Philosophy Now Forum

reasonvemotion wrote:C.W.

That is why there is no such thing as absolute knowledge numb-nuts.

Are you absolutely sure of that?

RE, he's apparently not smart enough to understand that he's made a statement of "ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE," that there is no "ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE;" his argument undermines itself. Pay no attention to the non-ego-skeptical Chaz, he just likes my nuts. He's unaware, or maybe fearful of the fact that, the absolute truth is what mankind has always sought, and that it's realized over time, the thing he has a problem confronting, due to his psyche, is that he see's no way that the universe can inform him of those things, that man believes are absolute, such that he can be certain, and that makes him nervous and skeptical. I think that this, is most often the case, so that one can sidestep truth, because their agenda is contradictory; they fear seeing themselves in the mirror, so they deny.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:C.W.

That is why there is no such thing as absolute knowledge numb-nuts.

Are you absolutely sure of that?

RE, he's apparently not smart enough to understand that he's made a statement of "ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE," that there is no "ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE;" his argument undermines itself. Pay no attention to the non-ego-skeptical Chaz, he just likes my nuts. He's unaware, or maybe fearful of the fact that, the absolute truth is what mankind has always sought, and that it's realized over time, the thing he has a problem confronting, due to his psyche, is that he see's no way that the universe can inform him of those things, that man believes are absolute, such that he can be certain, and that makes him nervous and skeptical. I think that this, is most often the case, so that one can sidestep truth, because their agenda is contradictory; they fear seeing themselves in the mirror, so they deny.

If you want to direct your guile to me have the courage and the decency to do it directly.
If you think there is such a thing as absolute knowledge then you are at liberty to explain your interpretation of the phrase and to render a few examples.
Until then you are just shooting hot air

reasonvemotion wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:That is why there is no such thing as absolute knowledge numb-nuts.

Are you absolutely sure of that?

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:ReasonEmotion, he's apparently not smart enough to understand that he's made a statement of "ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE," that there is no "ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE;" his argument undermines itself. Pay no attention to the non-ego-skeptical Chaz, he just likes my nuts. He's unaware, or maybe fearful of the fact that, the absolute truth is what mankind has always sought, and that it's realized over time, the thing he has a problem confronting, due to his psyche, is that he see's no way that the universe can inform him of those things, that man believes are absolute, such that he can be certain, and that makes him nervous and skeptical. I think that this, is most often the case, so that one can sidestep truth, because their agenda is contradictory; they fear seeing themselves in the mirror, so they deny.

If you want to direct your guile to me have the courage and the decency to do it directly.
If you think there is such a thing as absolute knowledge then you are at liberty to explain your interpretation of the phrase and to render a few examples.
Until then you are just shooting hot air

Come on Chaz, obviously, I was not attempting to talk behind your back, knowing full well you'd see this and expected you to rebut. But you're correct, I should not have joined you in the childish "numbnuts" tit for tat routine, because obviously, providing a mirror for you to look into, has been done before, and if by this stage in the game, you still refuse to acknowledge your shadow, so be it.

As I've said before one can only have knowledge of the actual. The actual being that which is the case despite mans belief.

First a Definition:

knowledge knowl·edge [nol-ij]
noun
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: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
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: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic . sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
adjective
10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.
Idiom
11. to one's knowledge, according to the information available to one: To my knowledge he hasn't been here before.

Just so you know, if you require labels, as far as I can tell, largely I'm an empiricist, but more specifically a realist. I see that 'all' things of the universe are necessarily true in and of themselves, that reality exists independently of observers, that truth consists in the mind's correspondence to reality, this is the absolute of which I speak.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:That is why there is no such thing as absolute knowledge numb-nuts.

Are you absolutely sure of that?

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:ReasonEmotion, he's apparently not smart enough to understand that he's made a statement of "ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE," that there is no "ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE;" his argument undermines itself. Pay no attention to the non-ego-skeptical Chaz, he just likes my nuts. He's unaware, or maybe fearful of the fact that, the absolute truth is what mankind has always sought, and that it's realized over time, the thing he has a problem confronting, due to his psyche, is that he see's no way that the universe can inform him of those things, that man believes are absolute, such that he can be certain, and that makes him nervous and skeptical. I think that this, is most often the case, so that one can sidestep truth, because their agenda is contradictory; they fear seeing themselves in the mirror, so they deny.

If you want to direct your guile to me have the courage and the decency to do it directly.
If you think there is such a thing as absolute knowledge then you are at liberty to explain your interpretation of the phrase and to render a few examples.
Until then you are just shooting hot air

Come on Chaz, obviously, I was not attempting to talk behind your back, knowing full well you'd see this and expected you to rebut. But you're correct,

I've stopped reading more than this amount of your posts. As soon as I get the tone - I stop.
As I don't think it fair that you keep writing long posts for me, that I don't read I thought I'd let you know.
As soon as you are ready to have a decent level headed conversation I'll be waiting.

reasonvemotion wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:That is why there is no such thing as absolute knowledge numb-nuts.

