Objective Knowledge

JLNobody wrote:

To believe that Reality cannot be other than how we think it to be, speaks to the limitations of our nature, not the necessary structure of that which we are thinking about.

Well, the inevitable response to that is: how do you know?

JLNobody wrote:

For example, during Descartes' time it was "self-evident" that thinking entailed a thinker (cogito ergo sum); we now realize that deeds do not necessitate doers (including the fallacy: "it" is raining, whereas there is only "raining").

That's not a fallacy, that's just how the English language works. I'm sure there are plenty of languages out there where "it is raining" comes out like the declarative statement "raining" in translation. And that certainly doesn't prove that there are deeds without doers.

JLNobody wrote:

The fallacy of philosophical Rationalism is that the structure of our logical thinking must correspond with the structure of Reality. I call this: shrinking the Cosmos to the size of our heads.

To what should it correspond if not to reality?

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

JLN,

Popper was thinking of concepts such as scientific laws or mathematical properties. These would not have the personal connection that a Beethoven symphony has.

Actually, I believe that Popper would have placed works of art in the "third world" of objective knowledge along with scientific theories.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Actually, I believe that Popper would have placed works of art in the "third world" of objective knowledge along with scientific theories.

That may be true. Popper's "three worlds of knowledge" is a concept that I do not completely understand. According to Popper the three worlds sometimes even interact with each other. In any case, Popper's model of knowledge seems to go beyond the epistemology of Descartes.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

That may be true. Popper's "three worlds of knowledge" is a concept that I do not completely understand.

Maybe this will help. Or then again, maybe not.

wandeljw wrote:

According to Popper the three worlds sometimes even interact with each other. In any case, Popper's model of knowledge seems to go beyond the epistemology of Descartes.

It specifically and firmly rejects Cartesian epistemology.

0 Replies

JOE:
JLNobody wrote:
To believe that Reality cannot be other than how we think it to be, speaks to the limitations of our nature, not the necessary structure of that which we are thinking about.

JOE: Well, the inevitable response to that is: how do you know?

ME: Just an opinion I share with anti-rationalists. To insist that human logic is the very "logic" of nature is profoundly presumptuous. Logic is no more than an invaluable human tool for keeping human thought consistent with itself, not an infallible way to make it commensurate with Nature.

JOE:
JLNobody wrote:
For example, during Descartes' time it was "self-evident" that thinking entailed a thinker (cogito ergo sum); we now realize that deeds do not necessitate doers (including the fallacy: "it" is raining, whereas there is only "raining").

JOE: That's not a fallacy, that's just how the English language works.

ME: That's how many humans think WITH their grammar, what Neitzsche suggested was their implicit metaphysics.

JOE: I'm sure there are plenty of languages out there where "it is raining" comes out like the declarative statement "raining" in translation.
ME: No doubt. Japanese haikus are wont to say "raining" rather than IT is raining. But in their case it is a reflection of nondualist epistemology.

JOE: And that certainly doesn't prove that there are deeds without doers.

ME: certainly not. Indeed, it refers only to the perspective of most people that every(descrete)thing is "caused" by some(discrete)thing else; all actions necessarily have agents. It's this presupposition that leads to a deterministic worldview.

JOE:
JLNobody wrote:
The fallacy of philosophical Rationalism is that the structure of our logical thinking must correspond with the structure of Reality. I call this: shrinking the Cosmos to the size of our heads.

JOE:
To what should it correspond if not to reality?

ME: Sorry, I should have said that for the Rationalist, the logic of the World must correspond with the logic of the human thinker (when his logic is "correct")

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

JOE:
JLNobody wrote:
To believe that Reality cannot be other than how we think it to be, speaks to the limitations of our nature, not the necessary structure of that which we are thinking about.

JOE: Well, the inevitable response to that is: how do you know?

ME: Just an opinion I share with anti-rationalists.

Well then why should we put any credence in your opinion?

JLNobody wrote:

JOE: I'm sure there are plenty of languages out there where "it is raining" comes out like the declarative statement "raining" in translation.
ME: No doubt. Japanese haikus are wont to say "raining" rather than IT is raining. But in their case it is a reflection of nondualist epistemology.

Not necessarily. After all, I'm sure that Japanese has a word, or at a concept, for "you" or "they" or "it," which, using the same reasoning, should all be reflections of a dualist epistemology. The fact that the Japanese might say "raining" instead of "it is raining" hardly seems conclusive evidence of non-dualism.

JLNobody wrote:

JOE: And that certainly doesn't prove that there are deeds without doers.

ME: certainly not. Indeed, it refers only to the perspective of most people that every(descrete)thing is "caused" by some(discrete)thing else; all actions necessarily have agents. It's this presupposition that leads to a deterministic worldview.

