|
ANNOTATION:
I know nothing, so why read this?
Life has no meaning that we can know. Even according to science, which so many people seem to put their faith in, our subjective and fallible senses mediate "reality." Most "world-views," such as those based on science and religion, have at their base a few "metanarratives," which are the basic assumtions that must be true or the entire system of belief collapses. For example, one such assumption that's prevalent in most wester thought: "if statement 'A' is true, then 'A' cannot be false." Although this statement seems to be almost an undeniable rule for the observed world (there may be exceptions in quantum physics, but nevermind), the concept that such observation is proof of anything at all is also an assumption (one that science doesn't even make anymore, calling things theories instead of laws). The point is, proof of anything is impossible because communication and transfer of information is not an infallible thing.
Now whether it is possible to "know" without proof is just another way to get around this problem. And I don't have any way of proving anything, much less that this is impossible. My brain likes to function in ways that are conventionally logical (even when that logic proves itself fallible), and therefore I personally cannot accept any assumptions of truth as reflecting the "nature of reality" (if there even is such a thing).
Basically I believe that I do not and cannot know anything. Not even that.
-Jesse "maybe i think too much" Voogt
Author: Pieter van Leeuwen (leeuwpv[at]uk.ibm.com)
Date: Nov 5, 2001REPLY: Undeniability
Hi Jesse, I agree that the way of knowing things is very shaky for human beings.
I agree also that science these days asume that something can
only be true if you can prove it scientifically,
which you can't prove scientiffically.
Then as you seem to ask the question: how can we know anything for sure?
And concluding therefore that it is impossible to know anything
I find it help full with these kind of issues to apply tests. Yes, you can test truth.
Infact, when you say, "Basically I believe that I do not and cannot know anything"
the denial of all knowledge, would fail the test of "Undeniability".
Infact you have to know inorder to deny it.
Or put it differently. What you are saying is an incomplete statement. You are actually saying: "I believe that I know that I
do not and cannot know anything". You see, it is a contradiction.
So this means that somehow we CAN know things. Although we are limited. Because if we deny it we have to know inorder to deny it.
This is the same as for example, I cannot prove that I exist, but
when I deny it I prove it at the same time, i.e. I need to exist
inorder to make the statement.
There are further tests for truth: Logically consistancy (does it make sense)
Imperical adequacy, experiential relevence and undeniability as a test for truth and unafirmibility as a test for falsehood.
(I can say, I don't speak a word of Inglish, but I can't confirm
it as I am saying this in Inlish)
Then I can here you ask me, how do you know whether they are true? Well, you simply can't get around it. The only way to get around it is by denying all logic, but that is self defeating as you will have to use logic inorder to deny it.
To give you one more example, an Eastern Pilosopher said once, "When the mouth opens all are fools" (denying the existence of all logic) the problem was of course, as he was making this statement, he had to open his mouth, so he was foolosh too....
But inorder to know ultimate questions about life science is very
limited because we are calculating it while we are part of it.
A bit loike a fish in a bolw. A fish doesn't know what water is like because it is in it all the time and can't live outside it. We humans can go in and out the water and therefore know e.g. water is very wet. Inorder to know what life is all about and why
we are here, we need someone to come from outside this universe
(time and space)to tell us. I really believe someone did.
If you look at the new testament, that is exactly what is described (see John 1) That is why I believe truth is not an abstract theory or formula.
Absolute truth is a person. His name is Jesus Christ.
Try to apply these tests of truth to him as stated above.
Pieter
Author: George Hammershmiem (rick_505 [ at ] hotmail.com)
Date: Mar 15, 2002REPLY: Sure.
The comment and refutation are both rather silly. The reason is as follows: knowledge is acceptance of belief. Belief is based on sets of assumptions. Read Hume, Nietzche, Kripke. To say that you know or don't know something is to say I accept my belief or I don't. Every thought is imbedded in a complex mesh of assumptions. These assumptions are prone to misinterpretation. However, they tend to serve as reliable sources for survival and often as guides to maximizing pleasure. For some "god is an unnecessary hypothesis." for others, perhaps "god is the truth and the light." But, please, try to avoid the assumption that every shade of grey is the same. Love and kisses.
Author: k vold (kvvold[ at ]hotmail.com)
Date: Apr 27, 2003REPLY: knowing nothing lets you learn everything
Dear "maybe I think to much":
Beautiful. Thinking should be a sport because it is much more difficult than many expect. You can think for hours only to end up with the exact thought you began with. I know nothing either, but I wish too. All i want to say is, maybe not knowing is so bad, becuase its better than believing you know waht is not true.
To whomever wrote "Undeniabilty": I really wish you could explain to me why Jesus? You were able to write 30 lines about contradictions or something... and than somehow conclude that is why Jesus exists, without actually explaining he does. It left me more confused than when i began reading (which isn't a bad thing, i quite like confusion). But, with all the contradictions the bible has, and there are so many, how can you believe?
Author: k vold (kvvold[ at ]hotmail.com)
Date: Apr 27, 2003REPLY: knowing nothing lets you learn everything
Dear "maybe I think to much":
Beautiful. Thinking should be a sport because it is much more difficult than many expect. You can think for hours only to end up with the exact thought you began with. I know nothing either, but I wish too. All i want to say is, maybe not knowing is so bad, becuase its better than believing you know waht is not true.
To whomever wrote "Undeniabilty": I really wish you could explain to me why Jesus? You were able to write 30 lines about contradictions or something... and than somehow conclude that is why Jesus exists, without actually explaining he does. It left me more confused than when i began reading (which isn't a bad thing, i quite like confusion). But, with all the contradictions the bible has, and there are so many, how can you believe?
Copyright© 2001 Principia Cybernetica -
Referencing this page
|
|
|
