Resurrection and Ascension

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psychotheosophy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spockrates said:
At the moment I’m thinking that it is more accurate to say that belief is a category of knowledge. Not all knowledge is belief, but all belief is knowledge.
Click to expand...
All men are naturally drawn to Perfect Happiness,
Believing in Perfect Happiness,
Can exist without
Knowing Perfect Happiness
Therefore, belief is not a category of knowledge.
Here, belief guides knowledge,
Not the reverse.
 
Psychotheosophy said:
All men are naturally drawn to Perfect Happiness,
Believing in Perfect Happiness,
Can exist without
Knowing Perfect Happiness
Therefore, belief is not a category of knowledge.
Here, belief guides knowledge,
Not the reverse.
Click to expand...
What you say reminds me of something Socrates said:

If a man had all that sort of knowledge that ever was, he would not be at all the wiser; he would only be able to play with men, tripping them up and oversetting them with distinctions of words.

(Euthydemus)

For you (I’m sure unaware) are tripping me up with distinctions of the word knowledge. Therefore, in the interest of removing the tripwires that so easily entangle us in conversations like these, we should seek to know what it means to know. You know? If you are willing, I’ll propose some distinctions I know of the word know, and you may reply with any necessary suggestions for corrections you know. OK, let’s go!

To know = def.


  1. *]Having an idea of something (real or imagined), but not possessing nor experiencing that something, or
    *]Having an idea of something real, and possessing that something, or
    *]Having an idea of something real, and experiencing that something

    This is just a careless start, of course, as I quickly hack myself free from the most obvious entanglements in our path to the truth. My thought is this: When you speak of knowing in the quoted text, you are speaking of (3), which is a narrower sense of the word than (1). When you were speaking of believing, you were speaking of knowing in the sense of (1). Of course, (1) is not (3), however (1) IS knowledge. So to believe in the sense of (1) is indeed to know in the sense of (1). Know what I mean? (And if so, in what way do you know?)

    😃
 
spockrates said:
For you (I’m sure unaware) are tripping me up with distinctions of the word knowledge. Therefore, in the interest of removing the tripwires that so easily entangle us in conversations like these, we should seek to know what it means to know. You know? If you are willing, I’ll propose some distinctions I know of the word know, and you may reply with any necessary suggestions for corrections you know. OK, let’s go!

To know = def.


  1. *]Having an idea of something (real or imagined), but not possessing nor experiencing that something, or
    *]Having an idea of something real, and possessing that something, or
    *]Having an idea of something real, and experiencing that something
Click to expand...

  1. So,
    The one unchanging definition of knowledge,
    (Without distinction)
    Is this:

    “Knowledge = Having an idea of something”

    So,
    Knowing Perfect Happiness = Having Perfect Happiness
    spockrates said:
    This is just a careless start, of course, as I quickly hack myself free from the most obvious entanglements in our path to the truth. My thought is this: When you speak of knowing in the quoted text, you are speaking of (3), which is a narrower sense of the word than (1). When you were speaking of believing, you were speaking of knowing in the sense of (1). Of course, (1) is not (3), however (1) IS knowledge. So to believe in the sense of (1) is indeed to know in the sense of (1). Know what I mean? (And if so, in what way do you know?)
    Click to expand...
    Therefore,
    Given the word “knowledge,”
    (Without distinction),
    (1) does not equal knowledge.
 
Psychotheosophy said:
So,
The one unchanging definition of knowledge,
(Without distinction)
Is this:

“Knowledge = Having an idea of something”

So,
Knowing Perfect Happiness = Having Perfect Happiness
Click to expand...
Yes, I suppose knowing does equate to having, at least in the case of the Saint seeing Jesus face to face.

👍
Psychotheosophy said:
Therefore,
Given the word “knowledge,”
(Without distinction),
(1) does not equal knowledge.
Click to expand...
True. Apples are not the same as oranges, but both are fruit!

😛
 
Psycho:

There is a difference between knowing of something, experiencing something, you see. For example, before I traveled to Italy, I knew of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, but I had never personally experienced that of which I knew. After traveling to Pisa, and touching the tower, I can now say I not only know of the tower, but I also know the experience of touching the same. Had the tower not been under restoration at the time, I might have also knowing the experience of climbing the steps within it and seeing the city of Pisa from the top of the tower. Knowing of is not the same thing as knowing an experience; both are kinds–or perhaps degrees–of knowing, but not the same kind of knowing. Don’t you agree?
 
spockrates said:
Apples are not the same as oranges, but both are fruit!
Click to expand...
Indeed, they are.
spockrates said:
Psycho:

There is a difference between knowing of something, experiencing something, you see. For example, before I traveled to Italy, I knew of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, but I had never personally experienced that of which I knew. After traveling to Pisa, and touching the tower, I can now say I not only know of the tower, but I also know the experience of touching the same. Had the tower not been under restoration at the time, I might have also knowing the experience of climbing the steps within it and seeing the city of Pisa from the top of the tower. Knowing of is not the same thing as knowing an experience; both are kinds–or perhaps degrees–of knowing, but not the same kind of knowing. Don’t you agree?
Click to expand...
Do you first agree with this?
Psychotheosophy said:
Also,
Since man is changeable,
Man can have Perfect Happiness (God),
But never know Perfect Happiness as God can.
Click to expand...
 
Psychotheosophy said:
Indeed, they are.

Do you first agree with this?
Originally Posted by Psychotheosophy
Also,
Since man is changeable,
Man can have Perfect Happiness (God),
But never know Perfect Happiness as God can.
Click to expand...
The statement is too ambiguous for me to know how to answer. To make it clearer than mud, please answer me this: By use of the word know, do you or the author you cited mean to experience? or do you or the author have a difference sense of the word in mind?

🤷
Click to expand...
 
spockrates said:
The statement is too ambiguous for me to know how to answer. To make it clearer than mud, please answer me this: By use of the word know, do you or the author you cited mean to experience? or do you or the author have a difference sense of the word in mind?

🤷
Click to expand...
It sounds like, for you, knowing,
(Happiness and unhappiness),
Is of more Value than,
Happiness itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top