Are you absolutely sure of that?

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:ReasonEmotion, he's apparently not smart enough to understand that he's made a statement of "ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE," that there is no "ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE;" his argument undermines itself. Pay no attention to the non-ego-skeptical Chaz, he just likes my nuts. He's unaware, or maybe fearful of the fact that, the absolute truth is what mankind has always sought, and that it's realized over time, the thing he has a problem confronting, due to his psyche, is that he see's no way that the universe can inform him of those things, that man believes are absolute, such that he can be certain, and that makes him nervous and skeptical. I think that this, is most often the case, so that one can sidestep truth, because their agenda is contradictory; they fear seeing themselves in the mirror, so they deny.

If you want to direct your guile to me have the courage and the decency to do it directly.
If you think there is such a thing as absolute knowledge then you are at liberty to explain your interpretation of the phrase and to render a few examples.
Until then you are just shooting hot air

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Come on Chaz, obviously, I was not attempting to talk behind your back, knowing full well you'd see this and expected you to rebut. But you're correct,

I've stopped reading more than this amount of your posts. As soon as I get the tone - I stop.
As I don't think it fair that you keep writing long posts for me, that I don't read I thought I'd let you know.
As soon as you are ready to have a decent level headed conversation I'll be waiting.

I hear you, so do you really believe that we can both quell our defensive posturing, after we perceive that which seems to be offensive? See the first quote above. It's a two way street Chaz. Soooooo.....

I'll lead off, since I'm.........(you fill in the blank, in your head):

As I've said before one can only have knowledge of the actual. The actual being that which is the case despite any particular mans/mens belief.

First a Definition:

knowledge knowl·edge [nol-ij]
noun
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: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
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: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic . sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
adjective
10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.
Idiom
11. to one's knowledge, according to the information available to one: To my knowledge he hasn't been here before.

Just so you know, if you require labels, as far as I can tell, largely I'm an empiricist, but more specifically a realist. I see that 'all' things of the universe are necessarily true in and of themselves, that reality exists independently of observers, that truth consists in the mind's correspondence to reality. This final point does not mean that humans are incapable of seeing and understanding this absolute truth, eventually. It just means that it's understanding is an ongoing process which shall include many decisions and revisions, so as to finally get to it, as we are currently backwards engineering reality, this is the absolute of which I speak, it's that which, if we outlive ourselves, we shall finally come to know, in it's totality, at that point when we truly understand the entirety of the universe, and only then shall we know that we know of the absolute. Actually I see that it may be a requirement that we be capable of creating a universe so as to know of this absolute, in its totality.

We have the Free Will to achieve this, but it seems that we are distracted by glittering prizes, which bear seemingly endless compromises, that shatters the illusion of our integrity, at least in my mind. I see that currently we can't see life, for the self, which is really kind of demented. I see that with the continued understanding of the absolute, comes the unification of the species, as in fact we are one organism. One tell tale sign, of this potential horizon, is that with knowledge, societies release their firm grip on superstition/mysticism.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I'll lead off, since I'm.........(you fill in the blank, in your head):[/size]

As I've said before one can only have knowledge of the actual. The actual being that which is the case despite any particular mans/mens belief.
.

I've stopped reading more than this amount of your posts. As soon as I get the tone - I stop.
As I don't think it fair on you that you keep writing long posts for me, that I don't read I thought I'd let you know.
As soon as you are ready to have a decent level headed conversation I'll be waiting.

C.W. wrote:

That is why there is no such thing as absolute knowledge numb-nuts.



Reasonemotion wrote:

Are you absolutely sure of that?




Well, CW was smart enough not to answer that question.

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I'll lead off, since I'm.........(you fill in the blank, in your head):[/size]

As I've said before one can only have knowledge of the actual. The actual being that which is the case despite any particular mans/mens belief.
.

I've stopped reading more than this amount of your posts. As soon as I get the tone - I stop.
As I don't think it fair on you that you keep writing long posts for me, that I don't read I thought I'd let you know.
As soon as you are ready to have a decent level headed conversation I'll be waiting.

I believe the tone was par for the course, as set by one that would call someone "numbnuts." I think that the truth is that you fear me.

Of course, I give you my word that I shall be as considerate, displaying as much decorum as you do.

reasonvemotion wrote:C.W. wrote:

That is why there is no such thing as absolute knowledge numb-nuts.



Reasonemotion wrote:

Are you absolutely sure of that?




Well, CW was smart enough not to answer that question.

Yes, and this is what seems, as that, which his ego is incapable of surpassing. It would seem, that he believes that Socrates words 'I only know that I know nothing' applies to everyone but himself. I believe that I always speak of possibilities that hold as much logic, aligned with the actual (absolute truth), as possible. But I have never believed that what I say is necessarily the actual. I know that it has been a struggle to eliminate certainty from my verbiage, as I, like most, feel the most comfortable, due to a long lived habit, using language that accurately conveys certainty. The reason I have always found Chaz's verbiage so utterly wrong, is that from our very first exchange, he supported "relative truth," yet he always insists that his way is right, while everyone else is wrong. Contradiction? Definitely!!!

I see that it is more correct to say that "nobody is right and nobody is wrong" than it is to say that "everybody is right and everybody is wrong." Because the latter method more readily supports ego in the face of truth, whereas the former more readily supports truth in the face of ego.

reasonvemotion wrote:C.W. wrote:

That is why there is no such thing as absolute knowledge numb-nuts.



Reasonemotion wrote:

Are you absolutely sure of that?

Well, CW was smart enough not to answer that question.

Actually I did. Something along the lines; "absolute" is not a property that applies to opinion. It can only relate to quantities where all parameters are stated in advance, and the term is thenused as a datum from which those quantities can be assessed.
So if we were to take the definition;
A value or principle regarded as universally valid or viewed without relation to other things.
As you can see, as all you or I , or even Spheres of Balance can only offer 'surety' based on their own perspective, nothing offered by way of opinion in this regard is free of a 'relationship to other things', in this case you or I , or SoB.
~All knowledge is formed and founded on a range of epistemological relationships.

I don't know why it was not posted.

chaz wyman wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:C.W. wrote:

That is why there is no such thing as absolute knowledge numb-nuts.



Reasonemotion wrote:

Are you absolutely sure of that?

Well, CW was smart enough not to answer that question.

Actually I did. Something along the lines; "absolute" is not a property that applies to opinion. It can only relate to quantities where all parameters are stated in advance, and the term is thenused as a datum from which those quantities can be assessed.
So if we were to take the definition;
A value or principle regarded as universally valid or viewed without relation to other things.
As you can see, as all you or I , or even Spheres of Balance can only offer 'surety' based on their own perspective, nothing offered by way of opinion in this regard is free of a 'relationship to other things', in this case you or I , or SoB.
~All knowledge is formed and founded on a range of epistemological relationships.

I don't know why it was not posted.

absolute ab·so·lute [ab-suh-loot, ab-suh-loot]
adjective
1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.
3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.
5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.
6. viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic: absolute knowledge.
7. positive; certain: absolute in opinion; absolute evidence.
8. Grammar .
..a. relatively independent syntactically. The construction It being Sunday in It being Sunday, the family went to church is an absolute construction.
..b. (of a usually transitive verb) used without an object, as the verb give in The charity asked him to give.
..c. (of an adjective) having its noun understood, not expressed, as poor in The poor are always with us.
..d. characterizing the phonological form of a word or phrase occurring by itself, not influenced by surrounding forms, as not in is not (as opposed to isn't ), or will in they will (as opposed to they'll ). Compare sandhi.
9. Physics .
..a. independent of arbitrary standards or of particular properties of substances or systems: absolute humidity.
..b. pertaining to a system of units, as the centimeter-gram-second system, based on some primary units, especially units of length, mass, and time.
..c. pertaining to a measurement based on an absolute zero or unit: absolute temperature.
10. Education . noting or pertaining to the scale of a grading system based on an individual's performance considered as representing his or her knowledge of a given subject regardless of the performance of others in a group: The math department marks on an absolute scale. Compare curve ( def. 10 ) .
11. Climatology . noting or pertaining to the highest or lowest value of a meteorological quantity recorded during a given, usually long, period of time: absolute maximum temperature.
12. Mathematics . (of an inequality) indicating that the expression is true for all values of the variable, as x 2 + 1 > 0 for all real numbers x; unconditional. Compare conditional ( def. 6 ) .
13. Computers . machine-specific and requiring no translation ( opposed to symbolic): absolute coding; absolute address.
noun
14. something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. ( opposed to relative).
15. the absolute,
..a. something that is free from any restriction or condition.
..b. something that is independent of some or all relations.
..c. something that is perfect or complete.
..d. (in Hegelianism) the world process operating in accordance with the absolute idea.

For def 14, I see man as an external condition, because he comes at the end of the sequence that spans 13 billion years, such that he has to learn/search/find/come to know (backward engineer) it. It being physics and everything else that defines the universe. That which defines it is absolute!

Does man have the knowledge of this absolute? Some of it, I'm sure! Does he know that he knows? That's a good question, at this point it's really about whatever works for him! Or is it actually, what appears to work for him? As actually he often can't see life for the self. Can he come to know all of it? Time shall tell, if he can survive himself; if he can finally truly see life, despite his self.

If it were not possible to have absolute knowledge of "everything", would you agree with the opinion that it is possible to have absolute knowledge of "something"?

reasonvemotion wrote:If it were not possible to have absolute knowledge of "everything", would you agree with the opinion that it is possible to have absolute knowledge of "something"?

It is possible to construct a theoretical scheme in which all parameters are defined; a closed system such as maths in which the idea of an absolute is viable, and upon which all other variables depend.
But knowledge of the world has to relate to other aspects of the world and has to relate to the human subject.
Thus all knowledge is co-dependant on a large range of other ideas which we take for granted.
And when most people say are you absolutely sure - what they mean is are you as sure as possible given the commonly held assumptions we all take for granted but do not always question or challenge.
History tells us that even the most commonly held views have from time to time been overturned.

chaz wyman wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:If it were not possible to have absolute knowledge of "everything", would you agree with the opinion that it is possible to have absolute knowledge of "something"?

It is possible to construct a theoretical scheme in which all parameters are defined; a closed system such as maths in which the idea of an absolute is viable, and upon which all other variables depend.
But knowledge of the world has to relate to other aspects of the world and has to relate to the human subject.
Thus all knowledge is co-dependant on a large range of other ideas which we take for granted.
And when most people say are you absolutely sure - what they mean is are you as sure as possible given the commonly held assumptions we all take for granted but do not always question or challenge.
History tells us that even the most commonly held views have from time to time been overturned.

It's not about constructing anything. There you go again placing mankind (and thus yourself, how convenient) as the pinnacle of the universe. Man is nothing, but a piece of meat, that thinks it's got a clue. Yet the dumb fucking animal is killing it's biosphere off, or at least aiding in it, because it has no clue of the universe and perverts it with it's glittering prize mentality, designed to have more than the next so that it can sit easy in it's chair on the backs of another. The entire construct of mankind's so called civilization is motivated by selfishness. The animal doesn't have a clue as to what it takes to be anything more than the dumb animal that it is. Those in control know not of balance, but rather excess so as to cheat the others, so as to remain above them. And largely they weave a web of deceit in order to accomplish this.

The absolute truth is all that exists when you remove the cancer, MAN, along with his worshiping the glittering prize, from the equation. Man is nothing but a liar. Let me take a 'small' piece of land, that is rightfully everyone's to take in the first place, as we are each born of this earth/universe, where I can live life as the universe provides, and to hell with the rest of you selfish battling crazy fucks. Sure when all you selfish crazies kill off the planet I'll die too, but at least in the meantime I can live a truthful life, devoid of your day to day rat racing to nowhere insanity.

Excuse me but, "I'll follow the sun!"

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:If it were not possible to have absolute knowledge of "everything", would you agree with the opinion that it is possible to have absolute knowledge of "something"?

It is possible to construct a theoretical scheme in which all parameters are defined; a closed system such as maths in which the idea of an absolute is viable, and upon which all other variables depend.
But knowledge of the world has to relate to other aspects of the world and has to relate to the human subject.
Thus all knowledge is co-dependant on a large range of other ideas which we take for granted.
And when most people say are you absolutely sure - what they mean is are you as sure as possible given the commonly held assumptions we all take for granted but do not always question or challenge.
History tells us that even the most commonly held views have from time to time been overturned.

It's not about constructing anything. There you go again placing mankind (and thus yourself, how convenient) as the pinnacle of the universe. Man is nothing, but a piece of meat, that thinks it's got a clue. Yet the dumb fucking animal is killing it's biosphere off, or at least aiding in it, because it has no clue of the universe and perverts it with it's glittering prize mentality, designed to have more than the next so that it can sit easy in it's chair on the backs of another. The entire construct of mankind's so called civilization is motivated by selfishness. The animal doesn't have a clue as to what it takes to be anything more than the dumb animal that it is. Those in control know not of balance, but rather excess so as to cheat the others, so as to remain above them. And largely they weave a web of deceit in order to accomplish this.

The absolute truth is all that exists when you remove the cancer, MAN, along with his worshiping the glittering prize, from the equation. Man is nothing but a liar. Let me take a 'small' piece of land, that is rightfully everyone's to take in the first place, as we are each born of this earth/universe, where I can live life as the universe provides, and to hell with the rest of you selfish battling crazy fucks. Sure when all you selfish crazies kill off the planet I'll die too, but at least in the meantime I can live a truthful life, devoid of your day to day rat racing to nowhere insanity.

Excuse me but, "I'll follow the sun!"

Irrelevant rant.
I rarely read your posts, but sometimes I just need to refresh my memory as to why I don't tend to bother.

It's humans like you that think they have the handle on absolute knowledge that are destroying the biosphere, not humans like me who think they can be wrong about their knowledge.