And yes, I do feel I've had a personal experience of revealed wisdom. I came to the conclusion that my experience was Gnosis in that the insights gained reliably foresaw future events and circumstances. — Bret Bernhoft
Yes. Wisdom, unlike science, does not need to be repeatable, shared or reviewed. — James Riley
Why should science be repeatable? Reproducible, to use a more experimental approach? God help us if this is really the case! — GraveItty
Knowledge (or gnosis) in Sufism refers to knowledge of Self and God. The gnostic is called al-arif bi'lah or "one who knows by God". — Gnomon
The by makes all the difference. — tim wood
All right, well, as a brick for Ignatz....I love me a cast iron skillet. — James Riley
When I first mistakenly said "repeatability" (when I really meant reproducibility), that was just the non-scientist in me tipping my hat to, or stipulating to what I thought science demanded as part of it's protocols. — James Riley
A god that enables me to know what can be known, not such a bad god. Claiming to know God, on the other hand and without quite a bit of qualification, just delusional. — tim wood
The problem with reproducibility though is that it excludes many forms of science. It's a constraining methodological feature imposed on scientific knowledge. Like all methodologies are. No progress can be made if one sticks to the method. Feyerabend has seen this very well. — GraveItty
I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions. But if you were not "endeavoring " to postulate or defend any debatable or "unorthodox" ideas, why were you posting on a Philosophy forum?There is the difference between you and I:I have not endeavored to articulate any un-orthodox ideas. Hence my curiosity about why your initial response launched into an argument as if I had. — James Riley
You missed the point. I was not denigrating Eastern philosophy, which I find often enlightening. Instead, I was merely noting that TPF is usually not very "accepting of personal confidence as evidence of truth". Instead, any confident assertions are expected to be supported by articulated argument. Although, some seem to think that this is a scientific forum, and demand empirical evidence. :smile:Where is it written that the philosophy here should be western? It's called the philosophy forum. Not the western philosophy forum. — GraveItty
One way to understand the value is reproducibility is to think of the technology that results, which we prefer to be reliable. In general, science can be understood as a search for the "buttons & levers" of nature (so that we can invent vaccines and airplanes and internets.) (Yes, it's also perhaps a search for relatively useless truth.) — hanaH
The gnostic is called al-arif bi'lah or "one who knows by God". — Gnomon
No. Philosophical skepticism. As Reagan responded to a Russian nuclear-proliferation treaty : "trust but verify". :smile:Why not? Distrust? — GraveItty
Life is, among other things, a competition, an arms race. To say so isn't to celebrate or denigrate. — hanaH
Nah, assumption of equality of people. — baker
Like you said: — baker
What's the alternative? Self-anointed spiritual masters competing for simps? — hanaH
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.