We can't simultaneously claim "there is no knowledge of knowing" and "knowledge is a relation between subject and object" because the former disallows the latter. In fact, the former is self-undermining all on its own. — Theorem
“All knowledge presupposes Subject and Object. Even self-consciousness therefore is not absolutely simple, but, like our consciousness of all other things (i.e., the faculty of perception), it is subdivided into that which is known and that which knows. Now, that which is known manifests itself absolutely and exclusively as Will.” (166)
“The Subject accordingly knows itself exclusively as willing, but not as knowing. For the I which represents, never can itself become representation or Object, since it conditions all representations as their necessary correlate; rather may the following beautiful passage from the Sacred Upanishads be applied to it: That which sees all is not to be seen; that which hears all is not to be heard; that which knows all this not to be known; that which discerns all is not to be discerned. Beyond it, seeing, and knowing, and hearing, and discerning, there is nothing.” (167)
There can therefore be no knowledge of knowing, because this would imply separation of the Subject from knowing, while it nevertheless knew that knowing—which is impossible." (167)
My answer to the objection, "I not only know, but know also that I know," would be, "Your knowing that you know only differs in words from your knowing. 'I know that I know' means nothing more than 'I know,' and this again, unless it is further determined, means nothing more than 'ego.' If your knowing and your knowing that you know are two different things, just try to separate them, and first to know without knowing that you know, then to know that you know without this knowledge being at the same time knowing." No doubt, by leaving all special knowing out of the question, we may at last arrive at the proposition "I know"—the last abstraction we are able to make; but this proposition is identical with "Objects exist for me," and this again is identical with "I am Subject," in which nothing more is contained than in the bare word "I"." (167)
"Consequently there is no knowledge of knowing, since this would require that the Subject separated itself from knowing and yet knew that knowing; and this is impossible." (pg. 208)
Yeah, I see what you're saying, but if there is an aspect of the subject that cannot become an object-for-a-subject, this would imply we could never know it. — Theorem
The model you have laid out in your argument implies that the claims in your argument (including the conclusion) can never qualify as knowledge. — Theorem
Wouldn’t it have to exhaust something, in order to circumvent such infinite regress illusions as the dreaded homunculus argument? — Mww
Why haven’t u considered the subjective aspect of consciousness originating from the objective one, thus rephrasing the first premise roughly:
A phenomenon can be given an exhaustive Objective explanation iff all its aspects can be related to an Object(s)-for-a-Subject. — Vanbrainstorm
P1) A phenomenon can be given an exhaustive Objective explanation iff all its aspects can become an Object(s)-for-a-Subject. — PessimisticIdealism
A phenomenon can be given an exhaustive Objective explanation iff all its aspects can be related to an Object(s)-for-a-Subject. — Vanbrainstorm
"Action Ownership: The Scientific Proof
Many have challenged my postulation and conclusion that actions are necessarily owned. A number of attacks have been directed at the assertion; so this essay is entirely necessary to reveal further and scrutinize the rationale in the goal of ascertaining an apodictic statement on the nature of action.
First we must define our terms.
Entities: That which exists within space-time, following the requirements of dimensional consequences that can be perceptually detected.
Action: An event in time and space with dimensional characteristics that are perceivable.
Ownership: The demonstrated nature of ultimately exclusive power over and dimensional responsibility for an entity.
Event: An interaction between entities that is perceivable.
Both events and actions can be described as a number of energy state changes for objects."
"How does an individual human necessarily “own” their individual action?
When a conscious agent perpetrates an event they do so based on some conditional preference. This conditional preference can be anything from blinking to flirting with a prospective sexual partner. These events are physically observable insofar that one can perceive their existence and describe their distinct dimensional consequences."
"In conclusion, the events perpetrated by conscious entities can themselves be described as independently existing phenomena that possess the descriptive qualifier of “Ownership” as the individual body reveals autonomy in its discernment of preferential events and its perpetration of them. Therefore, actions which are events which have observable physical properties that are perpetrated by conscious agents based on conditional preferences have an agent of which expresses exclusive power over and responsibility for the events dimensional consequences. Actions are entities with discernible and observable space-time characteristics and thusly do exist as a phenomena and therefore can be owned.
Entities in my discernment of epistemology and oncology are that which exist within space time; actions or events to some cannot be entities due to their intangible nature. This premise of my critics suffers when scientific analysis is employed. Events are merely fast state changing entities relative to conscious observers and objects are slow state changing entities relative to conscious observers making them existing phenomena which can necessarily be owned by autonomous and conscious agent based on sole perpetration/creation. This is true as the agent of perpetration is completely incremental to the fast state change of energy known as action."
Anticipated rebuttal: “Events occur, entities exist.” The error in this attempted epistemological discernment is the failure to realize that in order for an event to occur there must be entities of interaction present. We do not perceive a rolling shutter gap between the position of a hand in the action of waving, rather we perceive a motion that required the transfer of physical energy in a system that has dimensional consequences and limitations to get hand through subsequent position to its planned position by the operator of the hand. Electro chemical impulses in the arm, spinal cord and brain are the physical phenomena responsible for the occurrence of such an event and are thusly the physical entities the occurrence of an event require, making the event an entity subsequently. In conversation one would not say the stabbing of Caesar exists, it makes convoluted communication, rather they would say it occurred; this is the limitation of the modes of language. The stabbing was an existing entity in a certain state that possessed distinct physical elements of action wherein impulses occur in the brain and spinal cord to make the knife enter the said victim. The event is perceptually present and therefore exists as an entity in changing states. We say occurrence or has occurred because it makes sense to describe an event with such languages for we are referring to a set of actions. The physical nature in both its execution and dependence cannot be denied, this does not mean you can hold an action but rather it can be produced and observed and is therefore an entity reliant interaction. All entities in interactions must subject onto each other a force in order for the occurrence to be qualified as an interaction. Subject A stabbing subject B is by all logic and science an event of physical phenomena. Interactions can be measured, they possess distinct physical qualities and are therefore entities reliant on two or more bodies interacting.
Anticipated rebuttal: “Fast state relationships vs slow change objects.”
There is a special pleading fallacy committed by the critiques of my theory of action ownership, wherein one claims that an object that they can touch can be owned and the event of moving one’s arm cannot be. This is a failure to recognize that the particular energy conversion demonstrated in an action is merely the entities path, just as the object has dimensional consequences subject too and contingent upon space-time so to do the chemical electrical, relationship between that of the spinal cord and that of the moving arm. When one moves their arm from position A to position B they move through subsequent positions based on the movement upward(In this particular case) and flow of energy is directed by the autonomous agent. This energy movement is occurring in what I refer to as a fast state change. This energies direction and form are being directed in a relationship which is relative to conscious observers as “Fast.” The matter in the situation of the arms movement is converted to another form wherein it is not necessarily realized that the energy has shifted. An observer wouldn't call this relationship an object and they’d be correct in that it is not necessarily an object; it is however the objects path based on its nature as a particular object.
One claims that the tangibility of the apple makes it an existing entity and the intangibility of the action makes it a non-existing phenomena; this is based solely on tangibility and disregards entirely that the action is necessarily an event of the objects nature existing contingent of the object itself. The action can be observed and measured just as the apple can, but one is applying existence to the apple based on its perceptually slower transfer of energy into a state change compared to the actions relatively faster energy state change. This is a special pleading fallacy as one is saying based on the tangibility of apple that it exists over the action which necessarily has dimensional consequences and can be perceived just as the apple can be. We don’t need to touch Jupiter to know its there, just as we do not need to touch gravity waves to know that they’re there, we can detect them just as we can detect action/events.
The Grant Exclusion Principle: Based on the Pauli Exclusion Principle a principle of quantum mechanics that generally states that a fermion in a given state “excludes other fermions of the exact same type from that exact state (ex: if electron A is in the exact state of A within a given system then electron A* is "excluded" from that exact state A). The dependent variables of actions are the objects that are involved in the interactions the energy that is transferred between the objects in the interaction, the space in which the interaction occurs and the time over which it occurs; thus actions while enduring some of the same spatiotemporal degrees as objects, actions have more degrees of freedom then objects do. Action in the GEP(Grant Exclusion Principle) follow the same nature and reasoning of the Pauli Exclusion Principle; as actions can possess similar energy transfers and even identical spatiotemporality, two or more actions cannot possess all of these variables with identical magnitudes, simultaneously. Thus, given some action for these variables, other actions are excluded from the exact same state of variables.
That a proposition isn't certain is not a reason to assume its negation. — Sophisticat
“Are you asking how do we know things independent of knowing? That would be a silly question.” — Harry Hindu
So my only disagreement is with your final conclusion. I think realism is the operating assumption for everyday communication and the growth of knowledge (and is therefore tenable) but is not, itself, something that is known to be true. — Andrew M
It's like saying: "in order to know that I can't see the back of this screen, I must know that I'm not looking at the back of this screen. But I can only know that if I know what it looks like. Therefore, I must be able to see the back of this screen in order to say that I can't see it." — StreetlightX