Can we ever have "true" knowledge?

Well, i know i exist. i just looked in the mirror and discovered that i need a shave.

I assume that you exist, because you asked this question and i am answering it.

Sounds pretty simple to me.

Now try some Kant.

@Jeruba: Kant is okay as well. I’ve read plenty of Kant. Kant doesn’t theorize on existence nearly so much, though. He’s much more concerned with right and wrong actions.

You should read Pirsig’s “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”
great read!

Then go for Heidegger. We must allow the thing-in-itself to disclose its own being as it is in itself, and not only in the manner that we perceive it to be. Heidegger doesn’t buy into the whole “true and justified belief” vocabulary – but regardless of the language we use to conceive of the problem, pursuit of the unfolding of the thing as it is in itself would be the way to “true” knowledge of the epistemological world, ne?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: So I’ve heard. Never did get around to it, but my father (who is far from well-read) informed me that it was an excellent book last year. I was somewhat surprised. And now that you’ve brought it up too, I’ll definitely have to look into it.

@Jerikao absolutely, it is an interesting take on some basic philosophical concepts – then read the sequel “Lila”

To me to deny the actual existance of others would be to deny I exist because, then how would I exist. So for me thats all the truth I need.

further proof that studying philosophy will fuck you up.

personally, I advocate the insights of the great layman-philosopher ninjacolin. He’s not as well known as the others, but i’ve found a certain amount of truth to his conclusions. One of his assertions is that he is the only thing that could be considered to be “in existence.” that is, he pretty much is god.

it’s been observed, by ninjacolin of course, that nothing really existed before he was born, neither language, nor emotion, nor politics or historical figures or anything.. not even his parents. That is, not until he himself became aware of them. That is to say, that his “awareness” dictates existence itself.

he is literally the creator of everything, including you and this conversation. none of these things existed before he became aware of them and when he dies, they will once again cease to exist.

you and i and everyone else that ninjacolin has become aware of (ie. “created”) is themselves a part of ninjacolin. and hence, everything he has created can only be considered to be a part of himself, that is, they are also, inescapably, god himself posessing all the power and ability that ninjacolin becomes aware of. (ie. “creates for them”)

When it comes to proving anything beyond a shadow of doubt, even followers of Kant can’t. Personally, I think I’m dreaming and all of you are in it.

@Austinlad: Déscartes before the horse, I say.

*gailcalled *, you are a punster after my own heart.

I, personally, have had a lot of trouble explaining the existence of anything but myself

How did you do so? By following Descartes?

And no, we can never have true knowledge. Humans have our limitations. And even if we did find out everything there is to know about our human experience, we’ll still have to look at the world from the viewpoint of other beings (eg animals, plants etc.)

^ The only objective truth is that “truth” is subjective.

The problem is there are too many false truths.

Epistemologically, what is justifiable is ultimately defined by what assumptions you make. That is to say that beyond ”cogito ergo sum”, nothing can really be justified.

Unless you are willing to accept that you are Descartes’ res cogitans and nothing else can provably exist, you simply must make some assumptions.

Rationalists like Kant would argue that the reality of the external world can be derived from a priori premisses. A pragmatic empiricist like Hume or Locke would suggest that the uniformity of sense-data provides some kind of justification for assuming the reality of the external.

Wittgenstein, on the other hand, would tell us all it’s not really a problem (since it has no answer) and that we should all just go to bed, or work on a problem which we can solve.

@ninjacolin
But when the ox is subdued rode back down the mountain and put to rest there is absolute zero which is the only thing that is real.

@Saturated_Brain: Mmm. No. Actually, I started thinking on my own long before I started reading these philosophers. I was delighted to see a few that sounded like they held similar beliefs. Descartes’ arguments, unfortunately, eventually all fall apart and come down to him blaming God for the existence of all things. Berkeley was another interesting one, because I had talked to my friends many-a-time regarding the idea of reality based on perception.

That aside, I like your paragraph. It actually made me think back to reading about “forms” from Plato. Honestly, I think that’s a funny concept. First of all… What IS a human being? What’s a plant? And an animal…? That last one seems even more vague.

@the100thmonkey: I had not heard of Wittgenstein previously. But I’ve pulled Ludwig up on Wiki now… And I think I may peruse him a little. Late 1800s to mid 1900s. That will probably be interesting.

And while I do agree that there can be no solid answer, without assumptions (even if they are reasonable assumptions… [they’d still be assumptions…])... I differ on whether we ought to have interest in the question. It’s not so much that I think we ought to be consumed by it… Spend every waking moment trying to solve this incalculable problem… But I think it’s important that we should acknowledge the question. At least recognize that it’s there and that no… We CAN’T answer it.

Can’t? I just did, weren’t you paying attention?

@SeventhSense hmm.. i don’t believe in absolute zero because i haven’t experineced it yet. it exists as a concept i imagine exists but which doesn’t entirely make sense to me. It’s a lot like the keypad you type on. I’ve never seen it, yet I feel certain it must exist.

@ninjacolin: Yes, but you’ve also never experienced combining 1,000 things with 1,000 other things. Yet you will most likely agree that 1,000 + 1,000 = 2,000. This is where the rationalists feel good and happy. Knowledge based mostly on inference.

@eponymoushipster Love your answer. ditto. LOL

In science, no. All knowledge is tentative. Waiting to be refuted. So we can only talk about the best currently available hypothesis or theory. For example general relativity. Or the giant impact hypothesis (creation of the moon).

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.

@Owl, but how do we know that’s true?

The wise Owl knows.

If we imagine the universe is stranger than we can imagine…
then the universe is something we imagine.

If you use the term “true” knowledge then there must be a flase knowledge – what would that be?

@candide: Something similar to a true fact, I think.