This week I was reading a book on gnosiology (theory of knowledge), I decided to spell out some passages that I found interesting:
The act of not knowing about a certain topic is a form of knowledge; by knowing what we don't know we already have a starting point for learning.
There is no way to learn to swim just by reading a book, theory and practice.
The intuition currently seen by science is empiricist, leaving metaphysics aside.
Principle of suspicion:
1- Always be suspicious of any idea given as definitive (idea or opinion, or theory, or explanation, etc.)
2- From the evidence, look for what generated it, look for its genesis.
a- Check if it arises from experience and if it refers to something external to us, objectified by us.
b- if it arises, by opposition (or negation), to something that we capture or accept.
c- if it is taken abstractly from its set.
d- if its set is related to others, and which degrees of coherence it participates with others.
3- Do not accept any theory, etc., that only has application on a plane, and cannot be projected, analogically, to other higher levels, as an ontological principle or postulate.
4- Always suspect, when something is given, that there is something that escapes us and that we need to look for, through the methods of dialectics.
5- Avoid any caricatured idea or notion, and seek the functioning of its author's schemes to capture what is most profound and real, which sometimes does not show in his words.
6- We must always be suspicious of the abstractionist tendency of our intellectuality, which leads to hypostatizing what we distinguish, without correspondence with the concrete complex of existing.
7- Always observe the differences in degrees of actualization of an idea, because the emphasis can lend to the essence of a formality what, in fact, does not belong to it.
Thus, what is merely accidental, modal or peculiar, which arises only from a relationship, can, at certain times, be considered as essentials of a formal entity, allowing and predisposing, that later, great errors arise from a starting point. , which seemed fundamentally right.
When confronted with an absurdity or an absolutist abstractionist position, we can be certain that it starts from an initial error. Going back to the origins, to the initial postulates, it will not be difficult to see the error.
8- When reading an author, never forget to consider the meaning in which he uses the concepts. In modern philosophy, whose conceptualization has not yet acquired the clarity and security of the scholastic conceptualization, there is a multiplicity of meanings that jeopardize the understanding of ideas. And many controversies and diversity of positions are based on the unclear way of grasping the noetic-eidetic scheme of a concept, which stems from the absence of discipline, which was the prerogative of scholasticism in its phases of flow.
noetic = Pertaining to the intellect, to the mind, rational. Characterized by intellectual activity.
eidetic = According to phenomenology, relative to the essence of things.
Eidetic memory, popularly known as Photographic Memory, is the ability to remember things seen, with a perfect level of detail.
9- When examining the concepts, never fail to consider what they include and what they exclude, that is, the positive included in the conceptual scheme, and the positive, which is rejected.
10-Never forget to consider any formality in the face of formalities that cooperate in your positivity, nor are they included in your tension.
11-Always take care, when reasoning, of the influence that may have, in our updates and virtualizations, the natural inertia of our spirit, the slightest effort, especially in paralogisms and in long arguments.
12-Any statement that presents the nature of truth, verify on what level it is verified: whether in the ontological, ontic, logical, formal, gnoseological, material, axiological, symbolic, pragmatic, etc.
Once its positivity is established, look for the ones it requires in order to obtain a safe criterion. This last measure, and its procedure, is the one acquired by the matter to be examined.
> 1- Always be suspicious of any idea given as definitive (idea or opinion, or theory, or explanation, etc.)
Theories allow us to advance, but they are only theories. Thus, from time to time discoveries emerge that destroy more or less established theories.
QuoteNow, the study, published in the journal Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05629-6), points out that Quaoar, a trans-Nepunian object half as small as Pluto, has a ring located at an unusual distance that defies a theory formulated in 1850: its radius, 4,100 kilometers, corresponds to about 7.4 radii from this possible dwarf planet. The point where it is located would be well beyond the so-called Roche limit, the distance at which, according to the theory developed by Edouard Roche around 1850, the tidal forces of the central body prevent particles from aggregating in a satellite.
> 3- Do not accept any theory, etc., that only has application on a plane, and cannot be projected, analogically, to other higher levels, as an ontological principle or postulate
I wouldn't be so rigid with this. Euclidean geometry is very valid for its field and I think its applicability is beyond any doubt. And yet, there are non-Euclidean geometries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry).
hello sir caballero;
Gnosiology deals with the study of the human being and the object to be known.
We are inserted in a multitude of knowledge that we do not know how it started or when it will end.
Certain knowledge comes from other knowledge, and other knowledge, and other knowledge, ... .
Hence the universal doubt.
I vaguely suppose that object-oriented programming can be better explored using gnosiology (empiricism).
From long ago when I studied modern philosophy, theories of knowledge were formally known as "epistemology" and it has an interesting history. I confess to being a thorogoing empiricist which entails the assumption that your observations of the world are your methods of verifying the truth or lack of it, of a statement.
