What is the ONE thing in human nature

[The Shadow]

...that you wish you could change and why

 

[Lestat]

intolerance.

Some people seem to reject others for no logical reason, it leads to a lot of hurt and harm in the world.

 

[gotmilk]

spitting.

Luggies on the sidewalk cannot be healthy for the environment

 

[foreigngirl]

greed.

I think its the worst characteristic to have: greed for more land - wars, greed for money - poor people

 

[mordy]

Greed. Simple. Many have suffered at the ignorance and greed of the few.

 

[eat big]

Respect. If people respected other's beliefs, religion, culture etc. many conflicts would not arise.

 

[gotmilk]

Daylight Savings Time.

I mean really..is darkness so bad?

 

[OMEGA]

I have not met many Humans so I could not tell you

 

[nutsnack]

i hate snakes

 

[stosstruppe]

Desire.

 

[alien amp pharm]

Selfishness

Everybody cares only about self interest and not others nor their feelings.

 

[gotmilk]

I would have never had Hillary Duff as Young Lila Jute.

I would have used a different Director other than Michel Gondry

 

[velvett]

Nothing.
If human's were perfect there'd be no reason to exist other than to breed, graze and sleep.

 

[alien amp pharm]

Nothing.
If human's were perfect there'd be no reason to exist other than to breed, graze and sleep.

Spoken just like a person with flaws.

 

[The Shadow]

I would have never had Hillary Duff as Young Lila Jute.

I would have used a different Director other than Michel Gondry

you are right up there......

 

[Evil_Frisky]

Jealousy and Greed

Ok I picked two, but they go hand and hand together.

 

[Lestat]

greed serves a purpsoe sometimes. extreme greed, no, but some greed is a part of self preservation.

 

[Mach1]

jealousy

 

[Evil_Frisky]

greed serves a purpsoe sometimes. extreme greed, no, but some greed is a part of self preservation.

Greed is self serving.. thats it. What is the purpose of greed? The degree of it will continue to grow like mold. The more you have the more you want, and that can go with anything you have in life.

 

[velvett]

Spoken just like a person with flaws.

LOL

As if I ever suggested otherwise.

Happy perfect people are the most fucked because they don't wanna know they're imperfect and miserable.

 

[The Shadow]

greed serves a purpsoe sometimes. extreme greed, no, but some greed is a part of self preservation.

True....and this isnt about human nature on a personal level.....of course we as individuals are flawed....this is more along the lines of:

Jealousy

Respect

Caring nature

etc

 

[sublime35]

Our problem is that we condemn other opinions and viewpoints of others without hearing them, analyzing them, and trying to be open-minded about the information we are listening to for fear that we would have to see them as "people" and not as being different.

 

[OMEGA]

LOL

As if I ever suggested otherwise.

Happy perfect people are the most fucked because they don't wanna know they're imperfect and miserable.

I like your emotianal intensity

you are very primal

 

[samoth]

Human nature defines humanity.

To change human nature is to seperate us from what defines everything about us.

There does not exist a direct credited response to the question.

HTH

 

[The Shadow]

Human nature defines humanity.

To change human nature is to seperate us from what defines everything about us.

There does not exist a direct credited response to the question.

HTH

I can just as easily save that the converse is true that humanity(us/we) defines human nature(how we act, think etc)........

 

[nycgirl]

Fear

Allowing fear over something we can't control or the unknown keep us from achieving greatness, experiencing happiness, receiving & giving love, from forgiving and moving on, etc.

 

[Evil_Frisky]

im kinda waiting on my K now

 

[samoth]

I can just as easily save that the converse is true that humanity(us/we) defines human nature(how we act, think etc)........

I think of human nature as invariant, and humanity as the collective human population. However, both terms can hold slightly different definitions which can widely vary in a philosophical context.

Works of philosophy are often extremely long and drawn out, because they have to constantly determine definitions and credited responses to very general questions, subjective ideas, and abstract notions. Usually formal logic is used to attempt a credited response and to imply fallacy. Here, for example, you would need to further define human nature before proceeding. Not saying to do it, but even the definition and invariance of human nature itself could be argued for hundreds of pages. LOL, it most likely has.

 

[BrothaBill]

I can just as easily save that the converse is true that humanity(us/we) defines human nature(how we act, think etc)........

that makes even less sense given the fact that you are just a brain-in-a-vat in my laboratory

 

[Evil_Frisky]

im kinda waiting on my K now

I'm not getting any younger here. sheesh

 

[samoth]

that makes even less sense given the fact that you are just a brain-in-a-vat in my laboratory

LOL! Breakin' out the philosophical implications of existance....

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Ignorance, because it leads to a downward spiral of intelligence that could help out potentially everyone.

 

[BrothaBill]

LOL! Breakin' out the philosophical implications of existance....

to break down to "define what truth is" is the last vestage of a debate scoundrel, I think every argument should start from there, just lets define the truth first, then an argument can never take place, umm I think

 

[samoth]

Ignorance, because it leads to a downward spiral of intelligence that could help out potentially everyone.

Define ignorance.

Lack of knowledge? I propose that every human to have ever existed was ignorant.

Discussions like these don't work with so few words. The concepts of humanity and human nature are wide and varied, and have been argued amongst philosophers and the most brilliant minds for many centuries.

There is no credited response. Even the proposed question is fallacious. Everything in here is purely opinionated and based on limited a priori knowledge, giving it no logical validity whatsoever.

 

[Evil_Frisky]

lotta smart bro's here

 

[H_T_]

the covetous and deceitful side. lying to get what you want and coveting what you do not have.

 

[samoth]

the covetous and deceitful side. lying to get what you want and coveting what you do not have.

Define lying. Can it ever, under any circumstance, be warrented? If not, what implications would that raise in our society? Lying to get what one wants... is differentiated by lying to get what one needs how?

... ad nauseum.

 

[H_T_]

Define lying. Can it ever, under any circumstance, be warrented? If not, what implications would that raise in our society? Lying to get what one wants... is differentiated by lying to get what one needs how?

... ad nauseum.

not telling the truth.

 

[nycgirl]

Define ignorance.

Lack of knowledge? I propose that every human to have ever existed was ignorance.

What about people that choose not to learn? People that choose to wear blinders and proceed through life content with not knowing all there is to know. People that have opinions about things that they have yet to experience, yet when given the opportunity . . . they choose not to.
Is there a difference between those that are ignorant and want to learn and those are ignorant and do not?

I think he was referring to those that choose not to learn.

 

[samoth]

not telling the truth.

So is this a bad thing under every circumstance whatsoever, or might it have exemptions. What if it is lying to a bad person for a better good? What if lying save the lives of hundreds of innocent children? What about parents? No more Santa Clause or Easter Bunny, and forget "birds" or "bees". What about police and law enforcement? Lying to protect a loved one from harm? Or is this only "big" lies, and not "little" white lies. What about exaggerations? What about saying something followed by, "Just kidding!". No more lying for surprise birthday parties for a friend.

I'n not trying to incite a specific discussion, but just trying to show that this kinda stuff is deeper than face value, and things can be argued in a multitude of ways.

 

[samoth]

What about people that choose not to learn? People that choose to wear blinders and proceed through life content with not knowing all there is to know. People that have opinions about things that they have yet to experience, yet when given the opportunity . . . they choose not to.
Is there a difference between those that are ignorant and want to learn and those are ignorant and do not?

I think he was referring to those that choose not to learn.

Congratulations. You just opened Pandora's box. Now we have to argue free will.

*cancels all activities for the next three months*

 

[nycgirl]

Congratulations. You just opened Pandora's box. Now we have to argue free will.

*cancels all activities for the next three months*

LOL. I have nothing to do

 

[samoth]

LOL. I have nothing to do

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?t=433575

HTH

 

[buffer1]

GREED,everyone can get caught up in it no matter what

 

[Spartacus]

lust
we need more
too many uptight

 

[H_T_]

So is this a bad thing under every circumstance whatsoever, or might it have exemptions. What if it is lying to a bad person for a better good? What if lying save the lives of hundreds of innocent children? What about parents? No more Santa Clause or Easter Bunny, and forget "birds" or "bees". What about police and law enforcement? Lying to protect a loved one from harm? Or is this only "big" lies, and not "little" white lies. What about exaggerations? What about saying something followed by, "Just kidding!". No more lying for surprise birthday parties for a friend.

I'n not trying to incite a specific discussion, but just trying to show that this kinda stuff is deeper than face value, and things can be argued in a multitude of ways.

the Truth will set you free. when is the truth a bad thing??

 

[H_T_]

the Truth stands taller than any mountain, for it never erodes.........

 

[samoth]

GREED,everyone can get caught up in it no matter what

Some of the greatest empires in history were build partially on greed, and many good things came of those empires.

...eh, I give up, lol. Everything here is so subjective and relative, but people think throwing out a few words actually think there is any meaning in what they wrote? It's a great topic, but one that really can't be argued so lightly that it becomes devoid of any true meaning.

...


I formally change my answer to "badness". One thing in human nature that I wish I could change and why is "badness" because "badness" universally encompasses everything existentially bad. Furthermore, "badness" will be interpreted and defined in any and every way in which I see fit at any given time.

HTFH

 

[samoth]

the Truth stands taller than any mountain, for it never erodes.........

Cut the proverb shit and directly answer each one of my counterarguments!!

HTMFH!

