Is knowledge necessary to understand truth?
- Thread starter china
- Start date
Ariadne ,
An analysis implies an examination of an element of the "whole". But if the "whole "
was to be understood ,there would not be any need for an analysis.
Perhaps Descartes did not see the "whole ".
Obviously he can not believe his own senses ; he functions in knowledge ,past , thought ,memory .On the other hand senses are an awareness and always in the present ; from moment to moment.(I smell now , I feel now , I see now etc) .
Can one be aware of one self ?.....only when one discards the past , the dead .
An analysis implies an examination of an element of the "whole". But if the "whole "
was to be understood ,there would not be any need for an analysis.
Perhaps Descartes did not see the "whole ".
Obviously he can not believe his own senses ; he functions in knowledge ,past , thought ,memory .On the other hand senses are an awareness and always in the present ; from moment to moment.(I smell now , I feel now , I see now etc) .
Can one be aware of one self ?.....only when one discards the past , the dead .
Knowledge, belief, and truth are not related to wholes unless you want to sell religion (any denomination). The sum of the parts being greater than the whole argument is not related to Descartes ... he subtracts everything, arrives at zero, and then begins to rebuild ... all the way to God.
It's not obvious that Descartes cannot believe his senses. He says that he sees/hears/tastes/feels/smells/senses something, but he cannot be sure that what he senses is real or a figment of his imagination. He cannot deductively prove that it is real, other than what he perceives through his senses (which may be deceptive), so he assumes that his senses, one by one, are false - or cannot be verified/validated. Eventually he argues that the only thing he can verify (knowledge) is his own existence (truth). The exercise was not intended to prove his existence (belief). Many west coast philosophers liked his ideology and built on it. Bertram Russell came later, but the origin of the argument is the same.
To fully appreciate his argument about knowledge, belief, and truth, you have to read his discussions.
I think Descartes, like most philosophers, took himself way too seriously. I've always liked Samuel Johnson's response to such sophistry. If you really think the only thing you can prove the reality of is your awareness of your own thinking, try kicking a big rock, or jumping off the roof of my house, and claiming your injuries and pain aren't reality. Kicking the rock was Johnson's example, and he said, "I refute it thus." 90% of the philosophy I've read strikes me as utter BS.
Maybe he took himself too seriously, and maybe he was a self-absorbed schizophrenic, but at the very least he gave people something to think about. Isn't Samual Johnson a politician? As mentioned perviously, I thought philosophy was interesting between the ages of 16 and 24 ... but was being generous when I said 24. The truth is that by 19, I was finished with that pursuit. As a child, I took knowledge, belief, and truth very seriously, but now ... I agree ... it's a bit of utter BS ... mental masturbation ... mind fcuk ... brainfart ... and not dignifying for a person that claims to be 58 year old.
Why the heck do you go and visit Philosophy forum; don't tell me ....a mental masturbation .
Dignifying ;my foot ,I enjoy what I'm doing.Any how , it's kind of silly to "talk" with a brain fart.
Last edited: