If a professor made you write a paper regarding "what can I know" where would YOU go with it?
Philosphy: "What can I know"
- Thread starter neversummersnow
- Start date
I say what can't you know.
You think about that and get back to me.
You think about that and get back to me.
cogito
COGITO
COGITO
I'm over philosophy. I am over everything except riding my bike and chilling with the GF. Oh yeah, and surfing is pretty sweet too. And beer.
bikes, boards, beer, and girls.
COGITO
COGITO
I'm over philosophy. I am over everything except riding my bike and chilling with the GF. Oh yeah, and surfing is pretty sweet too. And beer.
bikes, boards, beer, and girls.
my suggestion....
pas·tiche ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-stsh, pä-)
n.
A dramatic, literary, or musical piece openly imitating the previous works of other artists, often with satirical intent.
pas·tiche ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-stsh, pä-)
n.
A dramatic, literary, or musical piece openly imitating the previous works of other artists, often with satirical intent.
okay well i used descartes and his discourse on methoud arriving at the whole "I think therefor I am" thing
I also defined how we go about aquiring knowledge using a quasi Leibnez hybrid phil. ideal.
But I still havent answered the question. Beyond I think therefor I am, what can we know? I'm off on some truth vs Truth tangent now, trying to say that the building blocks in which we build truths with are bits of absolute knowledge, even though I don't know what those building blocks are...#*!*...40 percent of my grade, I work in 1.5 hours and its due in 19 hours.
I also defined how we go about aquiring knowledge using a quasi Leibnez hybrid phil. ideal.
But I still havent answered the question. Beyond I think therefor I am, what can we know? I'm off on some truth vs Truth tangent now, trying to say that the building blocks in which we build truths with are bits of absolute knowledge, even though I don't know what those building blocks are...#*!*...40 percent of my grade, I work in 1.5 hours and its due in 19 hours.
You can only know what the Goverment morality will allow you to know.
Example 1 ) You can't know that Isreal stole the Sinai Penninsula and the Golan hieghts in a war they started by bombing their own front lines. You can't know this because even though it is the truth it WILL NOT be printed in any history books , because the goverment has decided you should not know this.
Example 2 ) How to make any one of products found in the "Anarcist Cookbook" . The goverment which claims not to endorse censorship, has banned the printing or sale of this knowledge. In fact if it were online it would be eradicated by the goverment.
Example 3 ) Go find the books to build a nuclear reactor. They exist most certainly but those whose get to possess the knowledge is decided by someone else.
These are just 3 examples of limits to knowledge or the ability to obtain knowledge by our goverment. Other goverments limit knowledge even further. It has always been the best way to control people. The churches do it( only the priests can interpet the word of God). Our goverment does it with censorship and control of the media we do recieve.
Example 1 ) You can't know that Isreal stole the Sinai Penninsula and the Golan hieghts in a war they started by bombing their own front lines. You can't know this because even though it is the truth it WILL NOT be printed in any history books , because the goverment has decided you should not know this.
Example 2 ) How to make any one of products found in the "Anarcist Cookbook" . The goverment which claims not to endorse censorship, has banned the printing or sale of this knowledge. In fact if it were online it would be eradicated by the goverment.
Example 3 ) Go find the books to build a nuclear reactor. They exist most certainly but those whose get to possess the knowledge is decided by someone else.
These are just 3 examples of limits to knowledge or the ability to obtain knowledge by our goverment. Other goverments limit knowledge even further. It has always been the best way to control people. The churches do it( only the priests can interpet the word of God). Our goverment does it with censorship and control of the media we do recieve.
Is this for intro to philosphy Jeff? Who's your professor?
i would build it on the whole Fight Club thing and how if you are two different personalities one knowing things the other does not know. Or how if you know it and dont know that you know it. also you could reference to how we have a tendency to lose unused information so you cant truly ever know everything.