 

[nycgirl]

Some of the greatest empires in history were build partially on greed, and many good things came of those empires.

...eh, I give up, lol. Everything here is so subjective and relative, but people think throwing out a few words actually think there is any meaning in what they wrote? It's a great topic, but one that really can't be argued so lightly that it becomes devoid of any true meaning.

...
I formally change my answer to "badness". One thing in human nature that I wish I could change and why is "badness" because "badness" universally encompasses everything existentially bad. Furthermore, "badness" will be interpreted and defined in any and every way in which I see fit at any given time.

HTFH

W/ regard to the statement in bold, isn't that the case for everything mentioned in this thread. What is Fear? What is Jealousy? What is a Lie? What is Ignorance? What is lack of caring? Everything is how we define it.

 

[H_T_]

Cut the proverb shit and directly answer each one of my counterarguments!!

HTMFH!

simmer down meow! i think that if we were uncapable of lying, things would be better. like Clockwork Orange. fits of tremors followed by vomitting. so you agree that coveting is the worse of the 2????

 

[samoth]

W/ regard to the statement in bold, isn't that the case for everything mentioned in this thread. What is Fear? What is Jealousy? What is a Lie? What is Ignorance? What is lack of caring? Everything is how we define it.

LOL! Yep, that was why I chose badness as my "one thing".

There are some credited responses and definitions, but one must scour the subject of philosophy to find the majority agreement, and even then, there are still counterarguments, lol.

Nonetheless, I argue badness to be the credited response to this thread, encompassing fear, jealousy, lies, adultery, evil, ignorance, ad infinitum. (n.b. badness only encompasses the bad qualities of the aforementioned, and not the potential good that may arise indirectly through whatever means).



This was such a nice, normal thread before I butted in here, lol.

 

[samoth]

simmer down meow! i think that if we were uncapable of lying, things would be better. like Clockwork Orange. fits of tremors followed by vomitting. so you agree that coveting is the worse of the 2????

1) Never saw the movie,

2) WTF @ "meow"? Explain yourself immediately, lest I have your head for such a vile, insulting comment!!

3) Again, you changed the subject instead of addressing my counterarguments, thus negating you from being of any benefit whatsoever to humanity. HumanTarget is now synonymous with badness. Hang your head in shame and badness henceforth.

 

[nycgirl]

LOL! Yep, that was why I chose badness as my "one thing".
There are some credited responses and definitions, but one must scour the subject of philosophy to find the majority agreement, and even then, there are still counterarguments, lol.
Nonetheless, I argue badness to be the credited response to this thread, encompassing fear, jealousy, lies, adultery, evil, ignorance, ad infinitum. (n.b. badness only encompasses the bad qualities of the aforementioned, and not the potential good that may arise indirectly through whatever means).

This was such a nice, normal thread before I butted in here, lol.

LOL. Yes, I agree. That said, I'm sure "badness" can be counterargued as well. Though, only because I'm biased, I don't know what good could come out of Fear. I can see good coming out of the other posts. Even their definitions can be twisted to fit ones needs or people may just have different definitions and levels of tolerance.

Well, I take that back. I guess good can come out being so afraid of something it paralyzes your life. Provided you are aware of what's going on.

 

[H_T_]

1) Never saw the movie,

2) WTF @ "meow"? Explain yourself immediately, lest I have your head for such a vile, insulting comment!!

3) Again, you changed the subject instead of addressing my counterarguments, thus negating you from being of any benefit whatsoever to humanity. HumanTarget is now synonymous with badness. Hang your head in shame and badness henceforth.

1) you should, it's better than the book.
2) meow instead of "now".
3) i give change to bums. so, HT = goodness. let me scroll back 11teen pages and posts and find the "?" you asked. i believe you were waylaying on the merits of truth. which befuddles me.........

 

[samoth]

LOL. Yes, I agree. That said, I'm sure "badness" can be counterargued as well.

Incorrect. I will merely change the abstract and abstruse definition of "badness" to my liking, thus negating any possible counterargument you could possibly come up with in a completely illogical and irrational manner.

Q.E.D.

 

[wutangnomo]

LOL! Yep, that was why I chose badness as my "one thing".

There are some credited responses and definitions, but one must scour the subject of philosophy to find the majority agreement, and even then, there are still counterarguments, lol.

Nonetheless, I argue badness to be the credited response to this thread, encompassing fear, jealousy, lies, adultery, evil, ignorance, ad infinitum. (n.b. badness only encompasses the bad qualities of the aforementioned, and not the potential good that may arise indirectly through whatever means).



This was such a nice, normal thread before I butted in here, lol.

All this philosophical bull crap always ruins a good discussion.

Everything is subjective according to our own definition(s). There is no right or wrong, no good or bad. There is just our own consciousness and whatever we think that defines what is what.

