FORUM : WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE

What is knowledge?
At this point in my search, I would say that knowledge is TRUTH. The ultimate TRUTH belongs to GOD.

What is rationality?
It is a passage or means to acquiring knowledge. It is related to the function of the mind - thinking - rather than intuition or emotion and is therefore subject to human capacity for inquiry. Knowledge would therefore grow and develop with man's capacity for rational thinking.

Is there such thing as knowledge?
Yes.

Is rationality the ultimate source of knowledge?
Ultimate source of knowledge is GOD. Rationality is only a way to acquire knowledge and a very important one too.

Truly, my very own thoughts...

In my humble attempt at defining "knowledge", I am looking at it from the other direction. Putting it simply....whatever is "true" - then it is "knowledge", otherwise it is just a notion. It is true that the general meaning of knowledge may be defined as any info that you know...but am trying to look at it in a more philosophical way without resorting to bygone great philosophers.

Are you implying that something that is not confirmed true cannot be accepted as knowledge?
That's my drift.

How do you define truth as this is also subjective. even if you define it as something from God as above, there are a lot of things that are not explicitly defined as from God - does it mean that it is not true? is H20 equals to water? Is my dream real?
My perception is, TRUTH may be proven by man.

Let us take fire as an example. Given the right conditions as per it's natural laws or essence , it would burn. However, whether it would actually or ultimately burn.......that eventuality is in God's hands.

I am a believer in God, the Creator and as such, the so-called natural laws or essence of things are the way they are created . They would therefore continue to behave accordingly within the universe, henceforth allowing the rational man the opportunity to make the right choices in life. Unfortunately, man's ability is often hindered by limitations such that the ultimate TRUTH is often obscure.

I hope I have not confused anyone. Thank you both for your interest.

What about legends and folk stories? are they knowledge as well?
To me, legends and folklore are notions or just beliefs that need to be proven.

Let's take a police investigation. On TV we often hear them say "what do we know about the case so far". This suggests the knowledge of facts that have been proven in the course of the investigation.

In the case of Hang Tuah which appears in Sejarah Melayu which has various versions about him and his origin. Then again it needs corroboration by other sources. At best his character still remains a legend perhaps in as much as in the case of Robin Hood. It is the time that made romance grow.

2 + 2 = 4. Real? true? false?
I can prove that 2 = 1.

Let , a=b
Multiply both sides by a:
a^2=ab
Subtract b^2 from both sides:
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
Factoring:
(a + b)(a - b) = b(a-b)
Divide both sides by (a - b):
a + b = b
Substitute b for a:
2a = a
Divide both sides with a:
2 = 1

So, what happens when you substitute 1 for 2 in the equation 2 + 2 = 1 + 1 = 2.

So, 2 + 2 is not always = 4
Is it?

Cor .....just me feeling sleepy ...that's all.

What a wicked trick. We can also conclude that 2 = 1, so 1 = 1/2 so 1 = 2 = 1/2
or trivial, 2a = a works if a = 0
BTW you just prove that numbers can be very deceiving.

Interesting! In philosophy there is no absolute answer. The Number 2 is meaningless if it stand by itself, a mere symbol cold and dumb. 2+2 may not be 4 to me because I might perceive your 4 as 5.
I catch your drift....that is as far as numbers go.....

It is said that maths is not a "reality" but rather a description of reality which the human can only approximate . Some of you may have your own take on this. I would be interested to hear it. For me, I haven't even started to ponder what "reality" means.

Now, there are other ways to show that 2 + 2 not = 4, which I better not elaborate!. Does it mean that the description is false? My take on this is, it requires a further identification. So what does it tells us? That justification requires limits and boundaries????:

Thanks for taking us through the brief history of epistemology, if I may say so. I sense that your conclusion is somewhat parallel if not congruous to my own. At least that is how I perceive "justified true belief".

Truths and Beliefs are two independent entities. When Beliefs(my Notions) have been Justified( my Proven) then they become Knowledge. As human become more developed in the various departments, say, mind, senses and what have you, then more Beliefs/ Notions may be Justified/Proven or eliminated or replaced. There is a whole wide opportunity here for people to expound their ideas. Hence resulting in many Theories. My stand is, there is a lot more Truths out there to be Justified/Proven much of which transcends normal human faculties to comprehend. Some people may be blessed with the ability to comprehend more than others. This "unknown" area had in the past become the "playground" of the more powerful. We fully note that in certain era, no new Ideas were expounded while in another era and place there seemed to be so many new ideas surfacing. These new Ideas are the Beliefs/Notions/Perceptions which may be "Duplicates of the imperfect Truths". Heheheheh...some may be utterly outrageous and need to be eliminated!

Why are Truths imperfect..? Is it because they are always changing.....in the state of Flux? Who or what is controlling it?

I shall sign off here for now to ponder on this.....

i am sorry to butt in your conversation but I'm just curious to know if you consider yourself a logical positivist?
At this stage, I am not really concerned about engenreing (gee, I hope there is such a word) myself least it might limit my thoughts. However, I would say that much of what little thoughts I have on the subject seem to be in tandem with it. Some of it's principles are still beyond me.

I said: Why are Truths imperfect..? Is it because they are always changing.....in the state of Flux? Who or what is controlling it?
I recall Thamrong mentioned about the imperfect truth. If by that he means that truth is always changing, no........I think Truth does not change. You see, what has happened, has happened and that is the Truth. You can never change that. Imagine if ultimate Truth is also changing, then man would never ever comprehend let alone reach it.

