Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Viewpoint of knowledge; limitation for parameter.

  1. #1 Viewpoint of knowledge; limitation for parameter. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    This may be incorrect positioning for this particular thread title, and a previous thread I started was removed for a different subject reason, but I do not find this to be empty material. I'd like at least consideration of the matter for general understanding.

    If I may: We use the method of science for discovery, and of course to look into other reasons for appreciating beauty, health, music, and perhaps even higher philosphical or spiritual matters in observation.

    I perceive that first in our import to knowledge, and then wisdom, is to recognize intellectually what we are too limited to know, and that knowledge bases begins first with what we accept we cannot identify, and thus what we will not attempt.

    If I know that knowledge of the next nearest star, for close observation, is three hundred years away at the earliest, then unless I specialize there I should probably discontinue review.

    This is not a vague comprehension, imo. If you don't first recognize what you do not know, and cannot be in position to know, then wondering about such persists to futility, probably.

    Presence of understanding does require a basis for being intelligent.

    My view is that knowing what we will not know, or what I will not know, should thusly represent what narrows from the general for the specific. This might seem obvious, but questions of "do I proceed to knowledge from ignorance" can be scoffed at when a baby does just that among us, anyway.

    So, what if we decide to pursue knowing if a creator exists? Should we do that; and doing so what parameter for what we do not know exists, right?

    Thus, God are you there, do you love me, and will you reveal that? become personal questions that are more likely to get real subjective results, and if we know that spirit has no limited parameters that are known measurables, then the question can proceed to waiting for response from him who otherwise is not perceived in obvious form.

    So, philosophically, what is the basis for procedure to knowledge? Some would say, as a matter of physical discovery, that looking for what we can define is next. But, I persist that the first information elimination is always thusly "this is what I cannot and/or do not know."

    Is that, from this particular forum subject, a good basis for proceeding to we have this knowledge need in common because we have this ignorance to start with, as babies, that from such parameter, proceed to comprehend notion limitations?

    Reply With Quote  


  3. #2  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    I think sometimes we can decide that there are things that we shouldn't try to learn, may'be we might feel they are relevant or that we don't have the time or maybe we just want to learn something else and that desire is greater. I think though knowing what we should, can or want to learn and indeed vise versa can only really start when we actually start to learn in the first place. We can't really even be aware of our own ignorance until we set aside our pride and realise just how little we really do know and indeed how much there is truely to learn. Nobody really wants to admit to themselves their are things they should know and don't and yet once this is done it's somehow liberating in as much as it sparks a desire to learn and learn very quickly.

    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by seft View Post
    So, philosophically, what is the basis for procedure to knowledge?
    My attempt at an answer for this question would be;

    1. Identify the subject.
    2. Evaluate the subjective importance of the subject to determine if it warrants my time and possible effort at pursuing an answer or understanding it.
    3. Rate the subject's place amongst other subjects that are currently of interest to me.
    4. Investigate empirically or contemplate intellectually.
    5. Etc.
    Reply With Quote  

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    What I demonstrate, though, here is neither limitation nor the unlimited. Clearly we are limited in some form, but the question is in what manner.

    My advice is simple, parameter is the limiting value of either perception or positioning of that purpose. The breadth of your paramter is significant.

    Not all is certainly true, and there is among that which can perceive by sense nothing that is completely false.

    So, within that moderation, many things beyond our imagination can actually be observed, at least in tales and stories.

    Thus, even if we do not know a god, we can perceive the idea beyond us to exist, and thus regardless of our view, there He is.

    But, if we do not believe black holes (collapsars) are there, then attempting evidential proof would certainly be futile, right?
    Reply With Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Ability to describe knowledge = knowledge?
    By DivideByZero in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 28th, 2009, 05:48 AM
  2. how sure is knowledge?
    By Pendragon in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: December 20th, 2006, 12:46 PM
  3. limitation problem
    By kreidxkj in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2005, 01:22 AM
  4. limitation problem
    By kreidxkj in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 29th, 2005, 10:05 PM
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts