I do not lack knowledge of the Eiffel tower.

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Assertion: I do not lack knowledge of the Eiffel tower, because we can see it with only one pair of eyes at one point in time. It is because we have seen it. If we need assurance that it is not a ghost, I could reassure myself by looking at it again. I know that it will still be there the next day, and I can see it again to reassure myself. If I want to know if it is a small object close by, or a large object far away, I could observe it for however long I want.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,296 • Replies: 22

No top replies

I tend not to agree.

Define "knowledge."

Yes, you can see it with your eyes. But does this give you knowledge of every aspect of its existence?

For example, do you know what is happening with the atomic structures on the elevator cable, 15.5 meters from the elevator car, at this moment in time? Do you know how much radioactivity the tower is giving off?

Where is the image of the Eiffel Tower stored in your brain? Is it upside down in your as it travels through your eyes?

How much does it weigh? How many people committed suicide by jumping off it?

You might have a little knowledge of it.

In my experience, every time we think we know a lot about something, invariably we do not.

0 Replies

And that's a very simple case compared to,say,a bimbo tripping along the sidewalk on a warm spring afternoon.

0 Replies

I've seen the Eiffel tower, not long ago (say, three hours), and I can assure you it's not a ghost.

But the bimbo...

0 Replies

was it a concrete sidewalk?

0 Replies

aktorist:

Name something that you DO "lack knowledge of"! Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

Define "knowledge."

I need not a definition. Why don't you just study the brain and how it works and do some research on how it retains knowledge?

Quote:

Yes, you can see it with your eyes. But does this give you knowledge of every aspect of its existence?

I meant it's existance, not the aspects of it.

Quote:

For example, do you know what is happening with the atomic structures on the elevator cable, 15.5 meters from the elevator car, at this moment in time? Do you know how much radioactivity the tower is giving off?

Again, it's irrelevant. Just the existance, nothing else.

Quote:

Where is the image of the Eiffel Tower stored in your brain? Is it upside down in your as it travels through your eyes?

Why don't you do research on the brain, again?

Quote:

How much does it weigh? How many people committed suicide by jumping off it?

Just it's existance, not its properties.

Quote:

You might have a little knowledge of it.

I meant that it essentially exists.

Quote:

In my experience, every time we think we know a lot about something, invariably we do not.

Amount does not matter. It is just one thing: Does the eiffel tower exist?
That is all.

Quote:

Name something that you DO "lack knowledge of"!

I do lack knowledge of how 36 ATP is produced by cellular respiration and the citric acid cycle.

0 Replies

Aktorist,

In your answer involving 36 ATP you are confusing the classical distinction of "knowing HOW" (savoir) with "knowing THAT" (connaitre) You applied the latter to your Eiffel Tower example.
In as much that you have named "36ATP" you actually "know it" in your first sense of "knowing the Eiffel Tower". My point is that "naming" is sufficient for "knowing" at the simplest level (acquaintance). Further analysis is required involving concepts of "prediction and control" in order to distinguish between "acquaintance", "knowledge" and "belief".

0 Replies

I'm sorry, that was bad of me.

I do know about the existance of the Eiffel Tower.
But I am not so sure about ghosts.

0 Replies

You did not mention "existance" in your original posting.

You asked about "I do not lack knowledge of Eiffel Tower."

It appears now you are changing the question midstream.

nttawwt

Do you want to discuss "knowledge of Eiffel Tower" or "existence of Eiffel Tower?"

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

And that's a very simple case compared to,say,a bimbo tripping along the sidewalk on a warm spring afternoon.

Oh yes. Dear yes.

When I saw that bimbo and all the myraid facets of her technicolor existence, it blew my mind. Then she tripped. And it was spring. And everything kind of exploded. The first time I realized the sublime mystery inherent in a bimbo's existence, was, um...humbling?

0 Replies

extra medium wrote:

You did not mention "existance" in your original posting.

You asked about "I do not lack knowledge of Eiffel Tower."

It appears now you are changing the question midstream.

nttawwt

Do you want to discuss "knowledge of Eiffel Tower" or "existence of Eiffel Tower?"

The latter sir. Yes, I am changing my mind.

0 Replies

Fair enough. Existence.

So are we saying that everything we can see with our eyes, exists? And whatever we cannot see does not exist?

That seems straightforward enough. At first blush.

***

What about a blind person? Does the Eiffel Tower exist for them?

One might say "Well they can touch it."
Okay.
What if it was a blind-deaf person who lost the sense of touch. Does the Eiffel tower exist for this person?

Do radio waves exist? We can't see them.

***

I suppose the Eiffel Tower exists as much as anything else does. What is this thing that we call existence? What is it to exist?

0 Replies

I don't know em but it seems a bit of a nuisance to those who think they understand it.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I don't know em but it seems a bit of a nuisance to those who think they understand it.

Existence or The Eiffel Tower?

Perhaps tis better we do not try to understand existence, Eiffel Tower, or bimbos?

We all know the French are a nuisance, but thats another thread, mate! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

And that's a very simple case compared to,say,a bimbo tripping along the sidewalk on a warm spring afternoon.

Please tell me you didn't, er, "have knowledge" of her. She promised me she was never with you, she told me she hated you. But one never knows.

0 Replies

extra medium wrote:

What is it to exist?

Good question. Does everything exist in the same way?

Lately I've been thinking a lot about quantum mechanics. I can't express this very well, but....

I keep coming back to the concept that something that will occur in the far future can effect something from the past.

If so, how can we be sure what exists.

I'm going to try to look up what I'm trying to express above. Maybe not until tomorrow, but I'll be back.

0 Replies

You are not going to believe this, but I actually have some underwear with the brand name: "2xist"

I always feel a bit strange when I pull these existential underwear over my precious parts.

I don't know, I just don't know if I like the idea of questioning existence every time I put on my underwear. Its one of those deals that seemed like a good idea in the store. But you know, seeing those darned 2xist underwear day after day. I mean its in large letters on the waistband. Its a nuisance. Someone even asked me once what this "2xist" junk was doing on my underwear? You know, you don't really want to get into an existential discussion when you are kind of at the point where you are kind of looking at someone's underwear or whatever. I was thinking of tossing them.

They are black though. And fit well. What is your advice? Toss or keep?

(P.S.: To all you doubters out there [and I know there are many] that suspect I'm dreaming up the existential underwear, google it, and you will find it--in all sizes.)

0 Replies

My take on does something exist at a certain point in time or not....

From "The Fabric of the Cosmos" Chapter 7 pages 187-189.

To start with, this experiment involves a laser firing one photon at a time at a beam splitter. A photon detector is placed along one of the paths the photon might take. If the detector detects a photon, the photon took that path. If the detector does not detect a photon, the photon took the other path.

Because the photon is forced to take an either/or (which) path, the photon is compelled to act as a particle, not a wave.

Now, let's change things

extra - are they briefs or low rise? any pictures? Twisted Evil

0 Replies

They are something in between a brief and boxer, kind of this new cycling short type deal. Actually I kind of like them. Very comfy. But that label.

No pictures. Yet!

As for the rest of your post. Intriguing. There's a lot of underwear analogy jokes in that post, but I'm not going to touch it. I mean, I didn't even go for the easy Eiffel tower & underwear thang.

But really. This makes it sound like photons have brains or something. I think perhaps one thing going on is that there are particles hanging around that we aren't even aware of, yet.

0 Replies

I do not lack knowledge of the Eiffel tower.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know