HAHA I was thinking along those lines too. I call it the Einstein factor. The guy is refineing the realtvity therory and making the the A-bomb , but can't remember where he lives ? Weird brain wiring , did he have a bad bike crash ?biggins said:
The question is "what can I know ?" Sure you know that the Goverment will allow you to get the plans for a reactor ? What library are they in ? I think not . Why do you think that the Russian reactors are so different than the US reactors ? I'll tell you, it is because they developed them without using the knowledge that the USA kept protected and limited to those with the need. You have no arguement Mack. Knowledge is power and, the Power controls the knowlege you shall have.mack said:umm, stop trying to spin politics into the lounge. And last time i checked there wasnt any shortage of people who know how to build bombs or reactors, there just 'kinda" expensive.and the materials can be hard to find.
Censorship exists it is a fact. Your narrow mindness makes me worry that the mass-brainwashing is working.
This whole nuclear reactor thing is beyond stupid. For one thing, I doubt the plans are all assembled in a tidy little notebook; I would assume that nuclear reactors were built based on hundreds, even thousands, of pages of writings and experiments by scientists. Also, do you really think that making them publicly available would even make sense? No private party could build a reactor, and if I were in the government, I would be at least a bit suspicious of anyone who wanted to.Softy said:
They didn't share the plans with the Soviets because...DUH...they didn't want to give their enemy an advantage!
And as for your remark about churches (that only priests can interpret the word of God), I hate to bring this up, but I'm afraid you are simply wrong. Yes, that has been true in the past, namely within the Renaissance and earlier Catholic Church, and it still occurs in some denominations, but almost every Christian will tell you that anyone can interpret the Bible (it is not a right reserved only for priests), and that if you disagree with your church's pastor, you are free to go to another church.
Does anyone else see something wrong with this?Softy said:
Well you want to argue, but agree with me on both counts.Tully said:
Whats wrong is it is true. Whats wrong is that new history books won't be printed with this knowledge. Nor will add an admendment to old books.It was publicly released information and Isreal acknowledged it as true. Yet you and the rest of the blind world will continue to believe what was printed in 1974 to make a it nice clean justified war and land grab.BurlyShirley said:Does anyone else see something wrong with this?
As long as false history is taught and swallowed by the gullible public I will &itch. A simple sheet of paper taped to the appropriate page of the history books to make them authentic history is all it would take.
Remember that history is only written by the Victors. Just because one side is victorious doesn't make thier version of history the right one.
I think you missed the point.Softy said:
All you guys have completely missed the point, this paper is supposed to be an epistomolgical disscussion. That means essentially, "how do we know what we know?" Most of the arguements in this area deal with the nature of reality and perception. Censorship has nothing to do with it. Jeff, I would help you but I hate this topic and have completely bs-ed everything Ive had to write about it. My main feeling on the subject is that it doesnt matter, even if our existance was an illusion or a fabrication it still would not effect how we interact and function.
derrr. nobody gives a **** obviously. Softy has his little agenda and Im sure understands. Nobody gives a crap how smart you think you are. I think you missed that though.TheInedibleHulk said:
Somebody's testy tonight
Online at 157...nice...still not done yet.
Nothing pisses me off like people who misquote me in an attempt to build their already-fallacious argument.Softy said:
First of all, I do share your point of view about the nuclear reactor (although my reasons differ slightly). But, although I worded it rather poorly, I meant that the example of a nuclear reactor is too ridiculous even to bother discussing.
Most of all, the wording in your example about the church says that the church currently allows only the priests to interpret scripture. I said that although that happened in the past, and even a tiny bit today, it is pretty uncommon nowadays, and the vast majority would tell you otherwise. To put it simply, I disagree almost completely in the context of the world today; that is what I said.
So, ya get it done?neversummersnow said:
My answer? Hell, I can't answer your question, but I can tell you what I already know... nothing. Whatever, I hated philosophy and praised the day that I filled that GE requirement. Booyah.
Oh yeah...this post got thread got kinda sidetracked, but how is your paper?
it turned out pretty crappy, but it'll get me my B...
Just finished another all nighter...fun
Just finished another all nighter...fun
I'd probably start with something that's introductory to how odds are against our reality being what we perceive.neversummersnow said:
That would be for a Political Thought class.Softy said: