An apparently simple question... ?

Real Knowledge is knowing that you don´t know.

LOL you sound like a Zen practioner :thumbsup:

Socrates actually (one thing i know,that i know nothing)

Oh he said it also, but its also part of the Zen philosophy.

Socrates mentioned it .
Chinese thinkers also contributed a lot to the world unfortunately they aren´t popular in Europe.


Knowledge about not knowing is like knowing that the only thing you know is that you don´t know.

--> Knowledge about lacking knowledge is probably the real knowledge since most other definitions of knowledge are mostly based on knowing facts and facts could also be opinions.

Actually Zen is from Japan, although it is derived from the Chinese Chan buddhism, which in its turn was derived from the Indian jhana/djana branch

I meant Asian with the three main streams Indian, Japanese and China

You seem to like Asian culture

Actually although the Japanese developt their own way, Japanese culture is part of the Chinese cultural heritage.

Well yes I like Asian culture, especially Japanese. You see since I was a little boy I played Japanese games so I am indoctrinated by their games and love their culture hahahahaha :lol:

Really if you want the world to like you, build games, lots of them and promote your culture in them ;)

Poor boy indoctrination from an early age :lol: :thumbsup:

But I think you are really right.

Distributing games might the new form of distributing culture.

"What is knowledge?" is probably the most complex problematics in philosophy. The entire literature on epistemology deals with said question in this or that way.

But, I am far from Socratic traditions, and simply say (as in my signature): knowledge is good.

Knowledge is always good, but sometimes the emphasis is too much on thinking/knowing. Some Zen monks compare the mind with a ocean of thoughts, and your thoughts are the waves. If you think too much/hard your mind will become like chaotic like in a storm on the ocean. Then it's hard to see the horizon and reach your destiny. Therefor you must ease/free your mind, let the random thoughts all flow away.


Here is a site with Koan's. Koan's are short stories/riddles, but the job is not to solve them. Its rather to reflect like a mirror on your way of thinking.

http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/zenindex.html

The Zen Koans are really interesting.

Like the first one about the cup of tea which deals with the thing fact versus opinion.



But when we take the topic from other view, today we say we are in the knowledge society

--> so like modus said it we consider knowledge simply as good



IF you take it from a historic view you can say knowledge has always let the human kind progress because it has simplified or improved the life style.
From the Stone Age people improved their tools but at this time it happened mostly empiristic or by chance.

Today we effectively pursue improvements to better/simplify our lifes and this lets the frequency of new innovations to become very high
--> That´s why , because we consider this simplifing as good as we consider knowledge as good



Plus today we think we can measure IQ and this always encompasses knowledge not only thinking questions.

Can we say about opinions that an opinion becomes a fact we it becomes a societal consensus ?

You're right Cid, but actually "knowledge is good" phrase is a bit more complex than its apparent syntax, since the proposition here is based on ethics (good) rather than epistemology. In other words it implies without ethics, knowledge is BS.

On the other hand, besides the Western philosphical approaches, in the East we also emphasize the experience. In other words we believe in a posteriori knowledge.

Kant in Criticique of Pure Reason examines the a priori and a posteriori staff. May give an idea...

With your example the phrase "Knowledge is power" becomes obvious since using expert language gives you power and people usually strive for power.




Suggestion:
First we should find simple answers and after that we could discuss the topic in a "deeper way" them.


1.Power
2.Improving your life style
3....

So if knowledge is knowing that you don't know, would you be content not knowing, or would you fight knowlegde by pursuing it?

Ehmm... Knowledge is power??? :headbang: :headbang:

When you take it this way in our society you would probably belong to the underprivileged class since not knowing anything today effectively means be useless for the society. Therefore knowledge means power because a person that has knowledge (that a society needs) can contribute to that society and is therefore rewarded properly so he gains power since he is useful.
When you know more than the majority of the society you can get a very high position --> power.

But I think despite that view that the only thing you really could know is your lacking knowledge since all other forms of knowledge are often relative.


Lets make an extreme example:
A native in Africa cannot use his knowledge/skill for example in New York City because his knowledge is nothing else than useless.

When beginning from 70s, postmodernist philosophers, and social scientists tend to define the new phase in humanity as the information society, some tend to consider knowledge and power as equivalent concepts.

I disagree.

From the perspective of commerce, or political struggle, knowledge (or should I say know-how) is quite important; from military perspective real-time war theater awareness is so much important (so we have the evolution from C2 to C4ISR). Does it mean that having knowledge ensures power?

I disagree.