"Deterministic" in what sense?

0 Replies

JOE:Well then why should we put any credence in your opinion?
ME: in my opinion there are only opinions (perspectives and interpretations). Some meet certain criteria better than others, but the choice of criteria is itself "an opinion". I am, of course, an epistemological relativist and skeptic.

JOE: I'm sure there are plenty of languages out there where "it is raining" comes out like the declarative statement "raining" in translation.

ME: No doubt. Japanese haikus are wont to say "raining" rather than IT is raining. But in their case it is a reflection of nondualist epistemology.

JOE: Not necessarily. After all, I'm sure that Japanese has a word, or at a concept, for "you" or "they" or "it," which, using the same reasoning, should all be reflections of a dualist epistemology. The fact that the Japanese might say "raining" instead of "it is raining" hardly seems conclusive evidence of non-dualism.

ME: I am talking not about Japanese language in general, only about the nondualistic ZEN epistemology implicit in much haiku poetry. I should have made that clear.

JOE: And that certainly doesn't prove that there are deeds without doers.

ME: Here's my perspective or opinion: as I see it there is only process in nature, only actions or the performances of deeds. Perhaps I should say deedING. Even the actor is himself a system of actions. He is deeding.

JOE: "Deterministic" in what sense?

ME: a "deterministic world" is a model of the world that contains as its fundamental characteristic a system of interacting causes and effects--it's a picture of a causal phenomenon. In reality there are no "causes" and "effects" in the world. They are concepts which serve us in our thinking about experience.
Moreoever, before humans there were no causes, effects, truths or falsehoods in the World. The World just is; WE make propositions about the nature of "what is"--perspectives and opinions, some useful, some aesthetic, some inspiring, etc. but all human constructions.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

JOE:Well then why should we put any credence in your opinion?
ME: in my opinion there are only opinions (perspectives and interpretations). Some meet certain criteria better than others, but the choice of criteria is itself "an opinion". I am, of course, an epistemological relativist and skeptic.

It is extremely difficult to take you seriously as an "epistemological relativist and skeptic" when you say things like this:

JLNobody wrote:

ME: a "deterministic world" is a model of the world that contains as its fundamental characteristic a system of interacting causes and effects--it's a picture of a causal phenomenon. In reality there are no "causes" and "effects" in the world. They are concepts which serve us in our thinking about experience.

Really, JLN, either this is all part of some elaborate prank or you must take us all for idiots. That's the only way that I can explain how you can go from a relativist skeptic to an absolutist dogmatic in the span of a single short post.

0 Replies

I guess it's the difference between statements of facts and statements of value that we must consider when we look at objectivity in the social sciences. We can make factual statements about social sciences such as X percent of the population of X state are Hispanic, or X percent of the population has cancer. It is factual to the extent that the methods used to arrive at that conclusion can be relied upon to have some value.

If the Hispanic population is more prone to cancer, it would make sense to test them for cancer more frequently. In those terms, it has value.

0 Replies

Joe, my description of a "deterministic world" is not MY view of the world, I hope you understand that's it's my description, as I see it, of the model of the world used by determinists. I claim that it is useful but false. Most of human history is about falsities that work for the survival of humankind (as stated earlier). ALL explanations and theories are artifacts of human effort. This is what I mean by my being an epistemological relativist. All ideas, including mine, are relative to my place in culture, history, and personality. If this seems "dogmatic" then anything I say to you will seem dogmatic. My skepticism refers to my disbelief in absolute Truth.
I assure you, no prank intended.
Sleep well.

0 Replies

Joe,

The "credence of non-duality" you often question is supported the findings/problems of particle physics. (We have crossed swords over this before Smile

) For another voice in this matter have a look at "Ifeefree" comments on the "anthropic" thread. (IFF is a physicist).

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=100266&start=10

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, my description of a "deterministic world" is not MY view of the world, I hope you understand that's it's my description, as I see it, of the model of the world used by determinists. I claim that it is useful but false. Most of human history is about falsities that work for the survival of humankind (as stated earlier). ALL explanations and theories are artifacts of human effort. This is what I mean by my being an epistemological relativist.

If by "relativist" you mean "absolutist," then I agree.

JLNobody wrote:

All ideas, including mine, are relative to my place in culture, history, and personality. If this seems "dogmatic" then anything I say to you will seem dogmatic. My skepticism refers to my disbelief in absolute Truth.
I assure you, no prank intended.
Sleep well.

