Is such a thing possible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
The primitive didn’t have the knowledge we currently have therefore we gradually created the concepts and give them to our offspring when we were mentally strong enough to first create concepts and then imagine the solution for the problem and also able to communicate it with others through language.
Click to expand...
Why are concepts the same as knowledge?
 
Richca said:
True knowledge is not created, it is discovered. We have knowledge of lions not because we create them but because lions actually exist outside our minds extramentally. The same goes for our knowledge of the entire external world about us which exists extramentally and by which we have knowledge of it. It is a gross error of some modern philosophical systems or theories of knowledge which disassociate ideas in the intellect concerning external reality from external reality itself from which those ideas have their origin.
Click to expand...
Well stated Richca.

I think the fake “a posteriori” / “a priori” “debate” is nonsense.

We all know far more than we are alleged to know.

We don’t need to “prove” anything. Humans think in infinitesimals and approximations. Instead of absolute, “near enough absolute to be getting on with” is what it’s really about. Or, “probable”. Or, “probably probable”.

We use hypotheses and postulates by the lorry load every day, with skipfuls of testimony and communal lore thrown in. Sophists who fancy themselves deny all of this.

Since humans were human, no-one was too primitive to be just as much into all of this as we are today. In a few specialised branches, detailed knowledge has advanced.
 
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
Well stated Richca.

I think the fake “a posteriori” / “a priori” “debate” is nonsense.

We all know far more than we are alleged to know.

We don’t need to “prove” anything. Humans think in infinitesimals and approximations. Instead of absolute, “near enough absolute to be getting on with” is what it’s really about. Or, “probable”. Or, “probably probable”.

We use hypotheses and postulates by the lorry load every day, with skipfuls of testimony and communal lore thrown in. Sophists who fancy themselves deny all of this.

Since humans were human, no-one was too primitive to be just as much into all of this as we are today. In a few specialised branches, detailed knowledge has advanced.
Click to expand...
The whole branch of mathematics deals with a priori knowledge. How could you deny that?
 
STT said:
For instance, if I have two apples now, and I plan to add three apples, I will have five apples.
Click to expand...
Not true. If you have 2 apples and plan to add 3 does not make 5 apples.

My daughter plans to add an addition to her house, her plan to add that add does not mean she has one.

If you have 3 apples and now you add 2 yes there is 5.
 
Ad_Orientem said:
I think STT means a priori knowledge (i.e. from reason) as opposed to a posteriori knowledge (from experience). It is an interesting question. Do we need a framework of experience in order to reason?

According to Aristotle, nothing is in the mind without first being in the senses. This is a sound principle. Theoretically, however, a brain could be “programmed” with what theologians call “infused” knowledge. That is what we think Adam had (the preternatural gift of science), in addition to the knowledge he gained from experience. Christ, too, is said to have had infused knowledge in addition to the knowledge resulting from the Hypostatic Union, and that of experience.
Click to expand...
I agree with Aristotle. A person born blind has no thoughts involving imagery. Their spatial sense tends to come from sounds and touch. I could not imagine how reality would be for a person born without any sense of sight, hearing, and touch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top