I agree that power or the network of global power system continuously pursue information to further extend its power. But does it work?

Actually the abundance of information, in other words inflation of information leads to a simulated fiction, and simply makes it difficult to decide, as demonstrated by the new evidence after 9/11 disaster. They had the info from the beginning, but the abundance of both the information, and the information processing bodies paradoxically prevented them from finding a simple solution, and caused many lives.

I think that the power lies at the capacity to assess the information. And assessment is not limited to epistemological (or let's say 'scientific') dimension. When we are to ask "why we need knowledge, what will be the use of knowledge" we'd surely need many other dimensions, ethics being one of the most important ones.

I like to see the whole picture with the help of logos, bios, ethos concepts, the universal concepts having been defined more or less the same by all civilizations throughout the world no matter with different terms.

There is a delicate balance between these dimensions. Therefore sublimation of logos (so as to have more power) at the expense of bios and ethos would surely lead to chaos.

In short "knowledge is good," but not that much if ever the ones holding the knowledge use it merely as a leverage for having/maintaining/pursueing power, and not share it for the common good.

My best

when you take the example of 9/11

-->
The problem was, like you mentioned, the abundance on facts. The problem was caused due to the lack of ability to USE the knowledge since the coordination was insufficient. So without Knowledge the result would be same.



Probably we can agree on:

Knowledge is power when you are able to use it correctly.
--> So power is to some extent more the capability for evaluation of knowledge and the decision than the (pure) knowledge itself.



Of course you are right to say that in order to find the intention of knowledge we have to consider the subject in a wider range.

Not really, a human knows love, knows pain, knows desire. I agree that for one to have a clear mind, one must be aware that there is much more he does not know that what he does. This doesn't preclude him from acquireing knowledge.


Again, I will pose my question, as it seems it was not understood: So if knowledge is knowing that you don't know, would you be content not knowing, or would you fight knowlegde by pursuing it?

IOW, If one is taught that he knows nothing, will he grow up content being ignorant? Or will he pursue knowledge, thereby make the statment "Knowledge is not knowing" less and less aplicable to himself?

"Knowledge is power" is much more true in the military than the civi world. I'll bet every one of us here knows a super-smart bastard that is sitting on corner somewhere (so to speak). Having knowledge is nothing unless one is willing to compromize his ethics to play the game in establishment in order to be in a position to use his knowledge.

1. Common Knowledge about feelings isn´t relative knowledge.

--> In a society that considers pain as good/love as abundance/desire as decadent ?
Don´t you consider pain as something to flee/love as something pleasant/ desire as something natural ?



2.Being content with not knowing.

--> Would imply the prerequisite that knowledge is something desirable for the individual since we agreed that real knowledge is knowing nothing at all.




3. Knowledge is power

--> knowledge can BECOME power when it is used correctely
--> So to some extent the knowledge about the proper use of your knowledge is the real power less the knowledge itself .
Even in military knowledge about lets say the kind of maneuver the hostile air force is making when a recruit has the lead since he lacks the knowledge to use the received knowledge.

That is opinion. I see feelings as the lowest common denominator. The most basic of all knowledge, the building blocks. Its knowledge because it is reality, wheather percieved or not.

I consider them all an equaly integral part of life.

I agree that awareness of iganorance is important for a clear focus. That is only a part of "real knowledge".

Exaclty my point. Knowledge can only become power if used in certain fashions. It is not inherintly power, it can be a catalyst.

Correct.

knowlwdge is not asking or answering such questions as "what is knowledge"... ;)

hum, I think I just fell into my trap... :damn: :D :P

This question reveals what can be called a Socratic paradox. Allow me to express my opinions...

The very phrase "I know that I don't know!" implies a progressive, linear expansion of knowledge, in other words at any point of that progression one will discover there is still a lot to learn, o it's impossible to learn depending on one's ideological background. As the life of the philosopher justifies, the same phrase reasonably implies that one should humbly and continuously seek for knowledge. An analogy can be derived from limit concept of calculus, the more it seems you reach the limits, the more the time to reach that limit extends, in the end you discover it's impossible to reach that limit. There you make a decision go ahead (with or without any hope to reach, in either case you put more importance to the journey itself but not to the eventual gain, i.e. knowledge) or give up.

In the context of dear Thermophyles' question it is evident there are tendencies which contended with (and eventually rejected the given frame of reality) knowledge, and those pursued knowledge. We can speak of two distinct philosophical trends in the same paradigm above. First one, those given up paved the way for agnosticism, decadance, and postmodernism, the second, those continued pursuin knowledge paved the way for renaissance, enlightenment and modernism.

