When I think of "knowing", I think of how I and others around me use
the term. "Knowing something," is what I would say about something and
mean: "having a capable response (act) according to some previous
stored information (data) from an experience (act). " In this sense,
'knowing' is really just a different way of describing experiencing.
To experience, is thus, to know. (assumes our conscious state of mind)
We just tend to stereotypically use the term "knowing" to reference
mostly recordable type media like words, spoken or written, or things
we can examine literally.
Decartes may have started with "I think, therefore, I am." But it
isn't necessary to question his philosophy now. You may clearly start
with the your own existence as a presumption. And as I've shown, if
you mentally follow the logic of what I've said earlier, you can
safely conlude that you are a capable 'knower' and I presume, "know"
things.
You can carry on a self-evident journey of discovery of many
philosophical areas from this starting point because you are the only
experiencer that could gaurantee many experiences are certain. This is
why this approach is effective.
The only value I take from Descartes is this type of method
updated with a more logical set of definitions on knowing, believing,
etcetera. Why is there any need to dig deeper here?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