I said: For me, I haven't even started to ponder what "reality" means.
I read somewhere that "ultimate reality" is "truth".............Real things are things that exist....some say it includes the essence (what it is) and some say it doesn't as essence exist in the mind. I think for a thing to exist it has to have the essence. Essence alone cannot prove the thing exists....heheh .. as it exist only in the mind! For example , if we describe the sphinx is an animal that has a human head and the body of a lion(the essence)......but does it exist? So it cannot be real.

Aaaah.........I have said too much!

No No .You did well on this topic. No need to hold back. On the contrary to you, I am just questioning other people all time. So, you are absolutely ok.

From your given answer, I assume that you are saying that you cannot completely agree with logical positivism? Is that true? If it's true, then it seems to me that you also believe in something that is left unverifiable, far from proven to be true. Is that what you are saying or is it just me think like that?
Bull's eye buddy. That's my ultimate Truth.

So far man are mostly verifying things through the five senses and the brain they are linked to within the central nervous system.. That is why man are so limited. Do note that we should not rule out the existence of all others just because we have not found a way to justify them yet. I think there has to be another way to approach the ultimate Truth...otherwise the whole purpose of mankind would be futile. That is still my search.

Some suggest replacing it with "faith" . Ah well, who knows what tomorrow's experience would bring! Hehehe....I may have to pitch my goal posts elsewhere!

So you believe in something that is called ultimate truth? and not everybody in this world are capable of accepting/accessing this so called ultimate truth aka "you-definition-of-knowledge" because our senses are limited? and that (limitation) also explains why we keep changing our "generally-accepted-idea-of-knowledge" (what we know about something) since our sense are not perfect?

Is that what are you saying?

When someone said: Only god knows. Does he or she is accepting the idea that God knows everything, including things that are out of our reach/comprehension?

Faith!! I like the connection of this word with your explanation.
(Hmm..what happened to my response?)

As a layman with little brain I attempted to read Nietzsche's works. It does not take very long because I have to return it to the bookshelf before I go crazy.
Heheheh.....I surmise that the guy must have lived his life to the fullest and probably died of it too! You did well to let him be least he dragged you down with him .......insane. Poor soul .....no wonder he thought that life was nothing more than a meaningless business of suffering and striving. Oh, if only he had seen the wisdom of it all!

He said that " God Is Dead" so let's drink to it.

Metaphysics. Most simply, the study of the most basic (or "first') principles. Traditionally, the study of the ultimate reality, or "Being as such" (Ujud maka itu). Popularly, any kind of very abstract or obscure thinking. Most philosophers to day would define metaphysics as the study of the most general concepts of science and human life, for example,reality?,existence?,freedom?,God?,soul?, action?,mind? In general we can divide metaphysics into ontology (theory of being-theori ada), cosmology, and concerning God and immortality of human soul.
Metaphysics.....I read somewhere that the term is somewhat a misnomer and no wonder that word always put a bomb in my brain!!

At this point I am of the view that it 's subject is on a different plain compared to physics.......it is more ethereal rather than physical....more surreal rather than real , the soul not the body................celestial and spiritual. I read somewhere that to attain the true understanding of the matter requires a 6th sense. Someone had told me that to understand this, revelations would have to be processed both by the mind AND the "hati". In this context I am using the same word "hati" as a representative of the seat of the 6th sense. At this point in my search, I reckon that the understanding/justification would manifest in something that you would "feel" e.g. the feeling of inner peace, enlightenment. ..........Could that be faith??
I take that you are assuming 'reality' as something we can be perceived with our senses, a 'substance', worldly and physical.
There is probably a confusion on my part . My apology and thanks for pointing it out. I was in fact thinking in terms of :

Real + Surreal = Total Reality

but got screwed up in the process....

On the ilmu rasa? No comment.
I should add that some people have been reported to also "see" and therefore "experience" it. I'd rather not delve further into it and I shall take my rest on this issue.........

I remembered when my class first introduced to him (Nietzsche)by my professor, almost everybody in my ethics class including myself despised his idea of good and bad until my professor pointed out what he actually thinks. If you look at his writing positively, you will find some good points. Of course I do not buy all his arguments but there are few good things that I've learned from him.
You are one lucky chap .............I am just plodding on my own ....heheheh...

It really means the death of our belief in God.
I think Nietzche's preoccupation could have been more into societal challenges kind of things. He saw a lot of sufferings and striving(strife) and his foremost question was,...................... how best to live in a "godless and meaningless "world. Amongst his thoughts are the need for a value system that should change to meet new challenges and analysis of morality.

He distinguished morality into (1) Master Morality and (2) Slaves Morality. Of course what is good and evil in one is the opposite in the other. He found that the slave morality was predominant in Christianity. Hence his onslaught on the Judeo-Christian religion.

On the value system, in order to meet new challenges new basis should be sought to support new values. In other words values including culture need not be preserved. He promoted supremacy of the man ( not any particular race. Feel free to correct me if you think otherwise) who is the best, healthiest and strongest in character. This brought emphasis on toughness in the face of misery, a character often taken out of context and tyrants have drawn some inspiration from it but understood him only superficially. Well, fortunately for him, he did not live long enough to see the political development in his country.

I found out that he actually became a Swiss citizen and spent many years in Switzerland and Italy until his death(?)

Can a person without religion be moral?
In every person there exist a natural need to self preserve. For that matter even animals do have it too. Therefore, anyone can still have their own ideas about good and bad, right and wrong behavior even at the most simplest level of social organization.

Hehe...just my 2 cents