Objective vs Subjective Knowledge, and is Perfect Knowledge obtainable?

[lemondiesel]

What is objective knowledge and subjective knowledge? Can Perfect Knowledge ever be obtained?

In the end of my response, I will tie everything back together.

I argue that the only absolute truth is “I am,” or as Descartes would say, “I think, therefore I am.” My belief is that this is the only absolute truth that can ever truly be known, and all other truths are simply based on interpretation. The best way to obtain these truths, is the use of language. This means that truth is whatever method of explanation, in some form of language, best describes the observed phenomenon in nature. Now, without a mind, we can argue that this phenomenen simply is, and would still happen if there was no mind present. Perhaps the saying, “does a bear **** in the woods,” sound familiar? This simply means that everything in nature still exist and continues there normal function, but there is no interpreter to explain the event.

We must discuss the two types of knowledge; objective and subjective knowledge. Objective knowledge is what happens in nature without the interpreter. It simply is, but this is not considered knowledge quite yet. This is just existence, and the atoms that make up the event are just existing. When we finally get an interpreter, or a mind that has a language, we have the ability to have knowledge. The interpreter can use whatever means necessary to explain this event, but they can not fully explain it without words. Here is a scenario of what I am implying. Imagine a caveman, who lacks any sort of language, but he can create cave paintings. He is walking along, and comes to the top of the hill and catches a glimpse of a sunset. He stands and stares, and does not even know how to react. His body has a tingling, something he has never experienced before. When he returns to his cave, he begins to draw what he saw. He collects certain things of similar colors that he saw, mashes the different ingredients, and begins to paint. Once he is done, he looks at it, and remembers how he felt when he saw this. Now, his mate (who has never seen a sunset) comes over and looks at this random creation on the wall. She may look at it, but she has no clue what it is, and has no idea why it is drawn up there. Her ‘husband’ can not explain this to her without any words; he can’t explain how it made him feel. The sunset represents objective knowledge, because it just happens. Now the caveman can bring her to the same spot he saw the sunset, but until he forms a language that will truly express the sunset, there will be no meaning to the sunset. This meaning is the subjective knowledge. If we fast forward to present time, there is still the object knowledge of the sunset, but we can provide the subjective knowledge. Subjective knowledge are the many ‘truths’ I talked about, and they are based on the interpreter.

“We cannot know that all humans are mortal, only that all humans have been observed to die.” Yet, humans will continue to be observed to die, unless proven otherwise. Kant definitely agrees with me with this quote, which sums up the past few paragraphs, “the cause and effect relationship would still exist, even without the coherent experience.” The cause and effect relationship without the coherent experience is a result of scientific laws, which the coherent experiences developed. There are two ways to come up with scientific laws, which is between noumena or phenomena epistemology. Noumena is something that simply is, and not how it is known through our senses (or a coherent experience). Phenomena is what we obtain through our senses, rather than by reason. So when we provide this information, we can conclude that Noumena is objective knowledge while Phenomena is subjective knowledge and entirely based on the coherent interpreter. We can now conlude that to obtain perfect knowledge, one must observe the objective knowledge and must provide a subjective meaning that best describes the observed phenomena, if there is not one already present.

 

[Katholish]

Descartes and Kant are wrong on most things. They both throw out a pre-existing correct epistemology and try to create their own systems founded upon erroreous principles.

The senses are fundamentally realible all things which exist have somekind of nature or form which makes them be the kind of thing that they are. Through the senses, man is capable of abstracting some of these forms were are based in objective reality, and he comes to a knowledge of universal truths.

Both Descartes and Kant attack the fundamental reliability of the senses which is the beginning of their error.

If you want a correct epistemology, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas would be better sources.

 

[Scoobyshme]

A nice study of Epistemology would be helpful for you, I think. That is the study of how we “know” things.

