inside our minds?

If so, then of course…

The cat you see and hear and touch and smell is not magically duplicated and transported star trek style into your mind’s cavern. What you have in your mind is a representation of the cat informed by what you perceive of the cat and your assumptions of the world (i.e., you don’t think the cat is 2 dimensional just because you only see it on its side.)

So I guess you can say the representation is lesser than the cat…but that doesn’t make sense. I believe what we really want to be saying is the image is flawed or always incomplete, if only because we’ll never be able to replicate a fundamental characteristic of the cat, viz., it’s relation to everything in the universe.

:wink: Not really, though. There are two senses of, “knowledge” in the English language, and probably more. There is the pedestrian sense which says nothing about the truth or falsity of a thing, and instead says something about the degree of fanaticism with which a person holds a belief. This pedestrian sense of knowledge is often times contrasted with “belief” in that knowledge is said NOT to be belief. Belief is something inferior to knowledge.

Belief and knowledge are seen as degrees of psychological certainty. Note the difference between these two sentences.

A: “I believe that God exists.”
B: I know that God exists."
The subtext says A has some room for doubt, and B is convinced.

Then there is the technical sense of knowledge, which is comprised of three essential conditions. These are belief, justification, and truth. As far as technical philosophy is concerned, you can’t have knowledge unless you have a belief (some idea you hold dear); unless your idea is true; and unless you have good reason to believe your idea is true. So you can see why comparing truth to knowledge makes little sense to me. Saying truth is greater than knowledge strikes me like saying lettuce is greater than a cheeseburger (where a cheeseburger is partly made up of lettuce).

Quet, Your op kind of skirts Alfred Korzybski’s theory of General Semantics, which posits, “The map is not the territory.”–what we ‘see’ as reality is an abstraction of the ‘thing’ that ‘is.’ The abstraction is what we label–e.g., a glass of water is a glass of water–until it’s thrown at someone. Then it’s a weapon. When it’s used to put out a small fire, it’s a fire inhibitor, and so on.

He was concerned with the misuse of the verb ‘to be,’ something we all seem guilty of most of the time.

What’s the difference between these two sentences:

“This is a great book.” and,
“I really enjoyed reading this book.” ?


I guess I was merely saying “truth” is a statement of conviction regardless of “knowledge” and…likelihoods. And if one’s conviction (truth) conflicts with what appears as knowledge i.e. idiot christian parents Vs doctor and modern medicine…then conviction will often conquer. And, in this case, proving (I should think) that “truth” ain’t greater than “knowledge.”

By particulars, I mean some aspect of its form or existence. Would “properties” be a better term? And I’m not sure how you justify the claim that truth is a necessary component of knowledge. We claim knowledge of all kinds of shit we are uncertain about. Conceptually, I agree that we can’t have knowledge without truth, but only insofar as ‘truth’ is the ideal goal. To necessarily link the two is a misconception, in my own opinion.

I mean whatever you perceive and understand about an apple. What I’m saying is that there is always a looming possibility that our modes of perception are limited as such that we may never know everything there is to know. And even if we did manage to gather all possible data, how would we realize it?

Because perception is limited to particulars and therefore knowledge itself.

Maybe we can, but how would we know and prove that we’ve captured all possible properties of that apple? What is the measure? I’m suggesting that it is presumptuous to believe we can know all of a thing when we can’t even perceive all of a thing naturally. We invent tools to aid us, but those will only work on particular levels as well.

I know that there is no such thing as truth unless you are religious

But is that true?
Yes or No?

Rather, is that accurate?

How accurate are our statements to reality and is it even possible for those statements to reflect reality 100%?