|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 15, 2021 12:38:35 GMT
The views that belief precedes knowledge and belief can be comprehended are self-inconsistent. Indeed, either we don't know anything about belief, or we know about it something.
It's not counterintuitive that belief has different way to be accepted, because at least its nature doesn't seem to be formal. The last one must be obvious taking into account that any formal definition of it is leading to vicious circles.
Thoughtful essence of belief is that it has not to be just accepted in a formal definition. In turn, it's been already accepted by us if equipping with some suggestions we're following them.
So, in this sense we don't need to prove which one suggestion do we need to choose. If this means precedes knowledge, then there must also be added to this (=there must be noted) that we know what belief is, but we don't require anything else to be sure in it.
In this way, the mentioning views might have been reformulated to belief precedes some knowledge and belief can be comprehended. And what would we got: another contradiction – "some knowledge" means that we know just a part of what we've already know (!).
Thereby, now it's clear: belief doesn't precede knowledge.
P.S. Plenty of thanks to Joustos for support!!
- Answering to the question what kind of belief it is: no, this type of belief isn't necessary religions one. I don't want to view it as religious, well it might bring some burdens.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 15, 2021 16:54:23 GMT
The views that believe precedes knowledge and believe can be comprehended are self-inconsistent. Indeed, either we don't know anything about believe, or we know about it something. It's not counterintuitive that believe has different way to be accepted, because at least its nature doesn't seem to be formal. The last one must be obvious taking into account that any formal definition of it is leading to vicious circles. Thoughtful essence of believe is that it has not to be just accepted in a formal definition. In turn, it's been already accepted by us if equipping with some suggestions we're following them. So, in this sense we don't need to prove which one suggestion do we need to choose. If this means precedes knowledge, then there must also be added to this (=there must be noted) that we know what believe is, but we don't require anything else to be sure in it. In this way, the mentioning views might have been reformulated to believe precedes some knowledge and believe can be comprehended. And what would we got: another contradiction – "some knowledge" means that we know just a part of what we've already know (!). Thereby, now it's clear: believe doesn't precede knowledge.1. All knowledge begins with an assertion. 2. This knowledge is justified through further assertions. 3. The beginning assertion is accepted "as is" prior to it being justified by further assertions. 4. Thus the beginning assertion is believed and all knowledge as built upon this assertion is believed considering the connection of assertions is assumed because it is accepted "as is". 5. Knowledge is justified belief.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jan 15, 2021 18:03:45 GMT
The views that believe precedes knowledge and believe can be comprehended are self-inconsistent. Indeed, either we don't know anything about believe, or we know about it something. It's not counterintuitive that believe has different way to be accepted, because at least its nature doesn't seem to be formal. The last one must be obvious taking into account that any formal definition of it is leading to vicious circles. Thoughtful essence of believe is that it has not to be just accepted in a formal definition. In turn, it's been already accepted by us if equipping with some suggestions we're following them. So, in this sense we don't need to prove which one suggestion do we need to choose. If this means precedes knowledge, then there must also be added to this (=there must be noted) that we know what believe is, but we don't require anything else to be sure in it. In this way, the mentioning views might have been reformulated to believe precedes some knowledge and believe can be comprehended. And what would we got: another contradiction – "some knowledge" means that we know just a part of what we've already know (!). Thereby, now it's clear: believe doesn't precede knowledge.Eugene, you may not realize this, but the combination of your usage of the English language plus 9x's personal syntax of language (speaking) is like a bomb for me and possibly for some other readers, too. To begin with, I think the thread should be titled, "On Belief Preceding Knowledge", and then for God's sake, can you give an example or a clue as to what kind of Belief [or Opinion] you are talking about? A religious/theistic belief?? A commonplace perception-based belief such as the belief that the sun goes around the earth?? Finally, What is the point of finding out whether there is a belief/opinion before attaining true knowledge?? // Is either of you proposing that a belief is or is not partially based on some truth??
