That we know things couched in cultural terms is a given.
The issue is the dichotomy as proposed by you, namely, "know thyself" vs. "know thyself better".
The latter is about someone else assuming authority over you.
As in, I may know myself, but a psychologist claims to know me better; Christians, too, claim to know me better, and so on. — baker
Maybe my language was sloppy. It doesn't mean nobody knows. But it also doesn't mean somebody does. How would we know? — Tom Storm
No dichotomy! I didn't intend anything like you think I did. I said that we can know ourselves better with the added benefit of science. That doesn't obviate the need for self-examination. I wasn't referring to the question of others knowing me at all. — Janus
Lack of consensus doesn't mean that nobody knows; but it can mean that only some know and others don't.
— baker
Maybe my language was sloppy. It doesn't mean nobody knows. But it also doesn't mean somebody does.
How would we know? — Tom Storm
No, I'm talking about divine revelation, not that "which one obtains from within", "intuition", or "mystical union". Divine revelation as in, holy scriptures. The "inner" part of all this is just the personal affirmation one feels inside that the holy scriptures are in fact the word of God. — baker
How can you possibly know it's pretense? — baker
Without doing this educating, the person would just be someone assuming I am right about reality, and they are all wrong about reality, and such a person would not be a philosopher at all, but a poser. — Metaphysician Undercover
Then I think we were talking about different things, and what you said was not relevant to the point that I was making, which you replied to.
I was talking about knowing a cause (God for example), through its effects (the physical world He created). We have no capacity to directly observe the cause, but we can observe the effects, and infer the necessity of the cause. If you cannot relate to this way of knowing God, I could switch it for an example from quantum physics. — Metaphysician Undercover
We know God through His effects, the reality of physical existence, but we cannot see Him directly as the cause, His existence is inferred.
— Metaphysician Undercover
No. Every self-respecting Christian has a personal relationship with God. — baker
How can you possibly know it's pretense?
— baker
Because "knowledge" in the epistemological sense is justified, and "justified" implies demonstrated, which means shared with others. So if an individual claims to know something, but what is known cannot be demonstrated, or shared with others, it is not "knowledge" in epistemology, which is where the accepted definition of "knowledge": is derived from, and it is therefore just a person claiming to have knowledge, which is not real knowledge, but a pretense.
Remember, in Plato's cave allegory, the philosopher, having seen beyond the reflections, toward understand the true reality, is compelled to return to the cave to teach the others. Without doing this educating, the person would just be someone assuming I am right about reality, and they are all wrong about reality, and such a person would not be a philosopher at all, but a poser.
Personally my sympathy has always been with those who stay in the cave. They seem content despite their chains. — Tom Storm
God is supposed to be known directly. — baker
Monotheists frequently demonstrate their knowledge of God with other monotheists; they form an epistemic community. — baker
If there were someone who knows, how could she demonstrate her knowledge such that everyone would be able to see that in fact she does know? — Janus
Why everyone?
Can you explain? — baker
You started with the example of knowing God. But God is not known through its effects. God is supposed to be known directly. — baker
Monotheists frequently demonstrate their knowledge of God with other monotheists; they form an epistemic community. — baker
Personally my sympathy has always been with those who stay in the cave. They seem content despite their chains.
— Tom Storm
"Sympathy" is an odd choice of words here. "Sympathy" implies feely sorry for, as one might have sympathy for the cattle in the barnyard, who are content despite being slated for slaughter. — Metaphysician Undercover
We are meant to admire the guy who seeks the sun, but in the end he is the loser.
— Tom Storm
Why? — Wayfarer
The 'truth' doesn't set us free - it sets us on a collision course with others. — Tom Storm
That's why the enlightened don't go around preaching to the unenlightened.
By definition, special knowledge is the prerogative of the specialists. The masses must remain unenlightened unless they make an effort to acquire special knowledge.
On their part, the enlightened must compromise and externally adapt to the world of the unenlightened.
But inwardly, that is, intellectually and spiritually, they have been set free from ignorance. — Apollodorus
↪baker I don't see it that way at all: I see it as knowing yourself better with the added benefit of others' experience. — Janus
If there were someone who knows, how could she demonstrate her knowledge such that everyone would be able to see that in fact she does know?
— Janus
Why everyone?
Can you explain?
— baker
Any knowledge which is reliably transmissable is intersubjectively corroborable; so if anyone understood what consciousness is in a way which was demonstrable it would have already been demonstrated.
So, the notion that some people could, together or independently, know what consciousness is, even though nobody else knows what they know, or even that they know, seems nonsensical.
The idea that God can be known directly is nonsensical.
I conclude that you are not familiar with Christian theology then, and especially have not read Thomas Aquinas. He explicitly states (Summa Theologica, Q.2, Art.2) "Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us." — Metaphysician Undercover
Monotheists frequently demonstrate their knowledge of God with other monotheists; they form an epistemic community.
— baker
These two statements directly contradict each other. Suppose I approach you, and insist "God can only be known directly". Then I say, "let me demonstrate my knowledge of God to you." Or, in the inverse order?
Really? When, say, Evangelical Christians tell you who you really are, do you deem yourself as "knowing yourself better"? — baker
You didn't answer my question. — baker
And yet some people can, together or independently, know fancy stuff in, say, advanced mathematics or nuclear physics, even though nobody else knows what they know, or even that they know -- and nobody frets about it!! — baker
And you display this same kind of confidence about other things you don't know? — baker
these people's knowledge is not derived from the observational, empirical knowledge, but is a (directly) received revelation from God. — baker
it should be kept in mind that Socrates, by his own admission, was ignorant. — Fooloso4
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.