If you think that your position is "relativist," then you're either trying to fool us or else you're succeeding in fooling yourself. All you do is make absolutist claims to certainty, but then you retreat behind a facade of relativism when someone like me asserts that you're being inconsistent. There's no question, though, that you're as dogmatic as any absolutist. The only question is whether you're claim to being a relativist is naive, confused, or just plain dishonest.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

The "credence of non-duality" you often question is supported the findings/problems of particle physics. (We have crossed swords over this before )

Yes. And as I have mentioned before, physics can't provide support for non-dualism when it rests on a foundation of dualism.

0 Replies

Joe, I hope I do not detect aggressive bad faith from you. I state an opinion and label it an opinion, a perspective, claiming no absolute ground or authority for it, and I acknowledge its ground in culture, history and personality, and you insist I'm just trying to conceal some kind of absolutism.
I would like to know how you define epistemological relativism and absolutism.

By the way, relativism is not indecision. One can FEEL very sure of the position of relativism without betraying a concealed absolutism. The relativist merely argues that his certainty is subjective and grounded in conditions having nothing to do with God, scripture or a worldview based on self-evident unquestionable Truths. And the subjectivity of his point of view does not render it false for that reason alone.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, I hope I do not detect aggressive bad faith from you. I state an opinion and label it an opinion, a perspective, claiming no absolute ground or authority for it, and I acknowledge its ground in culture, history and personality, and you insist I'm just trying to conceal some kind of absolutism.

Well, let's take something that you wrote:

In reality there are no "causes" and "effects" in the world.
Now, it's true that you didn't say "in my opinion there are no 'causes' and 'effects' in the world." That's not a problem -- I don't insist that everyone expressing an opinion must preface it with the qualifier "in my opinion." Nevertheless, your opinion that there are no "causes" and "effects" in the world certainly looks like a statement made on the basis of some sort of authority. If you had some doubt, or if your epistemology doesn't allow you to make absolute claims, then I would expect some sort of qualifier warning that your statement has no claim to truth. Instead, as with most of your claims about the world, you make an absolutist statement and then hide behind your relativism when pressed to substantiate your claim.

JLNobody wrote:

I would like to know how you define epistemological relativism and absolutism.

I have no idea what "epistemological relativism" is, so I suppose your definition is just as good as any.

This is what I mean by my being an epistemological relativist. All ideas, including mine, are relative to my place in culture, history, and personality.
Now, if you're saying that your relativism is "fixed" in your culture, history, and personality (i.e. it doesn't change relative to those things), then you're not a relativist at all. If you say, for instance, "in my opinion, the sky is blue, but you may see it as a different color," you still evince a belief in the objective reality of the sky, the color blue, and seeing. Furthermore, you would claim that the blue sky would be objectively true for you (i.e. that no one could accurately claim that the sky is not blue for you). The only concession you seem to make is that you admit others might have a different view of the sky that is valid for themselves.

On the other hand, if you're saying that your relativism is itself relativistic (i.e. it changes depending upon culture, history, and personality, which are also relative), then I guess I would have to ask: how do you know that? After all, if what you know is relative to things that are also relative, then what is the basis for your knowledge?

JLNobody wrote:

By the way, relativism is not indecision. One can FEEL very sure of the position of relativism without betraying a concealed absolutism.

Well, you wouldn't be betraying a concealed absolutism, you'd be betraying a concealed dogmatism. Your FEELING is nothing more than a thinly veiled "sez me."

JLNobody wrote:

The relativist merely argues that his certainty is subjective and grounded in conditions having nothing to do with God, scripture or a worldview based on self-evident unquestionable Truths. And the subjectivity of his point of view does not render it false for that reason alone.

Doesn't render it true, either.

0 Replies

Oh how you make me work, Joe. But that's one of the reasons I'm here.

I do not believe that I or you actually SEE causes and effects in the world. We THINK them as explanatory strategies. And for some purposes--i.e., aspects of subatomic physics, as I understand from Fresco--they have little or no value. In my world-experience, I see events that I label "effects" in order to uncover their invariant antecedent conditions-- conditions we label "causes." But as Hume and Nietzsche have made abundantly clear (at least to me), causes and effects do not exist as tangible and discrete things, only as concepts. I believe this to be true and I believe this on the basis of both my eyes and my mind (with help from the above-named philosophers). Now, let me stress that I personally see/think this to be so; I don't base it solely on the "authority" of Hume and Niezsche. If all I needed was authority I could, with equal eagerness, attach to philosophers who make the opposite claim regarding causality.
I do believe that if I lived in the 16th century I would have taken a different position on the matter. Relativism.

I didn't say my "relativism" (i.e., opinions) is somehow "fixed" in my culture, history and personality, only that they are framed within cultural, historical and psychological parameters. Cultures are complex and dynamic systems in which much internal variability and ambiguity occur; and historical periods overlap with earlier and later periods such that it is only possible to use the term, "period", as an open-ended and permeable "phenomenon." And, of course, personalities are also dynamic, open-ended, internally contradictory, and changing. But cultures, periods and personalities do differ in significant ways from OTHER cultures, periods and personalities such that they form limiting frames if nothing else.