Badness encompasses only the bad qualities, not the potential good? Ok, so what is bad and good? Also, what is fear, jealousy, lies, adultery, yada yada yada?

What is anything then?

My answer thus stands as..... qn432oijbv092v4nv9042n2430n9. Yeah, whatever that is.

 

[samoth]

1) you should, it's better than the book.
2) meow instead of "now".
3) i give change to bums. so, HT = goodness. let me scroll back 11teen pages and posts and find the "?" you asked. i believe you were waylaying on the merits of truth. which befuddles me.........

Explain this transposition resulting in directing the word meow at me immediatly. Don't think I'm blind to this inane mockery you try to make of me. Meow indeed.

 

[samoth]

.

Badness encompasses only the bad qualities, not the potential good? Ok, so what is bad and good? Also, what is fear, jealousy, lies, adultery, yada yada yada?

My point exactly.

Philosophy ruins? Or brings fallacy to light? Perhaps I should direct you to the post made regarding ignorance...




:meow:

 

[nycgirl]

Incorrect. I will merely change the abstract and abstruse definition of "badness" to my liking, thus negating any possible counterargument you could possibly come up with in a completely illogical and irrational manner.
Q.E.D.

Touche.

 

[H_T_]

Explain this transposition resulting in directing the word meow at me immediatly. Don't think I'm blind to this inane mockery you try to make of me. Meow indeed.

Samoth Sodom Gorgoth! i get the impression that you do not watch television and perhaps attack them on sight. but, the "meow" reference is from Supertroopers, a low budget comedy from 2001. in said movie, they play a game in which the victor is whoever can say meow 10 times in the duration of a brief conversation. meow, can we get back to the question at hand?

 

[wutangnomo]

My point exactly.

Philosophy ruins? Or brings fallacy to light? Perhaps I should direct you to the post made regarding ignorance...




:meow:

What is ignorance? What is...? What is...? What is...? What is...?

Philosophy ruins what? What is fallacy? What is light? What is...? What is...? What is...? What is...?

My answer is now.... f2no0f092n3f23fn99920f.

 

[CrayonOfDoom2]

intolerance.

Some people seem to reject others for no logical reason, it leads to a lot of hurt and harm in the world.

Agreed.

and great song too.

 

[samoth]

Samoth Sodom Gorgoth!

One superb musician and two great bands.

LOL, I don't watch much television.

 

[samoth]

What is ignorance? What is...? What is...? What is...? What is...?

Philosophy ruins what? What is fallacy? What is light? What is...? What is...? What is...? What is...?

My answer is now.... f2no0f092n3f23fn99920f.

Your ability to present a methodological argument of this topic leaves much to be desired.

HTH

 

[samoth]

Agreed.

Hi@ Crayon!

Should intolerance be accepted when dealing with child molesters, rapists, murderers, etc.? Or can intolerance, at times, be a benefit to humanity as a whole? Even if we were to draw lines betwixt different degrees of intolerance, who should be so empowered as to draw those lines?

 

[wutangnomo]

Your ability to present a methodological argument of this topic leaves much to be desired.

HTH

Ah yes, yet another Joe Shmoe who uses big words and goes a million times over the same redundant point to try and appear intelligent when it can be summed up with one simple line....

Everything is subjective. Duh. Carry on now Sally.

 

[samoth]

Ah yes, yet another Joe Shmoe who uses big words and goes a million times over the same redundant point to try and appear intelligent when it can be summed up with one simple line....

Everything is subjective. Duh. Carry on now Sally.

Okay. I'll let you continue on with this thread in my stead.

 

[wutangnomo]

Okay. I'll let you continue on with this thread in my stead.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please make love to me?

 

[pdaddy]

Infidelity and biggotry

 

[EnderJE]

Monogamy?

 

[stilleto]

Fear.
its what stops us from achieving more, taking risks, falling in love, making changes.
fear of not being good enough makes us jealous and hateful. it perpetuates gossip, rumors, and lies.
Fear of failure, fear of the unknown, fear of hard work- can all lead to evil.

 

[redguru]

that makes even less sense given the fact that you are just a brain-in-a-vat in my laboratory

If we are all just brains in a vat, who is the janitor that cleans up around the laboratory?

A better argument is this. If we are all brains in a vat and we all know what an apple looks like and tastes like, how do we know that? What is an apple, where is the basis for reference? If none of us have seen an apple, how do we know it exists? If an apple doesn't exist, why place the idea of an apple into our brain in a vat.

This argument falls under an assumption clause.

Assume all statements are false. This statement is true. You cannot reconcile the two statements. There has to be a physical world for us to exist in, for if there isn't for what reasons would we have points of references like trees, grass, etc? Without whoever is feeding us this information having these same points of reference they cannot exist. So the trees, grass and apples must exist.