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 15, 2021 19:57:47 GMT
The views that believe precedes knowledge and believe can be comprehended are self-inconsistent. Indeed, either we don't know anything about believe, or we know about it something. It's not counterintuitive that believe has different way to be accepted, because at least its nature doesn't seem to be formal. The last one must be obvious taking into account that any formal definition of it is leading to vicious circles. Thoughtful essence of believe is that it has not to be just accepted in a formal definition. In turn, it's been already accepted by us if equipping with some suggestions we're following them. So, in this sense we don't need to prove which one suggestion do we need to choose. If this means precedes knowledge, then there must also be added to this (=there must be noted) that we know what believe is, but we don't require anything else to be sure in it. In this way, the mentioning views might have been reformulated to believe precedes some knowledge and believe can be comprehended. And what would we got: another contradiction – "some knowledge" means that we know just a part of what we've already know (!). Thereby, now it's clear: believe doesn't precede knowledge.Eugene, you may not realize this, but the combination of your usage of the English language plus 9x's personal syntax of language (speaking) is like a bomb for me and possibly for some other readers, too. To begin with, I think the thread should be titled, "On Belief Preceding Knowledge", and then for God's sake, can you give an example or a clue as to what kind of Belief [or Opinion] you are talking about? A religious/theistic belief?? A commonplace perception-based belief such as the belief that the sun goes around the earth?? Finally, What is the point of finding out whether there is a belief/opinion before attaining true knowledge?? // Is either of you proposing that a belief is or is not partially based on some truth?? I do appreciate your comment, Joustos! And I do apologize for such messy and clunky writing. Such a style spoils if not ruins any arguments (if there are any). Example to this can be taken this one: I believe that "the Sun won't rise in the East tomorrow" and " The sum of the angles of a triangle equals to 180 degrees". The latter example, being analytical, isn't relevant, because there's no need to believe in what we're stating at the moment. Considering only this thing - about analytical statement - I don't see reasons to apply that beliefs don't require knowledge. If to take Faith, then I guess that it's something to be more spiritual or more pure (?). For me, as far as I can understand it, Faith is what a foundation for relations between humans, or a person and God.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 15, 2021 20:02:35 GMT
The views that believe precedes knowledge and believe can be comprehended are self-inconsistent. Indeed, either we don't know anything about believe, or we know about it something. It's not counterintuitive that believe has different way to be accepted, because at least its nature doesn't seem to be formal. The last one must be obvious taking into account that any formal definition of it is leading to vicious circles. Thoughtful essence of believe is that it has not to be just accepted in a formal definition. In turn, it's been already accepted by us if equipping with some suggestions we're following them. So, in this sense we don't need to prove which one suggestion do we need to choose. If this means precedes knowledge, then there must also be added to this (=there must be noted) that we know what believe is, but we don't require anything else to be sure in it. In this way, the mentioning views might have been reformulated to believe precedes some knowledge and believe can be comprehended. And what would we got: another contradiction – "some knowledge" means that we know just a part of what we've already know (!). Thereby, now it's clear: believe doesn't precede knowledge.1. All knowledge begins with an assertion. 2. This knowledge is justified through further assertions. 3. The beginning assertion is accepted "as is" prior to it being justified by further assertions. 4. Thus the beginning assertion is believed and all knowledge as built upon this assertion is believed considering the connection of assertions is assumed because it is accepted "as is". 5. Knowledge is justified belief. Exactly! 1. All knowledge beings with assersions! 3. The very first assertion is taken axiomatically - and this moment is really really interesting, and needed to be viewed precisely! (Sorry, I can't do it now. But I'll try to think about it!) Thanks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2021 20:44:02 GMT
You can agree that some progress in vision of colours is a matter of belief. Because there are tribes who do not see certain colours, there is no diferentiation... It's very subtle.
Faith is a very subtle thing, even if is proclamated in religions sometimes as the essence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2021 20:46:18 GMT
Faith make things we do not see in things we see, even in science. There is certain inventions that are considered as magical. Or totally nonsense.
If the inventor do not had belief in his invention he cannot also create.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2021 20:48:33 GMT
Faith is also faith in possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 15, 2021 20:53:33 GMT
Faith is also faith in possibility. Indeed... Yeah, I agree. Truly said! Some kind of potential is behind Faith.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 15, 2021 20:56:08 GMT
You can agree that some progress in vision of colours is a matter of belief. Because there are tribes who do not see certain colours, there is no diferentiation... It's very subtle. Faith is a very subtle thing, even if is proclamated in religions sometimes as the essence. Yes, the color example is very interesting, plenty of thanks for introducing it here! There's a paradox of a scientist Mary that can be used in this situation
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2021 21:04:06 GMT
My note for some reason do not play videos! haha
But thanks for sharing.
