Philosophy Now Forum

Some may feel it is impossible. Others will think we can get partially there. Yet still others would think it is possible to go all the way.

Part of the equation is what do we mean by knowledge. With science, each part works with axioms and undefined terms (at bedrock). Science is very fluid, so much so that over half of what is learned becomes obsolete at graduation time.

QM puts a limit on what we can know in physics (and there are other limitations). Again, in mathematics, there are several branches of philosophy that one can choose to adopt. And I've barely scraped the barrel.

Maybe I should pose the question this way: which branch of epistemology can we get closest to absolute knowledge or go all the way to absolute knowledge?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Some may feel it is impossible. Others will think we can get partially there. Yet still others would think it is possible to go all the way.

Part of the equation is what do we mean by knowledge. With science, each part works with axioms and undefined terms (at bedrock). Science is very fluid, so much so that over half of what is learned becomes obsolete at graduation time.

QM puts a limit on what we can know in physics (and there are other limitations). Again, in mathematics, there are several branches of philosophy that one can choose to adopt. And I've barely scraped the barrel.

Maybe I should pose the question this way: which branch of epistemology can we get closest to absolute knowledge or go all the way to absolute knowledge?

PhilX

I would disagree with your assessment of science.

To my way of thinking the ultimate goal of science is to formulate a theory and have that theory supported by observations. Some scientific theories do become redundant if they cannot be substantiated by observations. However, they never become obsolete. By that I mean human knowledge doesn't occur in a vacuum. What has gone before is necessary to determine the nature of future advancements.

Scientific and philosophical bootstrap theories are a dime a dozen. If they don't contain knowledge of previous investigations then they are of no value. There is no new theory of everything that contains the implicit or explicit assumption that everything cited previously is wrong.

Stop asking stupid questions that has no answer.

Stop wasting time running a fool's errand in answering stupid questions, stop stooping philosophy down to cozy chat.

HexHammer wrote:Stop asking stupid questions that has no answer.

Stop wasting time running a fool's errand in answering stupid questions, stop stooping philosophy down to cozy chat.

Hex has taken out his flame gun I see? If you don't like it so fundamentally then why bother answering?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Some may feel it is impossible. Others will think we can get partially there. Yet still others would think it is possible to go all the way.

Part of the equation is what do we mean by knowledge. With science, each part works with axioms and undefined terms (at bedrock). Science is very fluid, so much so that over half of what is learned becomes obsolete at graduation time.

QM puts a limit on what we can know in physics (and there are other limitations). Again, in mathematics, there are several branches of philosophy that one can choose to adopt. And I've barely scraped the barrel.

Maybe I should pose the question this way: which branch of epistemology can we get closest to absolute knowledge or go all the way to absolute knowledge?

PhilX

It's always most sincerely done within, by the individual. All epistemologies may have their truths, while at the same time have their weak points.

HexHammer wrote:Stop asking stupid questions that has no answer.

Stop wasting time running a fool's errand in answering stupid questions, stop stooping philosophy down to cozy chat.

I was waiting for HH to bring this up. "Stupid" questions that have no answers can't be stupid after all because that's what philosophy is all about, getting down to the nitty gritty of truth (yes I know that philosophy translate into "love of wisdom." In order to gain this wisdom, you must acquire the truth first). And so-called "cozy chat" means the debates that are a part of philosophy. Even if the same arguments are used again and again, that's just part of the process of getting at the truth.

Plus how do you know when to stop? When do we know that we have achieved the ultimate in knowledge and wisdom (besides Descarte)?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Stop asking stupid questions that has no answer.

Stop wasting time running a fool's errand in answering stupid questions, stop stooping philosophy down to cozy chat.

I was waiting for HH to bring this up. "Stupid" questions that have no answers can't be stupid after all because that's what philosophy is all about, getting down to the nitty gritty of truth (yes I know that philosophy translate into "love of wisdom." In order to gain this wisdom, you must acquire the truth first). And so-called "cozy chat" means the debates that are a part of philosophy. Even if the same arguments are used again and again, that's just part of the process of getting at the truth.

Plus how do you know when to stop? When do we know that we have achieved the ultimate in knowledge and wisdom (besides Descarte)?

No this comes from a deluded mind that thinks philosophy is cozy chat with nonsense and babble.

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Stop asking stupid questions that has no answer.

Stop wasting time running a fool's errand in answering stupid questions, stop stooping philosophy down to cozy chat.

I was waiting for HH to bring this up. "Stupid" questions that have no answers can't be stupid after all because that's what philosophy is all about, getting down to the nitty gritty of truth (yes I know that philosophy translate into "love of wisdom." In order to gain this wisdom, you must acquire the truth first). And so-called "cozy chat" means the debates that are a part of philosophy. Even if the same arguments are used again and again, that's just part of the process of getting at the truth.

Plus how do you know when to stop? When do we know that we have achieved the ultimate in knowledge and wisdom (besides Descarte)?

No this comes from a deluded mind that thinks philosophy is cozy chat with nonsense and babble.

I think your mind is deluded and disrespectful. Plus you couldn't tell the difference between philosophy and "cozy chat with nonsense and babble" so why not go back to the company which you said lost millions of dollars (oh that's right, they didn't listen to you over there)?

PhilX

How close can one get to ones true identity. Thats the ultimate knowledge know what you is.ha

jackles wrote:How close can one get to ones true identity. Thats the ultimate knowledge know what you is.ha

It would even be tougher for those with split personalities.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I think your mind is deluded and disrespectful. Plus you couldn't tell the difference between philosophy and "cozy chat with nonsense and babble" so why not go back to the company which you said lost millions of dollars (oh that's right, they didn't listen to you over there)?

Now you are being Sharp and analytic, good! But no, I'm not deluded besides I've plenty of times explained the difference between philosophy and cozy chat, just that a retard like yourself can't comprehend it.

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I think you is deluded and disrespectful. Plus you couldn't tell the difference between philosophy and "cozy chat with nonsense and babble" so why not go back to the company which you said lost millions of dollars (oh that's right, they didn't listen to you over there)?

Now you are being Sharp and analytic, good! But no, I'm not deluded besides I've plenty of times explained the difference between philosophy and cozy chat, just that a retard like yourself can't comprehend it.

You're an idiot, pure and simple.

PhilX