 

[BrothaBill]

If we are all just brains in a vat, who is the janitor that cleans up around the laboratory?

the lab is a virtual lab created in your brain in a vat based on neural impulses I send

A better argument is this.

Its not an argument, its an epistemiological thought experiment.

If we are all brains in a vat and we all know what an apple looks like and tastes like, how do we know that?

lol, duh, you dont, your knowledge of what an apple looks like and tastes doesnt exist, you, of course, BELIEVE that you know, but you would be incorrect if you were truly just a brain a vat, your idea is based on bioelectic nerve signals connected in a very timeconsuming and delicate surgery I performed with the help of a robot surgical previous experiment I perfected early on in my career to create the virtual world. The ideas of apples and nature was a fractal program I wrote allowing random production of fractals that, with my supercomputer, or what you believe is a supercomputer based on the stimuli that I have fed you (which is not what it is, but that is the closest approximation of what it is that you can understand, it is outside of the programmed virtual world too complex to explain to you). I wrote a simple program to take the nature's variables and wrote simply, the fractals will randomly mutate and evolve, simply, given the environmental variables created in this virtual reality, the more congruent the variables of "life needs" and "environment variables" would govern how an apple would come about, in a fictitious virtual world.


What is an apple, where is the basis for reference?

lol, there is no basis of reference to something that really does not exist, the minute nerve stimuli that I transmit to your brain is the only reference you can believe in. That is the only reference

If none of us have seen an apple, how do we know it exists? If an apple doesn't exist, why place the idea of an apple into our brain in a vat.

I was bored, it was a pet project of mine as well and Ive just let the program running, of course, this program has long since past you by in my time (time doesnt really exist, but lets just use that for now) and me communicating to you happened in the computer reality time eons ago, I have a really fast supercomputer. See, the program has already run its course, OOPS, I just let the cat out of the bag, your idea of what a brain is, well, its false as well. You are a not so random program of ideas and concepts based on the environment and basic preprogrammed fundamentals on how you react as a "human" to situations. The program evolves based on the stimuli it randomly encounters, its just a blooming fractal program, of course, I cant explain it fully given what I actually am and the limits of the variables that would allow you to understand this. But, everyone arguing or believing why I have programmed this program should realize its based on variables that influenced this entity, me, outside of the program that I designed, things that can never be comprehended b/c it is outside of the program. So, well, Im altering the evolution of thought for some and adding to the program in a simulated computer screen talking to characters of my program. Just to see how the program evolves, given one whisper and frequency of me and watching how it ripples through the program. I have revised the program, but the only thing I dont have time for is to explain time and computations, you see, for me, I wrote this to you long before you actually read it. Its a strange idea this time thing in this program. IT doesnt really exist in the reality I hail from

This argument falls under an assumption clause.

This is a thought experiment, the assumption clause has already been debunked and argued, it failed and the attempt just left the definition of knowledge even more muddled.

Assume all statements are false. This statement is true. You cannot reconcile the two statements. There has to be a physical world for us to exist in, for if there isn't for what reasons would we have points of references like trees, grass, etc? Without whoever is feeding us this information having these same points of reference they cannot exist. So the trees, grass and apples must exist.


No silly, its a think therefore I am type of thing, or is it, its multiple universes dancing on a head of a pin with infinite realities all existing in the same space. My supercomputer

All you do is simply "believe" things to be true, Ive just programmed some things to be more convincing than others.

Suppose that Fred says to you: "The fastest swimming stroke is the front crawl. One performs the front crawl by oscillating the legs at the hip, and moving the arms in an approximately circular motion". Here, Fred has propositional knowledge of swimming and how to perform the front crawl.

However, if Fred acquired this propositional knowledge from an encyclopedia, he will not have acquired the skill of swimming: he has some propositional knowledge, but does not have any procedural knowledge or "know-how". In general, one can demonstrate know-how by performing the task in question, but it is harder to demonstrate propositional knowledge. Michael Polanyi popularised the term tacit knowledge to distinguish the ability to do something from the ability to describe how to do something. Gilbert Ryle had previously made a similar point in discussing the characteristics of intelligence. His ideas are summed up in the aphorism "efficient practice precedes the theory of it". Someone with the ability to perform the appropriate moves is said to be able to swim, even if that person cannot precisely identify what it is they do in order to swim. This distinction is often traced back to Plato, who used the term techne or skill for knowledge how, and the term episteme for a more robust kind of knowledge in which claims can be true or false.

There are two slightly different meanings of belief that must be distinguished. In the first sense John might "believe in" his cousin Joe. This may mean that he is willing to loan Joe money, trusting in his paying it back. In this sense, John might say, "I know it is safer to fly than drive, yet I don't believe it" in which case John doesn't trust in the pilots of commercial aircraft, even though as a cognitive matter he may understand the pertinent statistics.

