Archive for the ‘subjectivity’ Category:
How Ironic
This Red vs Blue clip emphasizes how sometimes we use words that carry different meanings to different people. When we discuss heavy topics, we are often doing so with some very loaded terms. What are some terms that you have frequently seen misunderstood?
Practical Epistemology
I know what you’re thinking.
“How can a post on epistemology be practical?” After all, isn’t philosophy only useful in ivory towers? I think this has been a major flaw in philosophical thought for many people. Philosophy has no value if it is not lived out; if it does not affect the way we live our lives. And let’s face it, a lot of us like to make statements in papers, in posts, or commenting on blogs that just aren’t livable.
A philosophy must be lived out. If I argue that no knowledge is possible, I need to live that idea out (otherwise I am a hypocrite). If I believe there is a God who made the world, but that God has stepped back and is no longer involved, I need to live that out. If I believe there is a God who is involved in the world, I should probably figure out how he is involved and act upon that.
Mistakes in Knowing
In Brad’s last post you learned of my apparent run in with the mob (thanks Brad), but I would like to ask upon what epistemology can we even know that (just kidding)? That got me thinking, what if someone really believed the mafia had kidnapped me on the basis of Brad’s post? And how does that apply to epistemology? Mistakes in sense perception and reason happen all the time.
In Men in Black, Will Smith learns, totally contrary to what Will Smith believed, that man is not alone in the universe. Tommy Lee Jones challenges Will Smith saying, “a thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on it. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.” So why do mistakes happen in our knowledge? Read more »
Magic Eye
Disclaimer: this post is an explanation of Ether Meek’s thesis in her book Longing to Know. Most of the examples are taken from this book as well.
I have dealt with knowing in my two earlier posts about the need for certainty and the three epistemic options. Meek offers this new definition: “Knowing is the responsible human struggle to rely on clues, to focus on a coherent pattern, and submit to its reality.”
Meek argues that knowing is a three step process. First, we look at clues. Then we struggle to looks through the clues, and finally we integrate the clues. Confusing? Let’s look at an example. Think of those “magic eyes.” One is shown above. You are supposed to look at this 2D image and somehow you are able to see something in 3D. Knowing is like coming to see this 3D image. We are given a list of clues to how to see this image (http://www.magiceye.com/faq_example.htm). Then we try to do it ourselves. For the longest time I couldn’t get the stupid thing Read more »
Three Epistemic Options and Garden State
In my last post, I tried to outline how the need for certainty leads us to believe we cannot know anything at all. The bar many of us set for truth is so high nothing seems to be able to pass it. Sometimes it seems reason leads us to believe there is no reason (in the old model’s definition). So what the heck do we do with this?
We really only have three options. We can stay in the old model. We can admit that nothing can be known (what I call epistemic nihilism). Or we can scrape the old model and save knowledge.
Read more »
Certainty and Knowledge
In our culture, the need for certainty is often held up as the norm, skepticism is even praised. The default position in the Scientific Method is doubt. We seem to believe that if something is true, it will be able to stand up to any test (without even questioning the validity of the test itself).
Until a few months ago, I also embraced this view.
I thought truth was something that could be put into nice neat propositional statements and always could be proved with absolute certainty. The first time I read Descartes’ Meditations, I soaked it up like a sponge. I thought that here was how I could know, with absolute certainty, that I exist, and subsequently that God exists. I could build a firm foundation and be certain of anything that comes from this foundation. After all, this foundation was built form the idea of radical doubt. But our need for certainty is misplaced and leads to epistemic nihilism (the inablitiy to know anything, and a sense of loss in this).
Lost in Translation, Part 2
Last week, I wrote about the challenge of communicating relationally in the blogosphere. Now I will discuss the importance of applying this same principle in understanding the Christian faith.
Disclaimer: I do not believe Christianity can be fully communicated in this medium, but I do believe that some understanding can be obtained with hard work and patience. I certainly do not hold to an agnostic epistemology (belief that one cannot know truth or knowledge). However, there are relational limitations to this medium.
In truth, I am ecstatic to be confronted with these limitations! Here’s why…
Read more »