Permit me some aggression: I have the (real or false) impression that my "relativism" disturbs you because of a deeply ingrained committment you have to absolutism. You seem to be trying to convince me that I am REALLY an absolutist, very much like my catholic uncle who tried to convince me that I REALLY wanted to return to the Catholic church, that my atheism was a refuge from what I really believed, from what HE believed.

Sez me (in answer to your "sez me").
How could it be otherwise? (questions are not dogmatic).

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Oh how you make me work, Joe. But that's one of the reasons I'm here.

I do not believe that I or you actually SEE causes and effects in the world. We THINK them as explanatory strategies. And for some purposes--i.e., aspects of subatomic physics, as I understand from Fresco--they have little or no value. In my world-experience, I see events that I label "effects" in order to uncover their invariant antecedent conditions-- conditions we label "causes." But as Hume and Nietzsche have made abundantly clear (at least to me), causes and effects do not exist as tangible and discrete things, only as concepts. I believe this to be true and I believe this on the basis of both my eyes and my mind (with help from the above-named philosophers). Now, let me stress that I personally see/think this to be so; I don't base it solely on the "authority" of Hume and Niezsche. If all I needed was authority I could, with equal eagerness, attach to philosophers who make the opposite claim regarding causality.

But if you are indeed an "epistemological relativist," then the most that you can say is that cause and effect are concepts only for you. You cannot make the claim that I can't see causes and effects in the world. Even Hume believed in objective facts (and Nietzsche wasn't really interested in epistemology).

JLNobody wrote:

I didn't say my "relativism" (i.e., opinions) is somehow "fixed" in my culture, history and personality, only that they are framed within cultural, historical and psychological parameters. Cultures are complex and dynamic systems in which much internal variability and ambiguity occur; and historical periods overlap with earlier and later periods such that it is only possible to use the term, "period", as an open-ended and permeable "phenomenon." And, of course, personalities are also dynamic, open-ended, internally contradictory, and changing. But cultures, periods and personalities do differ in significant ways from OTHER cultures, periods and personalities such that they form limiting frames if nothing else.

I don't disagree that culture and personality shape perception. But you want to conclude, based on that proposition, that objectivity is impossible. That doesn't follow. There can be objectivity even in a world where everyone's perceptions are highly subjective.

JLNobody wrote:

Permit me some aggression: I have the (real or false) impression that my "relativism" disturbs you because of a deeply ingrained committment you have to absolutism. You seem to be trying to convince me that I am REALLY an absolutist, very much like my catholic uncle who tried to convince me that I REALLY wanted to return to the Catholic church, that my atheism was a refuge from what I really believed, from what HE believed.

On the contrary, your relativism doesn't offend my absolutism, and I don't want to convince you to become an absolutist. Rather, your wavering between relativism and absolutism (and between dualism and non-dualism) troubles me, and I want to convince you to be true to your relativism. The problem, though, is that you're doing such a bad job of being a genuine relativist/non-dualist that I find I have to intervene on occasion to make you see the error of your ways. Of course, if you remain incorrigible, it is possible the cause is not in your personality but in your position.

JLNobody wrote:

Sez me (in answer to your "sez me").
How could it be otherwise?

You could be wrong.

0 Replies

It IS, as you should realize, difficult to SPEAK in a manner that gives no appearance of absolutism and dualism.

Do you REALLY "see" causes and effects in the world? Please point to one for me. Next you'll say you "see" truths. The reality is that we THINK them.

Maybe I should make a distinction for you between objectivity and objective truth. By "objectivity: I may try to transcend my subjective bias and take into account the views of others' subjectivity: i.e., an intersubjective truth.
By objective "truth" (not the same as Absolute Truth) I refer to truths OUT THERE in the world as opposed to propositions about the world IN HERE, in my (or OUR intersubjective) head.

0 Replies

Joe, you say that "There can be objectivity even in a world where everyone's perceptions are highly subjective."
I like John Searle's statement that all experience is subjective--and that's an objective fact. (I think I have that right).

0 Replies

JLN, That we make choices that are "subjective" doesn't negate the fact that some are objective choices. It's not 100 percent "subjective" to the extent that our choices are made for a reason. Some of our experiences are "factual" to the extent we made those choices. That I chose to type on my keyboard that's attached to my computer that enables me to communicate with you is a fact. That I made the choice to do so is subjective, because it was a choice out of many on how I want to spend my time. It is my reality.

0 Replies

Objective Knowledge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know