KNAWLEDGE

[Anonymous No.10485408]

What is knowledge?

[Anonymous No.10485427]

You would have to ~know~ what -is- is before you could know what knowledge ~is~. You must know how to know before you can know what -is- is. Take joy in not knowing that you can't know how you don't know.

[Anonymous No.10485428]

>>10485427
Laughed

[Anonymous No.10485442]

>>10485427

>before you can know what -is- is

Bill is that u

[Anonymous No.10485457]

>>10485408
In my garage

[Anonymous No.10485458]

>>10485442

>is that u

That depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

[Plato No.10485460]

Knowledge is justified true belief. Duh

[Gettier No.10485466]

>10485460

nah

[Gettier No.10485477]

^ Screwed up the formatting, but in my defence I'm a 90 year old philosophy professor.

[Anonymous No.10485480]

>>10485477
what is the philosophical significance of colostomy bags?

[Gettier No.10485490]

>>10485480

Very high

[Anonymous No.10485498]

>have justified true belief
>be justified by a falsehood
>mfw

[Anonymous No.10485510]

>>10485408

But what even is a garage?

[Anonymous No.10485518]

>>10485442
No this is Patrick

[Anonymous No.10485532]

>>10485408
justified belief

[Anonymous No.10485538]

>>10485532
fuck i forgot true

[Anonymous No.10485545]

Legitimate question here.
Why don't you just look up the definition? What's the point of this kind of jerking off?

[Anonymous No.10485556]

>>10485545
>hurr durr the dictionary tell you wut thing are hurr

[Anonymous No.10485579]

Knowledge is the name of what you consider to be true. Knowing is always thinking you know.

You know the sun will come up tomorrow, you don't believe in it, because otherwise you'd be doubting it in the course of your day, perhaps change plans for the end of the world, but no, about the sun coming up tomorrow, you just know. It doesn't matter if you can logically prove it, if you could in some way show this knowledge to someone else, articulate your reasoning on why you know it, put it in scientific terms and so on, because it is about a relationship within yourself.

It doesn't even matter if it's true or not, just like you can believe in things that are or aren't, it's still belief and with knowledge it works the same. You know where you left your keys until you find out you lost them. And just like a newspaper can lie about a given situation by only telling truths and selecting them adequately to their desire, we too have knowledges that are not false, but that blur our vision of a bigger truth.

It started with a quest for truth, but since knowledge is the name of what we consider to be true, we then started to seek knowledge instead.

[Anonymous No.10485592]

[Anonymous No.10485595]

>>10485579
Yeah but how do you know that?

[Anonymous No.10485604]

>>10485545
>Why don't you just look up the definition? What's the point of this kind of jerking off?
To define something is to put little walls around it. Like, "dog" means "mammal, four legs, puts tongue out when tired", little packages, categories which are in itself another part of the maze of words.

Here is what it says about knowledge:

>1.acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
>2.familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning:
>3.acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report:
a knowledge of human nature.
>4.the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
>5.awareness, as of a fact or circumstance:
>6.something that is or may be known; information:
>7.the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.

Okay, we got a lot more words, what are facts, truths, principles, etc. What does it mean to be aware, acquaintance, etc. You can look them up on the dictionary and then a third time for the other words that appear. You'll eventually go back to knowledge. Here is what it says about "fact":

>something that actually exists; reality; truth:
>something known to exist or to have happened:

You see how pointless this approach is?

You know what's the philosophical definition of "thing"? "What is". Now, this is clear and simple and everyone can agree on, but that's not philosophy yet, it's just these points in which the discussion begins.

Dictionaries are amazing tools. But they are about conventional definitions and they rely on your experience with the rest of the language. That's why it's pretty simple to say that a dog is a mammal, but then if you were to get more specific on what being a mammal actually means, you'd enter biology. In the same way, a word like "knowledge" has that little okay definition on the dictionary. Philosophy is the field that will discuss whatever that implies in real life. It's a necessary game of words to get it back to the reality of things.

