humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Apr 7, 11:16 am, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In article > d009003f0...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, fredwe...@papertig.com
> says...
>
> > On Apr 7, 9:48 am, Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> > > Sometimes tough measures are required.
>
> > For what?
>
> To purge folly.

There is no folly here except yours.

> You said "*say* that they know". Since you grant that we can be certain
> and yet wrong, the claim might not be true, and so is not knowledge in
> your view.

True.

> We say lots of things are knowledge, but not all of them are
> true, so they are not "really" knowledge - ....

Also true.

> ...sadly we don't know which ones they are right now.

Speak for yourself grasshopper.

Remember, I'm the one who can tell the difference between a real and a
fake cow and can find my car in a parking lot..

And I'm pretty sure that cows still can't jump over the moon.

Granted sometimes I am rash and claim to know something when in fact I
don't. But then reality can usually be counted on to give me a good ke-
knock on the head. When that happens I KNOW that I am wrong.

And so do you. In fact if you happen to be the one who points it out,
you usually cannot restrain your glee at the fact and have even been
known to gloat.

(Me, on the other hand, I would never be so crass).

> ...Do you think that beliefs can become knowledge? If so, what is the
> name of > term that includes both "belief" and "knowledge"?

Degrees of awareness of reality, where knowledge is the highest
degree, i.e.the one which is true and which we are certain is true. As
you will point out, we can be certain and wrong. But we cannot be
certain of what is true and wrong, which doesn't require omniscience.

And it is not because I say so. It's because it is.

As the kids say these days, "It is what it is".

(Which happens to be not a bad replica of "A is A".)

Fred Weiss