Good that you're still with us Gottfried!

yes, thank god!

What knowledge do you have of Chinese epistemology?

@@Himanshu-vz5xe a significant part of Chinese philosophy comes from the Madhyamaka and Yogācāra traditions (and so inherit much of the epistemology from there). Unfortunately, I'm not well-versed in the epistemological contributions of Kongfuzi, Laozi, Mengzi, Mozi etc. but I am told by colleagues it is rather refreshing to study.

@@spitfirerulz If you don't know about Chinese philosophy and epistemology, then don't comment. Chinese "philosophy" can't be put on the same level as Indian philosophy because mysticism is not philosophy.

​@@Himanshu-vz5xe from your suspicious account name and the needless negativity, I suspect you are part of a bot-farm or have some ulterior political agenda. This is against the dharma of my teachers, I am sorry. I don't have any agenda and am very happy to spread the positivity of discussing Indian philosophy and its beauty. If there is value in philosophy from other cultures, I support that also, as dharma is universal. The Dao De Jing is one of the most beautiful works of literature I have read (and I have translated a part of from Classical Chinese into Tamil and English). The principle of "wei wu wei" of Laozi is quite akin to the Buddha's teaching of "effortless effort". I am also extensively familiar with Mozi's ethical philosophy, which has a huge relevance to current issues of what obligations we have to future generations (a part of my research involves this). The world has so much negativity in it, I would rather spend my one life trying to promote the good and prevent suffering. Good wishes to you.

My comment above was specific to epistemology. My familiarity with Chinese philosophy is limited to axiology (and a little bit of ontology), I am not as familiar with the epistemological contributions of these philosophers. However, I am familiar with the offshoots of Madhyamaka and Vijnāptimātra in Chinese Buddhism. E..g in Vietnamese Zen, the Cittamātra decomposition of mind objects derives from mediaeval Chinese philosophers and has a huge relevance to the field of Artificial Intelligence, as we seek to define what an intelligent agent is.

It’s possible that the Greeks (and Heraclitus in particular) went as far as human thought and insight can penetrate. William Hazlitt (“our Shakespeare prose writer” as Keats called him) intimates this in his brilliant essay “Why The Arts Are Not Progressive”.

From this discussion, it is obvious that all religious beliefs lack epistemological rigor, and that systems based on revelation are inherently flawed. The pursuit of truth must necessarily, always employ the scientific method, that tried and true approach that has brought us from the darkness of prehistory into the present.

@@juliusclarke110 There is no discussion here. Only comments. Your “pursuit of truth” assumes we are getting closer to the prey. Society may have refined manners, and evolved “scientifically”. But as often is said “all philosophy is but footnotes to Plato”. Also David John Barrow one of the most rigorous mathematical minds of the last generation famously said: “A universe simple enough to be understood, could not have created a mind capable of understanding it”.

@@juliusclarke110 One doesn't have to subscribe to any specific religious beliefs to be sceptical about epistemological rigour. Science hasn't come up with an explanation for consciousness, nor is there any risk that it will anytime soon, despite all the dogmatic protestations.

Well the title does give us a warning that it will be brief.

That's a hilarious bit from Feynman. Had never heard that before.