[Anonymous No.10485606]

>>10485595
Why do you ask?

[Anonymous No.10485612]

"knowledge" is a word from natural language that philosophers can define it as they wish, doesn't mean other philosophers will accept their definition or that regular people and scientists will care.

[Anonymous No.10485617]

>>10485545
>definitions are relevant

why liberals think like this?

[Anonymous No.10485649]

>>10485604
And how is anyone in this thread supposed to explain the concept to you unless they use words that you'll have to look up?
Unless you actually know what a few of those words mean, in which case the dictionary has already done a great job of explaining it.
What response are you looking for exactly? surely not something like this? >>10485579

[Anonymous No.10485655]

>>10485606
Because I want to know.

[Anonymous No.10485685]

>>10485649
In this thread, I don't know. They can write drivels or refer to something they read about it, who am I to say. But in philosophy what happends is that some people or groups of people start talking about something more in depth, in the sense that they do not only refer to what was previously said about something, but also create new ways to put it. Theories are inventions, they are created as useful paths, like leaving a thread in a maze of words, so that you can follow it and kind of see what they mean. This is why philosophy has these little groups of people, different traditions and so on, that's why philosophy in the east or middle-east or native american take on such different forms, relationships and words. That's also why if you want to write a book on philosophy (or other fields as well), you'd have to read previous authors and draw a thread with their words on your thinking. If not, then you have a blind spot right there, which is relying on ordinary everyday common sense of things, a naive realism. You'd be ignoring the connections previously made by other people. Even if you disagree with them, you must communicate with that history, because every word has a history and if you don't get a relative hold on it, it will have a relative hold on you.

[Anonymous No.10485698]

>>10485685 here

>>10485649
What I actually meant is that any word you have to "look it up", but where do you look it up?

Why the dictionary, of all places? Just like you wouldn't learn biology from the dictionary, you'd stay at the surface of it, even if all the words are sitting there with their definitions, biology is much more than that. Same with philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10485723]

>>10485685
>being this spooked

[Anonymous No.10485741]

>>10485698
>>10485685
How the fuck could you define any word without using other words to define it?
You didn't really answer that, or maybe you did and I'm just too stupid to see it.

>Why the dictionary, of all places
Because that is the purpose of a dictionary.
>you wouldn't learn biology from the dictionary
You would use it to learn about words used in biology.
What do you want? a longer definition?
Knowledge is just a word used to describe something in our brain, if you truly want to understand it then take up biology.

[Anonymous No.10485747]

>>10485408
as the old joke goes, knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad

[Anonymous No.10485780]

>>10485408
Just read Gettiers 2 page article "Is justified belief knowledge?" It debunks the image in the OP and most of epistimelogy after that has tried and failed to to come up with a better definition.

[Anonymous No.10485798]

>>10485741
>How the fuck could you define any word without using other words to define it?
>You didn't really answer that, or maybe you did and I'm just too stupid to see it.
That's because I never said it was the point to describe not with words. Words are not rigidly defined, the dictionary is just a common sense notion of the words, enough for you to locate yourself in your language in order to, say, understand a sentence in a book to which the meaning was escaping to you. A person who helps in writing the dictionary is rigorous, but won't touch on controversies and problems.

Words only exist because of other words, they do not point to concrete things, even though they look like they do at first glance. So that's what I mean with "where do you look them up?", this very choice will determine where you'll go with it. The dictionary will only take you so far.

>What do you want? a longer definition?
It's not about being long, it's about creating relationships with other words and other signs. It's what any concept is all about.

>Knowledge is just a word used to describe something in our brain, if you truly want to understand it then take up biology.
You can relate the word "knowledge" to several things, you chose to do it with the brain. The dictionary chose to put it in terms of "facts and principles". Other philosopher will tackle it in a different way. I personally find very weird to speak of it through biology. You can talk of light as a physical principle, or in home decoration you'll be talking in terms of windows and angles, you can tackle it by the perception of it in the brain or a painter will be talking of what color is best to light up a certain area. They are all connected, but they have their own particularities. The understanding of knowledge as a biological process will tell you certain things but not others.

