@MattDavis,
Quote:Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5253934)
Frank wrote:
I try to stay away from that as much as possible.
I'm pleased to hear that.
We both are.
Quote:My opinion is that when esoteric subjects like the nature of self, or free will, or consciousness are discussed both parties must agree, in that both parties will have a "theory of knowledge" that they will each use in discussing the subject. Those "theories of knowledge" do not have to be the same theories, but they must both agree to each have a theory that they each will use as a "jumping off point".
I worry about that, Matt. I hear the lyric "my theory of knowledge" often and from many different people, but when I listen to the music, I always seem to hear a tune that sounds more like, "this is how things are...and anyone who thinks otherwise simply cannot see what I can see."
Most people with whom I discuss these things, Matt, are already convinced that the "know" things they almost certainly do not know...and then try to manipulate the meaning of the word "know" to fit where they want to end up. Frankly, I think that their use of the words "knowledge" and "know" are grossly misapplied.
Said another way (using your words):
My opinion is that when esoteric subjects like the nature of self, or free will, or consciousness (components of REALITY) are discussed, both parties must be willing to acknowledge that any "theories" of those components are little more than blind guesses about the REALITY...and that playing semantic games with what we mean by "knowledge" is only a function of trying to rationalize guesswork trying to be passed off as "knowledge."
The parties can discuss all they like...from as many angles as each wants, but they have to agree that issues like REALITY and such may be beyond the reach of whatever they want to use as a substitute for the word "knowledge"...and that any real "knowledge" of things like that can only be obtained by perverting what we really mean when we use the word "knowledge."
That may seem besides the point of where you seem headed with your thrust here, but we can see where that goes as we move along.
Let me start from my side by answering the question you asked (after a very easy question from me)...and you can guide the direction of the conversation from that point on.
My question is: Were you the person who posted a video discussing knowledge that I mentioned I watched in its entirety?
Okay...now to your question:
Quote:I know you said:
Quote:Quote:
I do not have a "theory of knowledge."
, but I suggest that you actually might, and I think it looks something like this:
There is no event or concept that can be established as absolutely true.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Part is correct...and part wrong...and part may or may not be wrong.
I certainly said that I do not have a "theory of knowledge."
If you saying that actually I have one and it is: "There is no event or concept that can be established as absolutely true"...you are incorrect.
I do not agree with that statement...so it cannot be a "theory of knowledge" that I hold.
The "iffy" part is that although I suggest that I do not have a theory of knowledge, I may have and it may be hidden from me for the moment. I am willing to search for it with you, if you choose.