It is logically impossible to know the past

@pilgrimshost,

it is logically impossible to know anything

0 Replies

@NoAngst,

We learn the past form stories/evidences supplied by other people.
Except extremely tiny slice of reality, this is also the way we learn the present.
So our ignorance of present is not lesser than our ignorance of the past.

The only better alternative to man-made knowledge is knowledge from God.

1 Reply

@Shlomo,

Shlomo;91187 wrote:

The only better alternative to man-made knowledge is knowledge from God.

What, like the earth is a flat disc held up by four pillars? Oh wait, the Earth is also the center of the universe and all things circle the earth? Or a woman was created out of a rib of a man? How about, you can get an entire species from one male and one female?

How about we correct your statement a little by saying, "gods knowledge" is knowledge of ignorant bronze aged humans.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;91190 wrote:

How about we correct your statement a little by saying, "gods knowledge" is knowledge of ignorant bronze aged humans.

Wonderful solution! I am a bronze aged guy so I can provide first-hand information about the past. :bigsmile:

1 Reply

@NoAngst,

It really depends on ones defintion of "knowledge" epistomology.
Prefect knowledge, certain knowledge is largely unattainable.
Practical knowledge is something we may or may not have determined by experience. Practical knowledge is changing knowledge.

0 Replies

@Shlomo,

Shlomo;91192 wrote:

Wonderful solution! I am a bronze aged guy so I can provide first-hand information about the past. :bigsmile:

An intriguing point. If your mental states are authentically "Bronze Age" then we know a lot about the Bronze Age. Even if your mental states are only 50% authentic Bronze Age then we still know quite a lot about the Bronze Age.
And if somebody wants to insist that your mental states are not authentically Bronze Age, that implies that somebody knows something about the Bronze age, or thinks that they do.

0 Replies

@NoAngst,

I don't see how one can avoid bias in patching together an idea of the past from that which remains in the present, but that's not an obstacle to doing one's best. History is good good stuff. But so is Shakespeare (referring to a much earlier post) and Lewis Carroll.

I would rather lack Thucydides than Shakespeare. But I would hate to do without either.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109545 wrote:

I don't see how one can avoid bias in patching together an idea of the past from that which remains in the present, but that's not an obstacle to doing one's best. History is good good stuff. But so is Shakespeare (referring to a much earlier post) and Lewis Carroll.

I would rather lack Thucydides than Shakespeare. But I would hate to do without either.

I would not try to learn history from reading either of them.

0 Replies

@NoAngst,

maxx333 wrote:

it is logically impossible to know anything

I don't think so. No.

But why would anyone think it's logically impossible to know the past, when it's clear we know many things from the past? Just because we cannot verify many most of these things, doesn't mean we don't know them. I can safely say I know I just ate this granola bar.

I wonder if the OP thinks that it's impossible to know if he has created this thread?

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;109598 wrote:

I don't think so. No.

Does that mean agreement or disagreement with the post you are replying to?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;109599 wrote:

Does that mean agreement or disagreement with the post you are replying to?

OH! I thought he typed "is it" not "it is". I disagree with him!

It is not logically impossible to know any thing, it just may be implausible (that we know a certain thing). It's definitely plausible that we know some things from the past. In fact, I am quite certain we do.

PS: I was in the process of editing that post when you responded to it. Might want to take a look.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;109598 wrote:

I don't think so. No.

But why would anyone think it's logically impossible to know the past, when it's clear we know many things from the past? Just because we cannot verify many most of these things, doesn't mean we don't know them. I can safely say I know I just ate this granola bar.

I wonder if the OP thinks that it's impossible to know if he has created this thread?

What these people mean by "knowledge" is certainty, or the impossibility of error. They don't mean what is meant by "knowledge" and don't distinguish between "knowledge" and "certainty". There is verbal disagreement. Although there is no good argument for thinking that knowledge implies certainty.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;109602 wrote:

What these people mean by "knowledge" is certainty, or the impossibility of error. They don't mean what is meant by "knowledge" and don't distinguish between "knowledge" and "certainty". There is verbal disagreement. Although there is no good argument for thinking that knowledge implies certainty.

If they mean by knowledge, "impossibility of error", then why is the thread title, "It is logically impossible to know the past"? You don't think the person understood the difference between logical impossibility and plausibility or degree of certainty, and where knowledge fit into the mix?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;109616 wrote:

If they mean by knowledge, "impossibility of error", then why is the thread title, "It is logically impossible to know the past"?

Because they think it always possible for a belief about the past to be in error. And, of course, that is true.

0 Replies

@NoAngst,

Ken,

You don't trust Thucydides? I don't go to Shakerspeare for history....unless its for the history of character development.

0 Replies

It is logically impossible to know the past

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know