I see the frames here and understand a little. But in matter of colour also there is a kind of belief that change the essence of possibility. It's a very subtle thing, as I say, and easy to lose if we treat as a ironclad haha
There are some philosophical problems that depends on a kind of belief attention, as when we starts a class in the middle, and cannot understand.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 15, 2021 23:21:10 GMT
My note for some reason do not play videos! haha But thanks for sharing. I see the frames here and understand a little. But in matter of colour also there is a kind of belief that change the essence of possibility. It's a very subtle thing, as I say, and easy to lose if we treat as a ironclad haha There are some philosophical problems that depends on a kind of belief attention, as when we starts a class in the middle, and cannot understand. I'm sorry. Probably the link isn't enough good. Anyway, it was said that a woman had been living and working in dark/light (or black/white) room, then went out. She was a scientist who knew anything about colors: from child books to cognitive science. So, when she left the room already, would she see any colors? May I aks you, Microcosm? What is your favourite color? – And when you'll be answering just think about these two things: how to explain (about the favourite colour) about colors not showing them Eugene? how to explain what makes us choose these or those colors as best (and is there any causes)?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 16, 2021 4:13:55 GMT
The views that believe precedes knowledge and believe can be comprehended are self-inconsistent. Indeed, either we don't know anything about believe, or we know about it something. It's not counterintuitive that believe has different way to be accepted, because at least its nature doesn't seem to be formal. The last one must be obvious taking into account that any formal definition of it is leading to vicious circles. Thoughtful essence of believe is that it has not to be just accepted in a formal definition. In turn, it's been already accepted by us if equipping with some suggestions we're following them. So, in this sense we don't need to prove which one suggestion do we need to choose. If this means precedes knowledge, then there must also be added to this (=there must be noted) that we know what believe is, but we don't require anything else to be sure in it. In this way, the mentioning views might have been reformulated to believe precedes some knowledge and believe can be comprehended. And what would we got: another contradiction – "some knowledge" means that we know just a part of what we've already know (!). Thereby, now it's clear: believe doesn't precede knowledge.Eugene, you may not realize this, but the combination of your usage of the English language plus 9x's personal syntax of language (speaking) is like a bomb for me and possibly for some other readers, too. To begin with, I think the thread should be titled, "On Belief Preceding Knowledge", and then for God's sake, can you give an example or a clue as to what kind of Belief [or Opinion] you are talking about? A religious/theistic belief?? A commonplace perception-based belief such as the belief that the sun goes around the earth?? Finally, What is the point of finding out whether there is a belief/opinion before attaining true knowledge?? // Is either of you proposing that a belief is or is not partially based on some truth?? And what language is not affected by personal syntax or group usage? Tell me what group syntax would apply best to you. Even groups have there own syntax. Your point is nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 16, 2021 13:49:03 GMT
xxxxxxxxx(About #3) It's really true: how do we do any assertions at all? To make an assertion we need another assertions, and for the previous ones – another and another. I guess we need something to have to be able to make an assertion. I don't know the composition of that something, and I don't know anything about resources, etc. But I cannot think that an assertion is made with nothing by no-one. The process of gathering that something might be non-deliberated or accidental. Having got the chaos or non-chaos and somehow an assertion came to a someone's mind... If this process had been repeated plenty of billions of times, it could be...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2021 15:24:02 GMT
My note for some reason do not play videos! haha But thanks for sharing. I see the frames here and understand a little. But in matter of colour also there is a kind of belief that change the essence of possibility. It's a very subtle thing, as I say, and easy to lose if we treat as a ironclad haha There are some philosophical problems that depends on a kind of belief attention, as when we starts a class in the middle, and cannot understand. I'm sorry. Probably the link isn't enough good. Anyway, it was said that a woman had been living and working in dark/light (or black/white) room, then went out. She was a scientist who knew anything about colors: from child books to cognitive science. So, when she left the room already, would she see any colors? May I aks you, Microcosm? What is your favourite color? – And when you'll be answering just think about these two things: how to explain (about the favourite colour) about colors not showing them Eugene? how to explain what makes us choose these or those colors as best (and is there any causes)? All colours are acompanied by feeling. If I show you the feeling, also you see the colour.
|
|