Yeah but... Ok, this implies that existence of a thing is verified if the eye sees it since it has to exist from which the light reflected it. This rests on the antecedent that existence rests on whether or not it can reflect light. Suppose there is a hypothetical thing that does not reflect light, does this mean it does not exist? Since the observer can not see it, since the light has not reflected back in his eye, the observer concludes that 'that thing' does not exist since it has not reflected light. Not every thing reflects light to show its existence. Certain germs are transparent and need certain dyes, or coatings, that make it reflect light. Otherwise they are transparent or very close to it. Suppose food is served to a man, on which there are germs. There are harmful germs on there some of which are very small (and therefore undetectable to stimulate the eye sensory organ), some which are nearly transparent and small. For this man, living in a technology deficient area, he does not have access to a well designed electron microscope and with special dyes and light technologies, to check it. Therefore, he would erroneously assume the food is safe to eat and get sick. But how could it be, the man asks, when the food looked liked it was food and nothing else on it. Turns out, there were things on it, in addition to the food, but his assumption that existence is what he perceives, what gets reflected into his sensory organ such that it is perceivable, did not hold. I suppose you can even imagine an even more interesting scenario. Imagine you are surrounded by transparent mirrors all around you. They don't have any function, they just move all around you and away. Since they are not reflecting light, the man states that the only things around him are everyday objects. But in this hypothetical world, there are ultra transparent mirrors, that move around him. Regardless of the uselessness of knowing the existence of ultra transparent mirrors or not, it still does not justify the non existence of those hypothetical mirrors.

@@winexhd9373 , I am sorry, but your language is confusing and erroneous. There is a paint created only recently, that does not reflect any light. It's the blackest black imaginable, and very easy to notice, as it contrasts even against very dark objects. A mirror that does not reflect is not a mirror. Unless it is all in total darkness. Come to think of it, perhaps what you are trying to present is total darkness. And, people in total darkness have a general "I don't know" attitude about everything that surrounds them. Unless they can touch things or hear sounds or echoes of their voice as they try to "sound" the place. Perception of reality is certainly not limited to sight. There is also sound, smell, touch, taste, plus the data that can be given by various instruments and devices. If there is none of that, the "I don't know" attitude is the safest and the most certain, though not always practical. In the example you give of poisonous invisible (and also not touchable and tasteless) jewels, the person eating them rushes to judgement that they are not there. Which is understandable, but in this theoretical situation is wrong.

The claim was "all British". Also, Hume was reintroduced as Scottish

In the intro it says "Great Ideas of Philosophy" it seems to have been a series of documentaries

@@die_schlechtere_Milch Unfortunately, Google only brings up another documentary series with exactly the same name. Was trying to find the date. The uploader didn't know or had some other reason for not including this information.

@@robertalenrichter The date is 2004.

@@Philosophy_Overdose Thank you.

and it’s beautiful and motivation like this.

😊wazoo

You just introduced your own rigmarole there 👏

It's not A.I.

In my opinion, it's not very effective quoting Bennett on KZfaq. Instead, one needs to translate what he says into conventional discourse. So, for example, one could start by asking: "How is epistemology different for a child than for an adult (?)" It's not merely that an adult has more "quantity" of experience. Instead, the adult's "qualitative" capacity is different -- in regards to sexuality, for example. In this way, you'd be making the same point as Bennett . . . but people might actually listen to you.

Good comment. A R Orage another pupil of Gurdjieff said: “A man can only think as deeply as he can feel”. Thinking divorced from feeling produces only “the expense of spirit in a waste of shame.” (As Shakespeare characterised it).

@@QED_ That IS a good point. One made most brilliantly by Michel de Montaigne when he says that wisdom is mostly a borrowed commodity. But……..there are two sides to every coin. One of the great modernist literary critics of the last century came up with the phrase “the heresy of paraphrase”, meaning that profoundly clear thoughts (expressed either in prose or poetry) have their most significant impact in a particular form, mostly in that of the form used by the inventor. I love to read the vast variety of original and insightful comments on any subject on KZfaq. (Yours for example). But I also love to read direct incisive quotes, as I can discover a new thinker and admire incisive critical thinking felicitously expressed. Here is an example. The great American poet and lawyer Wallace Stevens said: "Every image is a restatement of the subject of the image in terms of an attitude". Like body and soul the meaning and the drift are inextricably interwoven, and cannot be parted.

