Bertrand Russell’s theory of knowledge (I can not believe it…!)
I won’t say “I can not believe that you call him philosopher” because that will bring difficulties in understanding the meaning of “belief”.
But I can say “Oh, my God!” and that will change nothing.
I don’t like seriousness and in support of my statement I’ll say - it sucks.
Now imagine that I’m the serious Bertrand Russel and I say: “human beings may have an explicit “belief ” that the shade is pleasanter”, which will make you BELIEVE that this is the truth about belief.
Now, that sucks.
Because your belief will be put on Russell’s authority in philosophy and that will prove Russell wrong in his understanding about “belief”.
Do you understand what I’m saying?
Well, let me explain myself.
Belief has very little to do with behavior and your belief that Russell is right is not behavior.
Then what is it?
It is a strong positive position in your uncertainty.
You believe that Russell is an authority to trust and that position is the most likely to be true in your uncertainty.
Unfortunately the belief does not always reflects the truth.
But let us start with the Knowledge before explaining the Belief.
What “knowledge” is?
There are few types of knowledge.
BASIC KNOWLEDGE
Read the rest of this entry »
Bertrand Russell - knowledge and logic
“Can human beings know anything, and if so, what and how? This question is really the most essentially philosophical of all questions.” - Russell
Not being offensive to Russell’s logic I’d like to mark his question as illogical.
Such question should not be uttered if it puts in doubt the ability to know, assuming that we don’t know and we will never know (any answer).
It is also illogical to utter it if we assume that we have knowledge to the extent of having this question.
“I Know” is wrong statement in absolute sense.
“I create knowledge” is the right statement.
As long as we observe we will create knowledge.
All things are already known to us.
We can not observe something out of our five senses; therefore we can not create knowledge out of “the five”. In this Universe there is nothing unknown to us. The details are unimportant because they come from our knowledge.
(How can we know what knowledge are we missing if we don’t already have the knowledge about the subject?)
The above said may sound “non sense” if one does not know the meaning of “knowledge”.
What “knowledge” is?
The self-awareness does not use words and meanings.
Meanings and concepts are created and put in words after the self-awareness observes something different than its own self.
“Motion… object. Something different than myself.”
We have just created knowledge by creating the concept of something which is not “me”. The same way we create all possible knowledge.
Read the rest of this entry »
Awareness beforehand
The Concept
An existence is claimed only after observation.
Existence is state of presence in observation.
The mind changes the concept by applying “existence” to the object, forgetting that the “existence” derived from (and actually is) awareness about presence.
Awareness is needed in order to make the existence valid.
—
Explanation
We work with “existence” more like a meaning (concept), but after it was created by the awareness the mind deceivingly is applying it to the object.
Actually the existence is applicable to the awareness.
We wouldn’t talk about existence if we never observed it.
If we only have self-awareness without any other knowledge, existence is impossible as a concept (meaning, knowledge).
Because any existence is observed through our five senses we can say that all things are already known to us through the concepts created in the observation.
Details in 50/50 (Part One) throughout Part Two, Part Three, Point of Exit and Clarification for dummies as well as the first comment in this topic
50/50 (Clarification for Dummies)
The main problem in understanding the concept “Awareness beforehand” is:
the mind do not pay attention to the fact that it works with meanings and concepts created after the observation.
Once an existence is registered in observation the “existence” concept is created and from then on the mind applies the existence to an object.
That is wrong. The mind forgets that the existence applies to its own awareness for a presence in an observation.
In other words existence is a mind awareness for a presence.
After the concept is created we apply it to objects and that makes it mind deceiving.
Mind starts to think of existence as something out of its awareness.
To see “existence” in its true nature we must go back and see it as a concept created by the awareness.
Existence applies to the awareness not to the object.
Now after repeating it few times I hope most dummies will get closer to the concept “Awareness beforehand” :D
- - -
50/50 (Point of Exit)
The closing of topic 50/50 in Rational Responders
- - -
POINT OF EXIT
We are at the point of exit which comes with the end of the arguments.
I can expect more discussions on my statement, but there is no way to refute it.
Until you prove me wrong atheists don’t have the right to claim more than 49% possibility for God’s non-existence.
Why 49%?
Wasn’t it 50/50?
It was, but not anymore.
There is no way for science to prove that brain produces awareness.
How is that?
Because any evidence must be approved by awareness.
Matter can not approve itself without awareness, while awareness is self-evident.
- - -
Humans intellectuality grows, concepts changes as the intellectuality grows, but the truth is always present and unchanged.
Many thousand years ago Enoch talk about the observers with different words and conceptions.
Then Buddha talk about the Spirit with different word and conceptions and after Him Jesus talk about the Spirit and the awaken Son with different words and conceptions.
Today I talk to you and that is prove that I respect you as grown intellect.
Otherwise I wouldn’t waste my time to do it.
Everything is known to you, my friends and it is delivered to you as light, sound, smell, touch and taste.
You have nothing more to observe.
Start looking for the exit.
- - -
I came in this forum because I found your attitude as deserving respect.
It will be valued much higher if you pin this topic at the top of your forums and let everybody know that you have unarguable statement about the possibility of God’s existent.
Let it be only possibility.
Every belief which tends to certainty create delusion on top of which Religion takes place.
I’m forgiving person but I wouldn’t forgive myself if my knowledge creates RELIGION.
Thank you for showing respect and acceptance and for giving me the real pleasure of being your opponent.
Love to All
Truden
aiia wrote:
You have the burden of proof dumb ass.
Your argument is empty garbage. When you pulled “spirit” out of your ass, did you wash your hands?
Truden wrote:
There are many ways to pull out Spirit if you don’t think with your ass.
Assume the non-material awareness is Spirit and is first (before the matter).
This is what actually the topic discuss - need of awareness for the existence of the matter.