Knowing that I exist requires that I exist.

It requires that I am. (Being.}

Knowing an apple requires being an apple.


Going up the scale towards human reality, knowing requires being, doing, feeling, experiencing, perceiving.... etc.

These are all levels of knowing.

Book knowledge is only the mental level of knowing.

Unicorns do exist. The definition of a unicorn is simply a one horned animal.

Your question was, "What would it take for that claim to be true?"

You did not ask, What made my claims true.

But your silly question here:

"What better reason can we find to know that holding that truth is subjective leads to unintelligible nonsense?"

Is some kind of weird conclusion or opinion or twisted logic that is intelligible nonsense itself.

Not only that, its the worst constructed sentence of the English language I have ever seen.


That's my opinion/

On page 11



--

On page 15, after asking the exact same question six times in a row, and repeatedly through the thread, so many times I do not even care to count...



--

At the top of page 21...

What would it take for the above claim to be true?

I was tired of your silly questions.
You think "truth" or what is "true" is black and white, cut and dried...

It's not.

I am of the opinion that you are just trying to save face in this discussion that you call "an argument."

Why does everything have to be an argument with you?

Do you ever just want to communicate with people in order to understand their point of view, or is your only desire to ram your point of view down other people's throats?

a miracle

On page 11

Thu 07/21/11 07:45 PM, Abra wrote:

I'm telling you that my thoughts are better conveyed using the words that I choose to convey them with. I simply think in terms of accepting that some things are more reasonable than others.

That doesn't mean that I necessarily 'believe' them to be true.


--

On page 15, after asking the exact same question six times in a row, and repeatedly through the thread, so many times I do not even care to count...

Sat 07/23/11 02:26 AM, creative:

What would it take for those claim to be true?


Jb:

I don't know. You tell me.


--

At the top of page 21...


Mon 07/25/11 01:10 PM, Abra wrote:

A hallucination can only be said to exist if it actually happened, and if it happened then it's truth.

I don't think he learned a thing.

I have deleted some of the post within the last few pages. If it continues that no one can stay within the topic or just agree to disagree this thread will be locked again with no possibility of it being unlocked again.




Site Mod
Kristi

I know that if I drink a gallon of bleach that I will die. I know that without having to do it. I know that without directly experiencing it. Having that knowledge constitutes knowing.

I know that if I shoot myself in the eye with a 45, it will hurt. I know that without having to do it. I know that without directly experiencing it. Having that knowledge constitutes knowing.

I know how to pour hot coffee into a reamed out melon. I know how to do that without having done it. I know that without directly experiencing it. Having that knowledge constitutes knowing.

I know that the capital of Texas is Austin. I know that without directly experiencing it. I know that without having to do it. Having that knowledge constitutes knowing.

I know that if I were to break my back bad enough, that I would not be able to work anymore. I know that without directly experiencing it. I know that without having to do it. Having that knowledge constitutes knowing.

I know that if my Dad were to die, my family would be sad. I know that without having to directly experience it. I know that without having to do it. Having that knowledge constitutes knowing.

I cannot think of a single example where one has knowledge but not knowing, or where one has knowing without knowledge.

That claim was your claim.

It doesn't.

I am not one to sit back and not question whether or not truth claims cut the mustard. So I look at them, just as I look at my own; with as much scrutiny as I can muster. That is no big secret. I'm a analytic philosopher and that's what analysis is all about. I see if claims make sense as they're stated. I work towards acquiring the best way to set things out with language.



One part of understanding another's point of view is knowing what it would take for their claims to be true. Another is knowing the degree of emotional attachment that one has to this or that notion. I'm interested in the former, not the latter. The latter tends to show itself. For instance, it seems that you believe that I have a desire to "ram [my] point of view down other people's throats." That is an emotionally grounded claim; one of which I'm not interested in, other than to put it in the context of the topic...

So, I would ask...

What would it take for that claim to be true?

Here is something jrboogie said in another thread:

"as an agnostic i don't believe anything other than what i experience myself simply because i cannot know anything other than what i experience. since i cannot know i cannot be biased one way or the other. i have no personal beliefs outside of my own experiences."

People are entitled to their own opinion. There are clear examples to the contrary of that particular one... namely that one cannot know anything other than what they experience. That position cannot reconcile with itself, and was already dealt with here...

Mon 07/25/11 09:46 PM

Dealt with in your own mind, perhaps.

I am simply pointing out that JRboogie knows(understands by experience) what I mean by the term knowing.

You do not.

P.S. if you want to refer to a post, either post a link or name a page number with that information. I don't have time to search for that.

The difference between knowing and knowledge is clear.

If you only have second hand knowledge without any personal experience, it is not "knowing" no matter how certain you believe you are. It is still 'belief.'



You strongly believe this.

This is not knowing, no matter how strongly you believe it.

Can you support this objection?

It is very odd to say that I must drink the bleach and die in order to know that drinking a gallon of bleach will kill me.

Another very odd thing to say.

If this were true, then one could have the knowledge that their best friend's favorite food is steak without knowing that their best friend's favorite food is steak.

Very odd.