I think we all need to realize what a frustrating discussion this has become. I know I need to better appreciate this too.
I think this is because of the natural pretentiousness of "knowledge" and being right. In this discussion it has become important (for me at least, maybe others too) to be right. It's not that I'm giving up....or even suggesting anyone arguing their point with any less fervor, but I'm going to take it a little easy before my mind pops.
I stick by my original statement, because I can. Just like someone will believe in God regardless of what other people think of them, or believe in Odin, Allah, themselves or others. I believe that what I think is true. But I don't know what I think is true yet. I don't think anyone really does. But I believe what I see, unless something will strike me as particularly unbelievable.
To most people I would think that belief is considerably more important than knowledge, because knowledge is too matter of fact, informing people of the here and now. Belief is what people do with that knowledge, how they apply it to themselves, how they make sense of the useless facts and information that bombards their senses. Without some foundation of belief, any belief, belief in NOTHING even, all sense of knowledge would crumble, become useless. Belief is knowledge's foundation, and probably the most important aspect of the human conscious and conscience.
I have no idea what I believe in. I have little to no knowledge of my beliefs. I can't find them, I can't see them. I hope to someday, but I'm comfortable with the fact that I may never find them. I believe they are there, I believe that they are there working for me and forming my world. I believe they are comforting and horrifying, beautiful and ugly, unfaltering and ever changing. I can't see them, but I believe they are there.
I would agree with Ian that the main point of the discussion is not to be right. The reason for that is because there is no way to verify what right is, you can only verify what right is as far as you, your community, your species, and your universe are concerned. Unlike in school, there’s no teacher to correct your paper and tell you if you’ve made a mistake. Because of this, we must judge for ourselves, and therefore Ian is justified in thinking that he’s right, and I’m justified in thinking that I’m right.
I would disagree with Ian, and say that rather than beliefs being the foundation of knowledge, that knowledge and belief are on the same level.
Both knowledge and belief spring from sense, that is, the information you learn from the outside world. The information you gain from your senses makes up what your knowledge and beliefs. I would say that the main difference between knowledge and beliefs is that you can ignore the things you know, but you can’t ignore your beliefs. Beliefs are your deep feeling of reality, and are therefore more deeply rooted. I think the reason that beliefs are more deeply rooted is that knowledge doesn’t offer a ‘why’. If something strange happens, you can know it happened, but you can’t know why. Your beliefs offer you an explanation.
For example, you both believe and know that things don’t randomly disappear, but if you saw your desk randomly disappear, you would know what you saw, but you wouldn’t really believe that it randomly disappeared. Since your belief is that desks don’t randomly disappear, you would probably search for some kind of explanation. You might say that a wormhole sucked it up, or that God took it away, or that the desk was actually a sentient being and didn’t feel like having people sit on it anymore so it used its super powers and disappeared. By using one of these explanations, you are explaining to yourself the knowledge that your desk disappeared so that your knowledge fits in with your belief that desks don’t randomly disappear. On some level, you may know that you cannot have a true explanation of why your desk disappeared, but your inability to ignore your beliefs gives you the ability to ignore your knowledge.
Which brings us to the question of proper justification. Whosever’s desk it was that disappeared probably wants justification for why the desk didn’t just randomly disappear, because that doesn’t fit in with their beliefs. The problem with this is that someone could very easily come up with proper justification for why the desk did randomly disappear. Similarly, if someone is on trial, you could offer both justification as to why they’re guilty, and as to why they’re innocent. However, usually one justification will be more convincing than another. The argument that 20 witnesses saw you commit a crime will inevitably be more convincing than the argument, “Oh, that was just my twin brother Ronnie that nobody’s ever heard of who’s plane just crashed a week ago so there’s no way you can question him.”
I think that there are three different types of knowledge leading to three different types of belief that need different levels of justification.
The first is absolute knowledge. Absolute knowledge is always absolutely true, and it’s debatable whether it could actually exist. This type of knowledge and belief would be impossible to have by anyone but an all-powerful entity, such as a God. Absolute belief needs no justification other than that it is believed, because the belief makes it true.
The second type of knowledge is the knowledge of the overall society or species, and the subsequent belief is the societal or special belief. This belief needs only to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. We believe that the earth is round because after reviewing the data that is gathered by the senses of humans, our species, most humans come to the conclusion that the earth is round. Navigation systems operate under the belief that the earth is round, astronomers operate under the belief that the earth is round, and books are written using the beliefs that the earth is round. Perhaps the earth is not round and there is some flaw in our species that causes us to see it that way, but as far as we as a species and a global society are concerned, the earth is round, and it suits our purposes quite nicely. Therefore, the human species can properly justify that the earth is round despite possible scenarios in which it might not be.