Nevertheless, I think that this paradigm may be restrictive since the knowledge acquisition process is defined as a linear process, brick by brick you construct the castle of knowledge, without having a plan how tall that building will be, or how long will it take to complete construction, or whether one's life span, or the human race's life span will be sufficient to complete it.

In my opinion knowledge acquisition is not a linear process, and on the contrary for most of the time it's so much related to ideology, gestalt psychology (perception, recognition issues), etc. etc. But either case it's a dynamic process as in the discrete functions if we follow the analogies with calculus.

I like to discover similar tendencies in Eastern and Western philosophies, in the East, and mostly in the Sufi traditions, the eventual gain is not that important, the journey is the most important part. So in Thermophyles' question I'd prefer the second option, pursuing knowledge, but not because of the eventual gain of knowledge the journey itself is the decisive motive.

I might have posted the relevant phrase a couple of times, but it's a good plce to reiterate it: You cannot reach your target by walking, but those who have reached their targets are those who have been walking.

1. Knowledge about lacking knowledge --> not only definition but also "incentive" for expansion of knowledge ?

--> would imply knowledge is appreciated from the society (if the individual lives in a society) or at least desirable for the individual (for example: When we agree that knowledge is power and power the major objective of a human being )
--> would also imply that the human being is never really in a state of self-satisfaction which could hinder him from acquiring knowledge (knowledge is not knowing --> not knowing makes me self-satisfied since self-satisfaction means doing nothing more than that that is necessary to survive and to maybe reproduce yourself --> bettering yourself means making effort you don´t want)


1.Today the society acknowledges knowledge or more the efficient use of your knowledge by giving you higher societal positions
2.Autarky is more or less impossible in modern society since it hinders you from advancing (advancing is continuous knowledge acquisition?)
3...

Let me answer my own question, and you all can see my piont of view.

You see, the point I try to make is this: If one is raised being aware that knowledge is not knowing, there is a risk of one growing up to be content in ignorance. While if one doesn't say "real knowledge is not knowing" but sais instead "always be aware of you limitations", then IMO there is a better chance of using awareness of lack of knowledge in order to pursue it, which was my second point. My beliefe is such: awareness of iganorance is important for a clear focus, but it is only a piece of the picture of "real knowledge".

Real knowledge for me is knoing how to aquire and use knowledge itself. One can do alot more with a small piece of knowledge if he knows how to use it correctly, but one can be a genius and if he doesn't know what to do with it, he's cleaning toilets somewhere...

Or for a minimalistic definition of "what is knowledge", as the esteemed Modus says, Knowlegde is Good :)

First definition:

Knowledge is to be able to use acquired knowledge properly/correctly.




open questions:


What is acquired knowledge ? knowledge that is useful for the society therefore useful for the individual ?

What are needed abilities for the right use of the a.k. ?

What means using knowledge PROPERLY/CORRECTLY ? For what reasons (intention)?

I would gladly participate in this thread...but my english knowledge dont allow me...to reveal you my true thoughts about it...
so iam using some fact that i found some time ago about this theme...
Knowledge...
Literally 'love of wisdom', a subject which deals with the most general questions about the universe and our place in it. Is the world entirely physical in its composition and processes? Is there any purpose to it? Can we know anything for certain? Are we free? Are there any absolute values? Philosophy differs from science, in that its questions cannot be answered empirically, by observation or experiment; and from religion, in that its purpose is entirely intellectual, and allows no role for faith or revelation.


Philosophy tends to proceed by an informal but rigorous process of conceptual analysis and reasoning. Its major branches are metaphysics, epistemology (or theory of knowledge), ethics, and logic (especially the theory of meaning, formal logic now being regarded more as part of mathematics).

Philosophy is thus concerned with the common core of human knowledge and experience but also with the concepts, modes of argument, and foundations of other special subjects, so that there are, for example, philosophies of science, history, art (aesthetics), politics, and religion.

Western philosophy is conventionally divided into several overlapping periods or traditions:

Greek and Roman, from the 6th-c BC to the 6th-c AD, with Plato and Aristotle setting the agenda for almost all that follows;

Medieval, from Augustine in the 4th-c to the 15th-c, a period when Muslims, Jews, and Christians all tried to relate the classical inheritance, particularly from Aristotle, to their different religious traditions;

Renaissance, the humanism of the 14th-c to the 16th-c;

b>Early Modern, 16th-c and 17th-c, when such figures as Descartes, Locke, and Leibniz began to work out the philosophical implications of the scientific revolution;

Enlightenment, the consequent liberalism and empiricism of the 18th-c;

and Modern, the 19th-c and 20th-c, marked by the separation from philosophy of separate sciences, such as logic and psychology, and the professionalism of the subject around the core questions of epistemology, metaphysics, and the theory of meaning.