You might enjoy a good talk by Dr. Peter Kreeft, who teaches Philosophy at Boston College on the Existence of God:

alabamacatholicresources.com/Downloads/peter-kreeft_arguments-for-god.mp3

He has other good talks here:

alabamacatholicresources.com/dr_peter_kreeft.html

 

[lemondiesel]

Descartes and Kant are wrong on most things. They both throw out a pre-existing correct epistemology and try to create their own systems founded upon erroreous principles.

You are assuming that there is pre-existing correct epistemology. Everything simply is, and we are the ones that allow this ‘correct’ epistemology to take place.

The senses are fundamentally realible all things which exist have somekind of nature or form which makes them be the kind of thing that they are. Through the senses, man is capable of abstracting some of these forms were are based in objective reality, and he comes to a knowledge of universal truths.

All things which exist have not always existed in there nature or form, because evolution is constantly influencing these forms. It is only when a coherent mind is present to observe the present form that allows them to be the thing that they are. Universal truth is Existence, that is objective reality. Man creates interpretations, which explain reality, but I will admit, there can always be a better interpretation.

Both Descartes and Kant attack the fundamental reliability of the senses which is the beginning of their error.

These are the assumptions I got from them, #2 being significant to your post.

1. The universe as it appears to us is subject to the mechanism by which we interpret sense data. Therefore, non-conscious matter created consciousness.
2. The mechanism by which we interpret sense data are biological, and thus quantifiable. It is inevitable that life will create the right conditions. Therefore, biological evolution is inevitable.
3. Anything that is quantifiable has limits. Therefore, the physical universe is quantifiable. Perhaps the universe all matter bound to a singular gravitation pull in our universe. Picture a bubble in an infinite ocean.
4. Those limits are inherent in any information that is received through the senses. Therefore, evolution of senses is inevitable.
   1. The universe as it appears to us is subject to the mechanism by which we interpret sense data. Therefore, non-conscious matter created consciousness.
   2. The mechanism by which we interpret sense data are biological, and thus quantifiable. It is inevitable that life will create the right conditions. Therefore, biological evolution is inevitable.
   3. Anything that is quantifiable has limits. Therefore, the physical universe is quantifiable. Perhaps the universe all matter bound to a singular gravitation pull in our universe. Picture a bubble in an infinite ocean.
   4. Those limits are inherent in any information that is received through the senses. Therefore, evolution of senses is inevitable.

If you want a correct epistemology, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas would be better sources.

I actually study the political ideas of those two, but epistemology is not more course of study in college

 

[The_Exodus]

I argue that the only absolute truth is “I am,” or as Descartes would say, “I think, therefore I am.” My belief is that this is the only absolute truth that can ever truly be known, and all other truths are simply based on interpretation.

Starting from the Cogito results in universal skepticism. How do you know “I think”? As the modern and post-modern thinkers saw, where does the law of contradiction come from, if one starts from I think? How does one distinguish the self from the real?

The deepest epistemology comes from the scholastics, in my opinion. The law of contradiction is gained from knowing intelligible being, without any illative reasoning process. It is known intuitively, when the mind grasps the existence of objects. After this happens, upon reflecting back on its own act, it then realizes it exists, over and against the objects it is sensing. Since it already understands the law of identity/contradiction, it can readily see that it is different from the objects of thought.

“We cannot know that all humans are mortal, only that all humans have been observed to die.” Yet, humans will continue to be observed to die, unless proven otherwise. Kant definitely agrees with me with this quote, which sums up the past few paragraphs, “the cause and effect relationship would still exist, even without the coherent experience.” The cause and effect relationship without the coherent experience is a result of scientific laws, which the coherent experiences developed. There are two ways to come up with scientific laws, which is between noumena or phenomena epistemology. Noumena is something that simply is, and not how it is known through our senses (or a coherent experience). Phenomena is what we obtain through our senses, rather than by reason. So when we provide this information, we can conclude that Noumena is objective knowledge while Phenomena is subjective knowledge and entirely based on the coherent interpreter. We can now conlude that to obtain perfect knowledge, one must observe the objective knowledge and must provide a subjective meaning that best describes the observed phenomena, if there is not one already present.