Aren't these little issues along the way not enough to justify talking about it? Or must we settle for the dictionary just now?

[Anonymous No.10485812]

>>10485460
Not so fast!

[Anonymous No.10485827]

>>10485780
>>10485812
Gettier examples are pretty prominent. They even appear in Blade Runner 2049 and The Last Jedi.

[Anonymous No.10485933]

>>10485798
I have to sleep now, honestly you've said a lot of nothing as far as i can tell. Like
>you can tackle it by the perception of it in the brain or a painter will be talking of what color is best to light up a certain area.
the painter is talking about the perception of his brain, just in less precise terms when it comes to why the colour looks better.
I appreciate the time you spent though.
Maybe i don't want to understand, honestly i find it really irritating.

[Anonymous No.10485942]

>>10485933
You've understood it in some way, but not others. It's very annoying indeed because it does not allow us to settle on a definition for good.

A painter is less precise to the neurologist, but the neurologist is less precise to the painter. Because the neurologist is talking about electricity in the brain, molecules, etc. A painter just wants to know the ratio of cadmium yellow to white. One does not answer each other's questions, they are both specific to their fields.

[Anonymous No.10486987]

Knowledge is information stored in memory: whether it is true or false is another story

[Anonymous No.10487105]

>>10485427
audible kek

[Anonymous No.10487174]

>>10485427
'is' is self evidently defined as 'accurate'

[Anonymous No.10487317]

knowledge is how a chess grandmaster can pretty much beat an amateur 100% of the time certainly

[Anonymous No.10487989]

kool beans

[Anonymous No.10489131]

warm beans?

[Anonymous No.10489202]

>>10487174
non philisophy brainlet detected
start with the Platons

>>10487317
>pretty much
>100%
sort yourself out

[Anonymous No.10489414]

>>10487317
No that's talent + experience + knowledge

[Anonymous No.10489429]

>>10487317
fuck this idiomatic trope where people think it’s clever or powerful to define something by its presumed epiphenomena instead of explain it

[Anonymous No.10489459]

Knowledge;
Is the ledge, from where all things we know falls.

[Anonymous No.10489490]

>>10485460
Read the Thaetetus. Plato himself BTFOs justified true belief

[Anonymous No.10489503]

>>10489202
not an argument.

If accuracy is possible, if equivalence is possible: the term 'is' (equals) 'is' representative of the concept.

A is A. Apple is Apple. 1 is 1. = = =

[Anonymous No.10489507]

>>10489414
>No that's talent + experience + knowledge
Oh, ok. So: I wasn't wrong, because I see you included knowledge in your agreement with me.

[Anonymous No.10489509]

>>10489429
what do you need explained? I already wrote above:
>>10486987

[Anonymous No.10489512]

>>10489509
>>10489429
So then, if that is the case: what is really being asked is: How is it known whether information is true or false

[Anonymous No.10489517]

>>10489429
>>10489503
So are you asking how do we know A = A? How do we know an apple is an apple?

[Anonymous No.10489744]

>>10485827

What Gettier cases occurred in TLJ?

[Anonymous No.10489999]

>>10489744
In the red throne room. I don't want to spoil anything but it's when Snoke talks about betrayal.

[Anonymous No.10490348]

>>10489503
the absolute state of you

you skipped the thinking and went straight to the thought

[Anonymous No.10490497]

>>10490348
CONTRIBUTE POSITIVE VALUE CONTENT YOU WORMHOLE at least I am trying to pry from the fumes what your compost pile is protruding

[Anonymous No.10490506]

>>10490348
it depends on empircality and there is no way around it: if everyone was born blind the species may have not lived long enough to be more than maggots wiggling in the mud in search for a scent to equal the traveling towards to feed and that about the gist of existence

[Anonymous No.10490555]

>>10485408
Like my epistemology prof said

Knowledge is context sensitive.