There are of course other non-Western philosophical traditions, some of which intersected at various points with Western philosophy (Islam, Judaism) and some of which take quite separate paths (Indian, Chinese).



Question...and answer together..
To gain knowledge without gaining logic...and wisdom...is nothing...
The target is maybe to join the way...and to gain knowldge on this way (life)
but what remains...should be never used for gaining power...(not all ways/lifes/targets are nececary good...or full of wisdom...

so the phrase

Knowledge is to be able to use acquired knowledge properly/correctly.
and the fact that Knowledge is good...
can be only be proved from the society that is around you and aproves your way of knowledge...and your way of proving your knowledge
The nazis gained knowledge...for what purpose...?
could it be used for any good reason...?
or didnt we used there "ways" even after they "dissapeard..?
was this knowledge Good...? no for shure not...

There is the answer to many of my own questions...
In many ways i have to agree with Hakan...about "hes" thoughts...
many times i saw people around me with alot of "knowledge" being decadant...and arogant...
But watching them...you gain more knowledge about your own way...

so my believes are...the totally 'Issoropia"...Balance Gents...Balance is the way to logical Knowledge...which will not harm anyone around you...

Regards

"damn english..." ok...from now on..the official language of this forum is greek -Turkish...

Philosophy is the critical study of the most fundamental questions that humankind has been able to ask. Philosophy asks what is the nature of reality? Do our perceptions of reality match the actual reality that is "out there"? What does it mean to think, to have a mind? How can we know that other minds (i.e. other thinking beings) actually exist? Is there a difference between right and wrong, and if so, how can prove this? How do we define rules that allow us to apply theoretical ideas of right and wrong in practical situations? What do we mean by the word "God"? Does God exist? Philosophy studies such concepts as existence, goodness, knowledge, and beauty. It asks "Is knowledge possible, and if so "What is knowledge?" Philosophy is the critical, speculative or analytical study of any of these topics.

Thank you for this wonderful post Lord. I agree balance is the key word.

My best,
Hakan

Indeed, I also appreciate your efforts, Lord.

As you said philosophy in its pure form is a permanent questioning.


thinking about "information society" could lead you to a definition of knowledge, then the intention of knowledge, the intention of human behaviour...


Socrates could therefore be defined as a pure philosopher who permanently was asking his students questions like that, therefore a lot of people ,still today, would consider him as a "penetrant" person who to some extent never wanted accept facts as facts but always questioned them.

Your nazi analogy illustrates the societal component of knowledge very good.

You gave your final opinion about the topic by saying that the ideology (to some extent also knowledge is bad ) of the nazis was bad.

And I ask why do you think so (intention) ?

1. the modern society lets you grow up and determines you to be open-minded, not racist and therefore to some extent also anti-nazi --> you follow this "rules" because
1.1. You want to be appreciated from the society ---> so your intention is to belong to, determine and believe in social "rules" since you also share this opinions
1.2.while you are going to be appreciated from society you also want to gain power by obeying the rules as strict as possible in order to advance in society by i.e. attaining a higher position --> knowledge is applied knowledge, is applied power /so your final objective is gaining power (biological)
1.3. your final objective is raising your children in a perfect environment --> you try to pursue higher positions, more money ( more money means a better life and possible perfect circumstances to raise you children (biological)
.
.
.

So finally you are anti-hitler because of your environment and your intention

If a hitler regime would be in power would you act somehow else ?

I hope you understand that I only try to question not to start accusing .

Pan Metron Ariston B)

PS @ Lord: Bro, I hope you don't mind me saying so, but your english is getting better :thumbsup:

So through the attempt to determine the intention you could derive another definition for knowledge:

Applied knowledge is a means to communicate

Applied knowledge is a means to determine your social position.

Applied knowledge is a means to gain power in society

Applied knowledge is a means that is to some extent adaptable to societal needs

Applied knowledge is a means to achieve happiness

.

.

.

plus 1

Applies kowledge is a means to achieve Balance...


Regards




ps Iam trying to finish some of my toughts...later on in this thread...

To some extent even the knowledge which is applied but not acknowledged by the society is also useless.

So applied and acknowledged knowledge is:

1.power
2.balance
3.communication
4...
5...