It has always been a reasonable question when someone makes an assertion about something that does not square with your own observations, "how do you know that ?"
The name in the topic carries the Greek word Knosis, knowledge so I get the impression that leans in the direction of what epistemology is, theories of knowledge and how you determine if a statement is true or not.
:thumbsup:
QuoteGnosiology ("study of knowledge") is "the philosophy of knowledge and cognition". In Soviet and post-Soviet philosophy, the word is often used as a synonym for epistemology.
But Ortodox church have another interpretation:
QuoteGnosiology (from the Greek γνώσης or "gnõsis," "knowledge") is the study of intuitive (spiritual) knowledge. This is in contrast to scientific (empirical) knowledge (in Greek, επιστήμη or "epistẽmẽ") which denotes knowledge of the natural, material world. Epistemological knowledge, as such, is that knowledge of which natural, "fallen" man is capable. Gnosis is knowledge of the divine, spiritual and also of the uncreated that requires an enlightened heart or mind (Greek: "nous").
It's most clear "epistemology" (or at least we are used to that :biggrin:).
I suppose that soviet epistemology was more oriented towards empiricism, not far away great geniuses of science were born.
In gnosiology, empiricism and metaphysics (after physics) go hand in hand.
An example is the word atom (indivisible), which needs to be revised by current science.
Hi mineiro,
Another important source :
Karl Popper - All Life is Problem Solving
Is that they name enemy "gnosis" after in ps2 rpg game ,which have cool female bodyguard robot KOSMOS ,that robot i want to have
Thanks for the tip sir Vortex;
His book is very expensive.
I read a summary about him and he seems like an interesting person.
"Popper coined the term "Critical Rationalism" to describe his philosophy. This designation is significant and is an indication of his rejection of classical empiricism and the observational-inductivist science that results from it."
Reconciling different political views (socialism, liberalism, conservatism) to my point of view is pragmatic, but it can be done.
I am conservative in culture/religion, liberal in economics, in relation to the State I am a republican but minarchist, in relation to social matters I am a democrat, ... .
*** I think that the word liberalism in english language differs in meaning from liberalism in portuguese language. I'm telling liberalism in sense of right wing.
daydreamer;
I played rpg games in 1992, far away. Now I only play chess, crosswords, ... .
Quote from: mineiro on February 14, 2023, 08:29:00 AM
daydreamer;
I played rpg games in 1992, far away. Now I only play chess, crosswords, ... .
I also enjoyed chess,but problem solving when making program is also great,I try to combine chess/programming with make a 22kb unfinished chess GUI(in game forum),using 2 byte unicode chess pieces
Hi mineiro,
The theory of falsification by Popper is important. Maybe, you can get the book from a friend.
hello sir daydreamer;
I also like mental problems, when we become adults the games change.
hello sir Vortex;
I'm living in a rural area, it will be difficult to get the book. I can, however, try to find some work on Ph.D. in philosophy on the internet that builds on and references Popper.
Something I did at UNI long ago was the mediaevil Catholic philosophers with people like Equinas. Towards the end of that period, William of Occam has been recognised as one of the leading brains of the time in the dual fields of theology and philosophy.
Occam postulated a view that theology and philosophy were different categories that did not overlap. One was driven by faith and belief while the other was aimed at the physical world with empiricism being the driver.
It solved some problems at the time with European Catholic theology not having to compete with the outside occurring world but the issue arose again from time to time with theologians wanting to define the world in theological terms.
Hutch
giordano Bruno got condemned and executed by church because his vision of modern astronomy infinite universe,exo planets many centuries before discovered all this
Galileo inquisition trial he survived with play along
That's how theologians wanting to define world in theological terms, Conservative in ways defend their definition from new discoveries made in outside world
Magnus,
I am a bit rusty here but did an assignment on Galileo long ago and while he was an interesting guy who made important discoveries, he was also a loudmouth that went out of his way to rub some of the Italian Catholic clergy the wrong way. He came to grief on a theory of the tides that was just wrong and while he did get hauled over the coals for his effort, from memory he was placed under house arrest in the custody of his daughter and forbidden to publish anything.
After his death his work was smuggled out of Italy and published elsewhere and is now famous.
Bruno was a heretic who was torched in the Square of the flowers for his extremely controvertial views in the era of Catholic Italy. Something like calling Chairman Mao a capitalist in early communist China. :tongue:
Quote from: hutch-- on February 19, 2023, 10:32:24 AM
Something like calling Chairman Mao a capitalist in early communist China. :tongue:
Might had better luck call groucho marx communist?
I had a coded a East/West Berlin spy mud in school
A friend helped me write some funny description, in East Berlin movie theatre was showing "marx brothers and Karl marx the family black sheep" :biggrin:
So the Galileo story I heard is a myth, :
he confesses he is wrong in front of inquisition, but when he goes out he comments -"but earth is still round"?