[Anonymous No.10490843]

sai sumptin den boi

[Anonymous No.10490888]

>>10490497
>>10490506
what is "is", what isn't "is".
This has been covered by many a philosopher.
To say something is self evident is not a statement at all.

Perhaps what "is" today, "isn't" tomorrow.
To say what "is" is, is linguistic and philosophical sloth, that is not a valid axiom in which to build off of.

To build on faulty ground will surely be the ruin of you like so many before you.

[Anonymous No.10490908]

>>10490888
is equals: =.

*is* = *=*

what isnt = what isnt

What = today

Can =/= tomorrow

the term self evident was a tiny humorous aside, but if we want to focus on it we can: Self evident in the sense that: humans defined it was such.

It is self evident that there *is* 'somethingness' instead of only absolutely pure nothingness.

This be the unfaulty ground all is built on

[Anonymous No.10490959]

>>10490908
No "=" is symbolic of "is equal to"
You are simply wrong

[Anonymous No.10491019]

>>10490959
ok, is = true.

is is

what is is what is

is is that which exists

[Anonymous No.10491027]

>>10490959
>>10491019
is = true. (true as in, existing, a false statement 'can be'. There is false statements: it is true there is false statements)

[Anonymous No.10491033]

>>10490959
I was using the symbol *=* to refer to an exact precise absolute equivalency.

Not a 2x2 = 4 (the squiggly line symbols '2x2' do not aesthetically equal the squiggly line symbol '4' ... but that which exists = itself: that which exists is itself; that which exists is

[Anonymous No.10491040]

retention of relations between things

[Anonymous No.10491056]

>>10490959
is is the totality of whats known and unknown (how can we be certain we know...witfag): are hows and whys is?

[Anonymous No.10491100]

>>10491033
2x2=4 isn't true at all, but merely a logically sound representation. 2 is not a thing that exists and two things are very clearly not the same, even if they're similar, for the mere fact that they are two things.
Come on my dude, you didn't start with the greeks like you were told to, did you?

[Anonymous No.10491145]

>>10491019
>ok, is = true.
>is is
>what is is what is
>is is that which exists
THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF PHILOSOPHY

>>10491033
>>10491056
now we are getting somewhere my friend!
I can now ask, how does one know that something "is" with certainty

Shout out to all the snowfags rn

[Anonymous No.10491744]

will respond in bit

[Anonymous No.10491751]

>>10491145
>I can now ask, how does one know that something "is" with certainty
I think therefore I am

[Anonymous No.10492335]

>>10491751
Yes, but that doesn't mean you know what "is" and what "is not".

I am trying to lead you to the axoim. The logos from which we received the nomos.

[Anonymous No.10492787]

>>10492335
>I am trying to lead you to the axoim. The logos from which we received the nomos.
no, you are a dummy baiting and trolling, I am playing along because I am interested in this topic and there still is mystery remaining.

>Yes, but that doesn't mean you know what "is" and what "is not".
Yes it does: I am. I is.

I know I is.

This is an example of knowledge.

And this is an example of what 'is' means.

What else do you want to know?

[Anonymous No.10492926]

>>10492787
>Yes it does: I am. I is.
>I know I is.
The defining statements of a person of your intellectual stature

[Anonymous No.10492977]

I is the center of the trinity u fucktard

You is because you will, know, be.

Fucking shit dude

>mfw people under 105 iq use this board

[Anonymous No.10493139]

>>10492926
>>10492977
*and the retard/s of the year award goes to*
I know you guys are interested in the subject and just trying to buy time before someone much smarter than you comes along to discuss, but come on, you can try a littler harder

[Anonymous No.10493154]

>>10485617
LOL
>we need to define gender or everything will fall apart
>There is a solid definition of American and we should protect that.
>Why libtards care so much about defintions

[Anonymous No.10493159]

>>10493139
Tbfh trinity shows how to understand the I with relation to creation, planning, and doing.

As all 3 work as 1.

Is, means I is possisive, you possess.

I, is in totallity your 'Body' of being.

[Anonymous No.10494211]

maybe someone smart will say something interesting and inspiring here