On 02-May-01, rwas rwas wrote:

>> Just as an example, he says most philosophers
>> would agree that
>> []A->A, where []A is interpreted as knowing A. This
>> is clearly a
>> different meaning of the word "to know" that we use
>> here in
>> Australia.
> I get the impression folks here assume that when one
> person knows something, that only that person knows
> that something. For other people to know the same
> something, they have to discover and assimilate it for
> themselves. It also seems that folks here assume
> knowledge is some kind of pattern that exists separate
> from the truth of surrounding it's existence.
>> From a mystic standpoint, this can't be. To know
> something is closer to the analogy of a subscriber
> line. When one *knows* something, anything, they
> subscribe this pattern.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the usual definition of knowledge is:

A true belief that has a casual connection with the fact that makes it

The standard example is that I may believe that Tom has bought a blue
car because I saw him drive up in it.  And Tom has bought a blue car -
so the belief is true.  But it isn't knowledge because the car I saw
him drive up in is a rental car, not the one he bought.  So in this
example there is no casual connection between my belief and the fact
that Tom bought a blue care, and hence my true belief is not knowledge.

Brent Meeker

Reply via email to