In the second sense of belief, to believe something just means to think that it is true. That is, to believe P is to do no more than to think, for whatever reason, that P is the case. It is this sort of belief that philosophers most often mean when they are discussing knowledge. The reason is that in order to know something, one must think that it is true - one must believe (in the second sense) it to be the case.

Consider someone saying "I know that P, but I don't think P is true". The person making this utterance has, in a profound sense, contradicted themselves. If one knows that P, then, amongst other things, one thinks that P is indeed true. If one thinks that P is true, then one believes P. (See: Moore's paradox.)

Knowledge is distinct from belief and opinion. If someone claims to believe something, they are claiming that they think that it is the truth. But of course, it might turn out that they were mistaken, and that what they thought was true was actually false. This is not the case with knowledge. For example, suppose that Jeff thinks that a particular bridge is safe, and attempts to cross it; unfortunately the bridge collapses under his weight. We might say that Jeff believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. We would not say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. For something to count as knowledge, it must be true.

Similarly, two people can believe things that are mutually contradictory, but they cannot know (unequivocal) things that are mutually contradictory. For example, Jeff can believe the bridge safe, while Jenny believes it unsafe. But Jeff cannot know the bridge is safe and Jenny cannot know that the bridge is unsafe simultaneously. Two people cannot know contradictory things.

Justified true belief

The Theaetetus account of Plato further develops the definition of knowledge. We know that, for something to count as knowledge, it must be true, and be believed to be true. Plato argues that this is insufficient, and that in addition one must have a reason or justification for that belief.

Plato defined knowledge as justified true belief.

One implication of this definition is that one cannot be said to "know" something just because one believes it and that belief subsequently turns out to be true. An ill person with no medical training but a generally optimistic attitude might believe that she will recover from her illness quickly, but even if this belief turned out to be true, on the Theaetetus account the patient did not know that she would get well, because her belief lacked justification.

Knowledge, therefore, is distinguished from true belief by its justification, and much of epistemology is concerned with how true beliefs might be properly justified. This is sometimes referred to as the theory of justification.

The Theaetetus definition agrees with the common sense notion that we can believe things without knowing them. Whilst knowing p entails that p is true, believing in p does not, since we can have false beliefs. It also implies that we believe everything that we know. That is, the things we know form a subset of the things we believe.

The problem of defining knowledge

For most of philosophical history, "knowledge" was taken to mean belief that was justified as true to an absolute certainty. Any less justified beliefs were called mere "probable opinion." This viewpoint still prevailed at least as late as Bertrand Russell's early 20th century book The Problems of Philosophy. In the decades that followed, however, the notion that the belief had to be justified to a certainty lost favour.

In the 1960s, Edmund Gettier criticised the Theaetetus definition of knowledge by pointing out situations in which a believer has a true belief justified to a reasonable degree, but not to a certainty, and yet in the situations in question, everyone would agree that the believer does not have knowledge.

A priori versus a posteriori knowledge

Western philosophers for centuries have distinguished between two kinds of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori knowledge.

A priori knowledge is knowledge gained or justified by reason alone, without the direct or indirect influence of any particular experience (here, experience usually means observation of the world through sense perception. See Rationalism, below, for clarification.)

A posteriori knowledge is any other sort of knowledge; that is, knowledge the attainment or justification of which requires reference to experience. This is also called empirical knowledge.

One of the fundamental questions in epistemology is whether there is any non-trivial a priori knowledge. Generally speaking rationalists believe that there is, while empiricists believe that all knowledge is ultimately derived from some kind of external experience.

The fields of knowledge most often suggested as having a priori status are logic and mathematics, which deal primarily with abstract, formal objects.

Empiricists have traditionally denied that even these fields could be a priori knowledge. Two common arguments are that these sorts of knowledge can only be derived from experience (as John Stuart Mill argued), and that they do not constitute "real" knowledge (as David Hume argued).


Justification

Much of epistemology has been concerned with seeking ways to justify knowledge statements.

Irrationalism

Some approaches to justifying knowledge are not rational — that is, they reject the notion that justification must obey logic or reason. Nihilism started out as a materialistic political philosophy, but is sometimes redefined as the apparently absurd doctrine that there can be no justification for knowledge claims — absurd because it appears to be self-contradictory to claim that one knows that knowledge is impossible, but perhaps for a nihilist, self-contradiction is simply unimportant.

Mysticism is the use of non-rational methods to arrive at beliefs and accepting such beliefs as knowledge. For example, believing that something is true based on emotion would be regarded as epistemological mysticism, whereas believing based on deductive logic or scientific experiment would not. An instance of this may be when one bases one's belief in the existence of something merely on one's desire that it should exist. Another example might be the use of a daisy's petals and the phrase "he loves me/ he loves me not" while they are plucked to determine whether Romeo returns Juliet's affections. The mysticism in this example would be the assumption that such a method has predictive or indicative powers without rational evidence of such. In both of these examples, belief is not justified through a rational means. Mysticism need not be an intentional process: one may engage in mysticism without being aware of it.

Rationality

If one does not reject rationality, but still wishes to maintain that knowledge claims cannot be or are not justified, one might be termed a skeptic. Here we are on firmer philosophical ground; since skeptics accept the validity of reason, they can present logical arguments for their case.

For instance, the regress argument has it that one can ask for the justification for any statement of knowledge. If that justification takes the form of another statement, one can again reasonably ask for that statement also to be justified, and so forth. This appears to lead to an infinite regress, with every statement justified by some other statement. It would be impossible to check that each justification is satisfactory, and so relying on such a series quickly leads to skepticism.

Alternately, one might claim that some knowledge statements do not require justification. Much of the history of epistemology is the story of conflicting philosophical doctrines claiming that this or that type of knowledge statement has special status. This view is known as Foundationalism.

One can also avoid the regress if one supposes that the assumption that a knowledge statement can only be supported by another knowledge statement is simply misguided. Coherentism holds that a knowledge statement is not justified by some small subset of other knowledge statements, but by the entire set. That is, a statement is justified if it coheres with all other knowledge claims in the system. This has the advantage of avoiding the infinite regress without claiming special status for some particular sorts of statements. But since a system might still be consistent and yet simply wrong, it raises the difficulty of ensuring that the whole system corresponds in some way with the truth.

Synthetic and analytic statements

Some statements are such that they appear not to need any justification once one understands their meaning. For example, consider: my father's brother is my uncle. This statement is true in virtue of the meaning of the terms it contains, and so it seems frivolous to ask for a justification for saying it is true. Philosophers call such statements analytic. More technically, a statement is analytic if the concept in the predicate is included in the concept in the subject. In the example, the concept of uncle (the predicate) is included in the concept of being my father's brother (the subject). Not all analytic statements are as trivial as this example. Mathematical statements are often taken to be analytic.

Synthetic statements, on the other hand, have distinct subjects and predicates. An example would be my father's brother is overweight.

Although anticipated by David Hume, this distinction was more clearly formulated by Immanuel Kant, and later given a more formal shape by Frege. Wittgenstein noted in the Tractatus that analytic statements "express no thoughts", that is, that they tell us nothing new; although analytic statements do not require justification, they are singularly uninformative. W.V.O. Quine, in his famous Two Dogmas of Empiricism, challenged the legitimacy of the analytic-synthetic distinction altogether.

Epistemological theories

It is common for epistemological theories to avoid skepticism by adopting a foundationalist approach. To do this, they argue that certain types of statements have a special epistemological status — that of not needing to be justified. So it is possible to classify epistemological theories according to the type of statement that each argues has this special status.


Rationalism

Rationalists believe that there are a priori or innate ideas that are not derived from sense experience. These ideas, however, may be justified by experience. These ideas may in some way derive from the structure of the human mind, or they may exist independently of the mind. If they exist independently, they may be understood by a human mind once it reaches a necessary degree of sophistication.

The epitome of the rationalist view is Descartes' I think therefore I am, in which the skeptic is invited to consider that the mere fact that he doubts this claim implies that there is a doubter. Because doubting is a kind of thinking, the claim must be correct. Spinoza derived a rationalist system in which there is only one substance, God. Leibniz derived a system in which there are an infinite number of substances, his Monads.

Empiricism

Empiricists claim knowledge is a product of human experience. Statements of observations take pride of place in empiricist theory. Naïve empiricism holds simply that our ideas and theories need to be tested against reality, and accepted or rejected on the basis of how well they correspond to observed facts. The central problem for epistemology then becomes explaining this correspondence.

Empiricism is associated with science. While there can be little doubt about the effectiveness of science, there is much philosophical debate about how and why science works. The Scientific Method was once favoured as the reason for scientific success, but recently difficulties in the philosophy of science have led to a rise in Coherentism.

Empiricism is sometimes associated with a tradition called Logical empiricism, or positivism, which places higher emphasis on ideas about reality rather than on experiences of reality.

Naïve realism

Naïve realism, or Common-Sense realism is the belief that there is a real external world, and that our perceptions are caused directly by that world. It has its foundation in causation in that an object being there causes us to see it. Thus, it follows, the world remains as it is when it is perceived - when it is not being perceived - a room is still there once we exit. The opposite theory to this is solipsism. Naïve realism fails to take into account the psychology of perception. (See: G.E. Moore.)


Representationalism

Representationalism or Representative realism, unlike Naïve Realism, proposes that we cannot see the external world directly, but only through our perceptual representations of it. In other words, the objects and the world that you see around you are not the world itself, but merely an internal virtual-reality replica of that world. The so-called veil of perception removes the real world from our direct inspection.

Idealism

Idealism holds that what we refer to and perceive as the external world is in some way an artifice of the mind. Analytic statements (for example, mathematical truths), are held to be true without reference to the external world, and these are taken to be exemplary knowledge statements. George Berkeley, Immanuel Kant and Georg Hegel held various idealist views. Idealism is itself a metaphysical thesis, but has important epistemological consequences.

Phenomenalism

Phenomenalism is a development from George Berkeley's claim that to be is to be perceived. According to phenomenalism, when you see a tree, you see a certain perception of a brown shape, when you touch it, you get a perception of pressure against your palm. On this view, one shouldn't think of objects as distinct substances, which interact with our senses so that we may perceive them; rather we should conclude that all that really exists is the perception itself.

Pragmatism

Pragmatism about knowledge holds that what is important about knowledge is that it solves certain problems that are constrained both by the world and by human purposes. The place of knowledge in human activity is to resolve the problems that arise in conflicts between belief and action. Pragmatists are also typically committed to the use of the experimental method in all forms of inquiry, a non-skeptical fallibilism about our current store of knowledge, and the importance of knowledge proving itself through future testing.


the latter portions are from the wikipedia on epistemiology, why reinvent the wheel, afterall, Im the one who created the wheel in the first place

 

[Yarg!]

Make Canada a military power then conquer the world.

 

[Lestat]

Brothabill Is Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BrothaBill]

Brothabill Is Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol, yes, I got rid of the cheap impostor doppelganger, BB has once again returned to this reality. I was on my experiments hopping from reality to reality but now Ive hopped my way back to this one. Nice to see you, its been a long time

 

[H_T_]

lol, yes, I got rid of the cheap impostor doppelganger, BB has once again returned to this reality. I was on my experiments hopping from reality to reality but now Ive hopped my way back to this one. Nice to see you, its been a long time

take it easy with the cough medicine this time.

 

[BrothaBill]

take it easy with the cough medicine this time.

lol, its been a long time since those experments were conducted. Im afraid though Ill be left with the knowledge that I saw. You see, its a dissassociative, in the same class as ketamine, only this dissassociates from time, that is its effect. Watching the infinite realities unfold before you is utterly unexplainable.

The last experiment was a doozy, unbelievable being poked and prodded by the floating entity, opening my eyes, shining a light in there watching all of that stuff, unbelievable, all so fantastically real. This reality, I have a limited time left, I believe Ill be leaving it tomorrow, onto the next *whoooshhhhhhh, cape flys as I spin*

 

[BUBBLES]

lol, its been a long time since those experments were conducted. Im afraid though Ill be left with the knowledge that I saw. You see, its a dissassociative, in the same class as ketamine, only this dissassociates from time, that is its effect. Watching the infinite realities unfold before you is utterly unexplainable.

The last experiment was a doozy, unbelievable being poked and prodded by the floating entity, opening my eyes, shining a light in there watching all of that stuff, unbelievable, all so fantastically real. This reality, I have a limited time left, I believe Ill be leaving it tomorrow, onto the next *whoooshhhhhhh, cape flys as I spin*

Why do you do this?

 

[H_T_]

lol, its been a long time since those experments were conducted. Im afraid though Ill be left with the knowledge that I saw. You see, its a dissassociative, in the same class as ketamine, only this dissassociates from time, that is its effect. Watching the infinite realities unfold before you is utterly unexplainable.

The last experiment was a doozy, unbelievable being poked and prodded by the floating entity, opening my eyes, shining a light in there watching all of that stuff, unbelievable, all so fantastically real. This reality, I have a limited time left, I believe Ill be leaving it tomorrow, onto the next *whoooshhhhhhh, cape flys as I spin*

spend the $$$ and get a sensory depravation tank. Altered States, bor. and then hurry up and post while you are still some sort of manimal or man-beast. and don't bother trying to simulate this by shutting off the lights while you're taking a bath. it never gets dark or quiet enough.

 

[Growth&Courage]

Racism, prejudice and discrimination

 

[alien amp pharm]

This thread is the suck

 

[H_T_]

This thread is the suck

what, you can't find a SoKlu or HH thread right now?

 

[redguru]

If an ant in its travels on sand randomly draws a picture that looks like Winston Churchill with the trace of its footsteps, is it a Picture of Winston Churchill? No, becuase the ant has no spatial relationship with Winston Churchill or any representation of him.

1,000,000 monkey typing finally produce Hamlet. IS it Hamlet? No, it is just a random grouping of keystrokes. It takes cognition for anything we create, therefore we think, therefore we are. Descartes had it right.