Societal knowledge and belief can be smaller than the whole species. The majority of humans are not Catholic and do not belief in the Catholic doctrine, but you can still say that Catholics are justified in believing the things they do because they are part of the Catholic society, and the belief suits them. However, faith is also a personal belief, which is the next kind of knowledge and belief.
Personal knowledge and belief don’t have to be properly justified to a high level, as long as they are justified to the person and don’t effect others. Katherine saw a ghost, she knows she saw a ghost, and she believes she saw a ghost, but she doesn’t feel the need to tell anybody. Therefore Katherine can believe she saw a ghost with proper justification, because her beliefs are justified to her. As soon as she tells someone else, however, it becomes societal belief and must be justified beyond all reasonable doubt. Similarly, someone accused of a trial can believe that it was a coincidence that all the evidence points to them, and they can know it, but as soon as they try to convince the judge it becomes a societal belief and must be properly justified.
In this way, Ian is completely justified in sticking with his original belief, because it is a personal belief. However, when Ian or anyone else brings a personal belief up for discussion, it has to be properly justified or it cannot be adopted as a societal belief. That some beliefs, such as belief in religion or a certain God, can never be proven to the global society beyond all reasonable doubt does not make them a less important belief than that the world is round. Personal beliefs fulfill the human need to know and believe things that cannot be known or believed except by the individual; in fact, they help fulfill the human need to be an individual. Everyone holds important beliefs in their mind. My personal opinion is that it is not so important to prove a personal belief as to believe it, because a deep-rooted personal conviction can bring a person comfort in a way that no outside influence can really accomplish. That’s what I believe about belief.
It has become a very good example of the intuitiveness, but also burden, of people that we "know" we are going to die.
Knowing we are going to die is all well and good, but think how differently you would conduct your life knowing, and being constantly reminded of, the exact time and reason of your death. Let it be a reasonable, but not extraordinary time in the future, below average life span, let's say 65. You've had a vague promise of a timeline before, but now there is not a shadow of a doubt. You have X time to live, to the second. How would your life change?
Does it make your knowledge of death beforehand more complete or obsolete?
5 comments:
when it is believed to the point of truth
duh.
Bobby believes that women should be subject to men, because they are weaker and lesser beings then men. He believes this to the point of truth…
What the heck does that mean… to the point of truth?
I think we all need to realize what a frustrating discussion this has become. I know I need to better appreciate this too.
I think this is because of the natural pretentiousness of "knowledge" and being right. In this discussion it has become important (for me at least, maybe others too) to be right. It's not that I'm giving up....or even suggesting anyone arguing their point with any less fervor, but I'm going to take it a little easy before my mind pops.
I stick by my original statement, because I can. Just like someone will believe in God regardless of what other people think of them, or believe in Odin, Allah, themselves or others. I believe that what I think is true. But I don't know what I think is true yet. I don't think anyone really does. But I believe what I see, unless something will strike me as particularly unbelievable.
To most people I would think that belief is considerably more important than knowledge, because knowledge is too matter of fact, informing people of the here and now. Belief is what people do with that knowledge, how they apply it to themselves, how they make sense of the useless facts and information that bombards their senses. Without some foundation of belief, any belief, belief in NOTHING even, all sense of knowledge would crumble, become useless. Belief is knowledge's foundation, and probably the most important aspect of the human conscious and conscience.
I have no idea what I believe in. I have little to no knowledge of my beliefs. I can't find them, I can't see them. I hope to someday, but I'm comfortable with the fact that I may never find them. I believe they are there, I believe that they are there working for me and forming my world. I believe they are comforting and horrifying, beautiful and ugly, unfaltering and ever changing. I can't see them, but I believe they are there.
I believe it and know it.
I would agree with Ian that the main point of the discussion is not to be right. The reason for that is because there is no way to verify what right is, you can only verify what right is as far as you, your community, your species, and your universe are concerned. Unlike in school, there’s no teacher to correct your paper and tell you if you’ve made a mistake. Because of this, we must judge for ourselves, and therefore Ian is justified in thinking that he’s right, and I’m justified in thinking that I’m right.
I would disagree with Ian, and say that rather than beliefs being the foundation of knowledge, that knowledge and belief are on the same level.
Both knowledge and belief spring from sense, that is, the information you learn from the outside world. The information you gain from your senses makes up what your knowledge and beliefs. I would say that the main difference between knowledge and beliefs is that you can ignore the things you know, but you can’t ignore your beliefs. Beliefs are your deep feeling of reality, and are therefore more deeply rooted. I think the reason that beliefs are more deeply rooted is that knowledge doesn’t offer a ‘why’. If something strange happens, you can know it happened, but you can’t know why. Your beliefs offer you an explanation.
For example, you both believe and know that things don’t randomly disappear, but if you saw your desk randomly disappear, you would know what you saw, but you wouldn’t really believe that it randomly disappeared. Since your belief is that desks don’t randomly disappear, you would probably search for some kind of explanation. You might say that a wormhole sucked it up, or that God took it away, or that the desk was actually a sentient being and didn’t feel like having people sit on it anymore so it used its super powers and disappeared. By using one of these explanations, you are explaining to yourself the knowledge that your desk disappeared so that your knowledge fits in with your belief that desks don’t randomly disappear. On some level, you may know that you cannot have a true explanation of why your desk disappeared, but your inability to ignore your beliefs gives you the ability to ignore your knowledge.
Which brings us to the question of proper justification. Whosever’s desk it was that disappeared probably wants justification for why the desk didn’t just randomly disappear, because that doesn’t fit in with their beliefs. The problem with this is that someone could very easily come up with proper justification for why the desk did randomly disappear. Similarly, if someone is on trial, you could offer both justification as to why they’re guilty, and as to why they’re innocent. However, usually one justification will be more convincing than another. The argument that 20 witnesses saw you commit a crime will inevitably be more convincing than the argument, “Oh, that was just my twin brother Ronnie that nobody’s ever heard of who’s plane just crashed a week ago so there’s no way you can question him.”
I think that there are three different types of knowledge leading to three different types of belief that need different levels of justification.
The first is absolute knowledge. Absolute knowledge is always absolutely true, and it’s debatable whether it could actually exist. This type of knowledge and belief would be impossible to have by anyone but an all-powerful entity, such as a God. Absolute belief needs no justification other than that it is believed, because the belief makes it true.
The second type of knowledge is the knowledge of the overall society or species, and the subsequent belief is the societal or special belief. This belief needs only to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. We believe that the earth is round because after reviewing the data that is gathered by the senses of humans, our species, most humans come to the conclusion that the earth is round. Navigation systems operate under the belief that the earth is round, astronomers operate under the belief that the earth is round, and books are written using the beliefs that the earth is round. Perhaps the earth is not round and there is some flaw in our species that causes us to see it that way, but as far as we as a species and a global society are concerned, the earth is round, and it suits our purposes quite nicely. Therefore, the human species can properly justify that the earth is round despite possible scenarios in which it might not be.
Societal knowledge and belief can be smaller than the whole species. The majority of humans are not Catholic and do not belief in the Catholic doctrine, but you can still say that Catholics are justified in believing the things they do because they are part of the Catholic society, and the belief suits them. However, faith is also a personal belief, which is the next kind of knowledge and belief.
Personal knowledge and belief don’t have to be properly justified to a high level, as long as they are justified to the person and don’t effect others. Katherine saw a ghost, she knows she saw a ghost, and she believes she saw a ghost, but she doesn’t feel the need to tell anybody. Therefore Katherine can believe she saw a ghost with proper justification, because her beliefs are justified to her. As soon as she tells someone else, however, it becomes societal belief and must be justified beyond all reasonable doubt. Similarly, someone accused of a trial can believe that it was a coincidence that all the evidence points to them, and they can know it, but as soon as they try to convince the judge it becomes a societal belief and must be properly justified.
In this way, Ian is completely justified in sticking with his original belief, because it is a personal belief. However, when Ian or anyone else brings a personal belief up for discussion, it has to be properly justified or it cannot be adopted as a societal belief. That some beliefs, such as belief in religion or a certain God, can never be proven to the global society beyond all reasonable doubt does not make them a less important belief than that the world is round. Personal beliefs fulfill the human need to know and believe things that cannot be known or believed except by the individual; in fact, they help fulfill the human need to be an individual. Everyone holds important beliefs in their mind. My personal opinion is that it is not so important to prove a personal belief as to believe it, because a deep-rooted personal conviction can bring a person comfort in a way that no outside influence can really accomplish. That’s what I believe about belief.
Just a question for you fine people:
It has become a very good example of the intuitiveness, but also burden, of people that we "know" we are going to die.
Knowing we are going to die is all well and good, but think how differently you would conduct your life knowing, and being constantly reminded of, the exact time and reason of your death. Let it be a reasonable, but not extraordinary time in the future, below average life span, let's say 65. You've had a vague promise of a timeline before, but now there is not a shadow of a doubt. You have X time to live, to the second. How would your life change?
Does it make your knowledge of death beforehand more complete or obsolete?
Post a Comment