@@garymelnyk7910 Thanks for your added material to consider and communicate this matter, helping make it clearer. It is encouraging to hear. What do you make of the ongoing ignorance and ignoring of even the simple consideration that man knows through three centers and unless they are balanced and enriched by a fine form of distilled energy, we remain at a low level of functioning and understanding of what we are. It is a severe lack of knowledge of what has been presented by Gurdjieff and his leading pupils. I guess we are still too limited in being receptive and living in the ongoing even burning question of what is this life and man. Just to mention one, Jacob Needleman who passed on last month did what he could as a philosopher and as a man to bring this view to light. But it is almost as if it fell and still falls on ears that either think they knew what he was pointing to and didn't really form a burning question or were of those who just dismissed his talks and books as not of essential significance. It is not easy to remember that we can be here and learn to anchor "something on earth as it is in heaven" for ourselves, our family and friends and ultimately for all mankind. Thanks be.

@@fineasfrog I´m glad to hear some thoughts like yours that seek to share about spiritual-religious phenomena. While I still haven´t read into Gurdjieff, I came across references to him occasionally as I pursued my spiritual path. I would refer to a range of people depending on the issues in question, but got started in personal growth work with work from the likes of Jack Kornfield´s Buddhist psychology and as I got oriented to dealing with anti-theists, drew on my Fritjof Capra and more. Capra´s System Theory of Life lays out a powerful component of a full epistemology.

How are practical applications of the concept of knowledge effective for language use if it does not possess somewhat precise theoretical value in itself (as a concept)?

@@hakmagui9842 I didn't say it wasn't "somewhat precise," I said it wasn't precise enough to be analyzed into necessary and sufficient conditions. One way we often use the word "knowledge," for example, is to emphasize our degree of confidence in a belief, as when I say something like "I don't just believe that P, I know that P." That type of meaning is a far cry from being analyzable into a set of necessary and sufficient conditions.

@@9Ballr Just like when someone says "I dont like the person", it is seen as they are bothered by them, but it literally means "I dont have an appreciation for the person". The negation of a compliment doesnt necessarily mean an insult.

I´m grateful I got my education in empirically grounded subject matter, first biological anthropology, then eco-social international relations, along with real world experience. I found, then that epistemology hadn´t even been applied to help advance the confusion in science-religion discussions and conflicts. The need to recognize "knowledge domains" in the powerful subject matter disciplines of Western University-based culture has been a screaming necessity as I began addressing the confused range of ideological attitudes ignorant of empiricism and the need to build knowledge in discussion. Denialism, on the other hand, frequently based on scientific materialism, prevails. Epistemology, then, seems to me the term to use to represent knowledge domains in strongly concrete terms. Biology, for example, and psychology, for another. The distinctions, no less, between the physical and life sciences themselves and their subdisciplines, and in distinction from the social sciences, and in turn, the humanities, for starters.

I would suggest that avoiding death, say: protect against predators or search for food brings some hard truths and "knowledge" with it. The urge to procreate, no matter in what manifestation, provides another "knowledge"...there is natural knowledge, call it a-priori knowledge of the body and mind, which endured 100.000s of year of evolution and adjustments and became the base for epistemology. To me it is quite frustrating when so called intellectuals neglect these fundamental facts in order to appear more intellectual. To me it is more a sign of a sophisticated primitivity than of intellect, frankly speaking.

A lot of people, eg. scientists, find it necessary to wrestle with the ideas in epistemology in order to stay on track. Because the 'scientific method' is really about eliminating personal biases and skewed perceptions, taking long, hard looks at "how one really knows what one knows" is quite important.

Most people think philosophy and subcategories like epistemology are unnecessary and irrelevant to their needs. Pragmatism works for most people - until it doesn't and a more rigorous basis is necessary.

​@@GeorgeSmiley77 scientists and also footballers

And Hume a Scot...

If she said British it could’ve worked

From those authors

niztche and tarkovesky hmm I see

@@rafaelnunesduarte For a layman, I would suggest first giving a shot at Vasubandhu's "Twenty Verses on Consciousness" and "Thirty Verses on Manifestation Only", as these are the shorter works, although at the end of the day a considerable grasp on Buddhist philosophy is advised to avoid misinterpretations. The great more extensive works are Dignaga's Pramāṇa-samuccaya, Dharmakirti's Pramāṇavārttika, Ratnakirti's Pramāṇāntarbhāvaprakaraṇa, whilst Chandrakirti's Prasannapadā and Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā offer alternate and more sceptical views on epistemology, and all of these latter ones can be quite heavy and opaque reading without commentary.

@@kdot78 Yes, my friend, two great men.

@@zarathustra8789 very interesting! I've read some on Sunyata doctrine, of Nagarjuna. Very introductory, by Yongey Mingiur Rinpoche. But i could tell it need more study for a more profound understanding. Thanks for the indications! 🙏👍

Couldn't agree more. When I first encountered Getteir problems my initial thought was ‘ so what? ‘ It struck me as interesting but trivial. Then, assuming that I must be wrong, that all these hundreds of papers and references just had to be right, I pretended for year's that it wasn't trivial and it was a deep insight. Then, after a few years, I came round to my original thought: it isn't a particularly deep or profound example, it doesn't actually move anything forward other than posing a neat puzzle or thought experiment. People made entire careers out of emperors new clothes; which I can't blame them for, they finagled decades of funding for researching a dead end. But to this day I don't think Gettiers ‘insight’ deserved so much attention. To me it showed how epistemology had tied itself in knots in academic games.

Gettier showed that one can have a true justified belief and still not have knowledge if knowledge can't be lucky (e.g., guessing winning lottery numbers isn't knowledge). That doesn't seem like nothing "to what has gone before," because before, that was sufficient for knowledge... Also, a justified belief can still be false. Are you suggesting that if a belief were justified and false, it would still count as knowledge, i.e., that we can "know" falsely? How then would you characterize not knowing? And what does certainty have to do with Gettier examples? .

Nice trauma-based comment. We're all victims of the CIA's trauma-based mind control. Surely there is a lot of that going on in media. However, if what you said is taken to the logical conclusion. What would make one trauma-based comment statement more true than the other? This kind of Psychological physical reductionism just leads to psychological determinisim. Thus the destroying the possibility of knowledge and epistemology in the first place.

That is an interesting proposition. Could you furnish some more details, please?

@@martinrea8548 The authority, having access to you since your birth, will shatter your mind into pieces, creating multiple personalities, including triggers to set off specific programs, like mkultra, manchurian candidates. For instance, in my case, all the witch had to do was say "I got a gift for you" followed with a jab of the funny bone, and that gave me INSTANT flashbacks of being raped in rituals as a child, AND left me recovering memories of abuse for a couple years while authorities worked feverishly to have me framed a threat to society, tortured, and raped again in ways that made the original abuse look like fun, all under the guise of help, as if a service to society, dare any victims speak of it, most everyone will stop associating with him/her, isolation for more abuse. How you doing? So basically, you could've been raped for years and you wouldn't even know it, and there's no representation to stop the abuse, all the while, authorities human trafficking.

@@MarcassCarcass I see. Hope things go well for you.

And then you clicked on it? 🤨📸

@@korpen2858 sure, why not.

@@butkiss536 Yes, this one right here officer 😶👆 👮‍♂️

@@korpen2858 nogaf

Epsteinology--the study of pederasty among the powerful.

I quite enjoyed it. Do I understand correctly that you became uninterested because the question as to the justification of religious beliefs presents a challenge to your particular world-view? Well, welcome to epistemology, friend!

I understand your distress, but you simply cannot gain knowledge with the limiting beliefs you hold

@@kdot78 How do you know what my beliefs are? You call my "beliefs" "limited". Your judgmental attitude shows how limited you are.

@@jopowers5006 well first of all let me ask you this, why did you made that comment?

@@kdot78 I replied as I did, because the statement in the intro to the video spoke of God's existence as a fact. Believing in something does make the object of that belief a fact. It's the belief that's a fact.

God is not real is not a fact either