This isn’t clear to me. Are you putting forth the Kantian distinction between the world “as it is” and the world “as it is sensed” as being necessarily different?

 

[The_Exodus]

You are assuming that there is pre-existing correct epistemology.

As are you, else your critique is meaningless.
lemon:

All things which exist have not always existed in there nature or form, because evolution is constantly influencing these forms. It is only when a coherent mind is present to observe the present form that allows them to be the thing that they are.

If you really mean that it is the mind alone which “allows” objects to be the things they are, then your first sentence is meaningless, since “all things” must be refering to unknowable, unstable phenomena. If an object is never stable or a certain being, how can it change or evolve into anything else? What sort of existence can it even have? How can it even be an “it”?
lemon:

1. The universe as it appears to us is subject to the mechanism by which we interpret sense data. Therefore, non-conscious matter created consciousness.

How does this therefore follow?
lemon:

1. The mechanism by which we interpret sense data are biological, and thus quantifiable. It is inevitable that life will create the right conditions. Therefore, biological evolution is inevitable.

The middle term and consequent do not follow of necessity. It is an assumption that life will “inevitably” create such and such.
lemon:

1. Anything that is quantifiable has limits. Therefore, the physical universe is quantifiable.

Kant thought quantity was an imposed apriori category, btw. So he would reject the therefore.
lemon:

1. Those limits are inherent in any information that is received through the senses. Therefore, evolution of senses is inevitable.

Again, not sure how the consequent follows.

 

[Katholish]

You are assuming that there is pre-existing correct epistemology. Everything simply is, and we are the ones that allow this ‘correct’ epistemology to take place.

Like many intellectually rigorous Catholics, I am a Thomist 100% when it comes to epistemology. Your second sentence there doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps you could explain.

All things which exist have not always existed in there nature or form, because evolution is constantly influencing these forms. It is only when a coherent mind is present to observe the present form that allows them to be the thing that they are. Universal truth is Existence, that is objective reality. Man creates interpretations, which explain reality, but I will admit, there can always be a better interpretation.

If you deny the stability of forms, you deny our very ability to having any knowledge whatsoever. In such a situation, you have to limit knowledge merely to memory (which isn’t actually knowledge at all.)

An actually existing thing as always had the exact same form that it has now. If we accept evolution amongst species, then we are simply saying that things of one sort produced things of another sort (i.e. parents and child have different nature). The idea that a conscious observer is needed to give form to a thing or else it doesn’t have a form is absurd.

These are the assumptions I got from them, #2 being significant to your post.

1. The universe as it appears to us is subject to the mechanism by which we interpret sense data. Therefore, non-conscious matter created consciousness.

1. The mechanism by which we interpret sense data are biological, and thus quantifiable. It is inevitable that life will create the right conditions. Therefore, biological evolution is inevitable.

1. Anything that is quantifiable has limits. Therefore, the physical universe is quantifiable. Perhaps the universe all matter bound to a singular gravitation pull in our universe. Picture a bubble in an infinite ocean.

1. Those limits are inherent in any information that is received through the senses. Therefore, evolution of senses is inevitable.

1. Matter certainly does not create consciousness, but it can be argued that it is necessary for its operation in men. The first sentence needs to be broken down. Those terms can mean so many different things it isn’t funny.
2. This is absolutely untrue. It can be proven from the nature of knowledge that the intellect must have an immaterial component, for knowledge itself is immaterial because it is universal. (If you deny it is universal, then we simply cannot know anything and I am wasting my time.)
3. ? relevance?
4. We have diverged some much by this point that there is no need to address this.

I actually study the political ideas of those two, but epistemology is not more course of study in college

Well, epistemology was part of my course of studies and if you want to talk to a Catholic about knowledge, Aristotle and Thomas are the very basic reading materials. (St. Augustine is pretty good on the topic as well)