Socrates,Confusius,and Thomas Hobbes.

[Turtle]

Socrates,Confuius and thomas hobbes were all right in a sense.
Socrates-pursuit of knowledge even in the face of opposition.
Confusius-"Learn as if you were running and cannot catch up, though you were frighted of losing.
Thomas Hobbes-"knowledge is power"
If one was running (in a race) they will have opposition, one will learn therefore attaining knowledge. One will not run the race unless it gives some sort of power, hence knowledge is power.

 

[Adam]

If Hobbes said "knowledge is power", he was wrong. Knowledge is only power if it is used. If it is not used, it is nothing but a hobby. Applied knowledge is power.

 

[wuliheron]

If knowledge is power and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then absolute knowledge that knowledge is power corrupts absolutely.

For such an empowered guy, Socrates did not avoid the executioner. Hobbes as well lived in tremendous fear of the Catholic Church and held his tongue while for such admirerers of knowledge, Confucians had a lot of people silenced forever. Eventually, the Confucians as well were wiped out by the communists who preferred the basic necessities of survival to supporting the continuing growth of Confucian knowledge.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by Adam
If Hobbes said "knowledge is power", he was wrong. Knowledge is only power if it is used. If it is not used, it is nothing but a hobby. Applied knowledge is power.

Wonderfully put!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Adam
If Hobbes said "knowledge is power", he was wrong. Knowledge is only power if it is used. If it is not used, it is nothing but a hobby. Applied knowledge is power.

Correct. And applied knowledge = wisdom, so it should read "Wisdom is power".

 

[Turtle]

"knowledge is power". Thomas Hobbes is still right, when one attain knowledge they will use it in order in get power.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Turtle
"knowledge is power". Thomas Hobbes is still right, when one attain knowledge they will use it in order in get power.

Turtle, I have spent my entire life gaining knowledge, and have never used it to gain power. It is perhaps more logical for Hobbes to have said, "knowledge can be power".

 

[Turtle]

Mentat, maybe you did use it and did not even know it.

 

[Mentat]

Oh, I use the knowledge that I gain, but that doesn't mean that I use it to gain power.

 

[Mentat]

Besides, I don't think that Hobbes meant that you use knowledge to attain power, I think he meant that knowledge itself is a type of power.

 

[Turtle]

Of course he meant that it is a type of power. But like all powers people use it. The more knowledge one has the more powerful they will be.

 

[zimbo]

Knowledge is power - only if it's used . . .

So how does one find out how to use knowledge properly? By seeking more knowledge ('meta-knowledge'?) of course!

So it's knowledge (turtles?) all the way down . . .

 

[russ_watters]

Power = work x time

And not just in physics.

 

[zimbo]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Power = work x time

And not just in physics.

In real life, it seems that:

power = {work you don't have to do}x{time you can get others to do such work for you}

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by wuliheron
If knowledge is power and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then absolute knowledge that knowledge is power corrupts absolutely.

Thanks for this classic example of syllogistic fallacy. You use separate meanings of a single word to convey a message that does not follow from the premises. The first "absolute" (power) used means "complete and unhindered", while the second (knowledge) means "definite".

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mentat
Oh, I use the knowledge that I gain, but that doesn't mean that I use it to gain power.

That knowledge empowers you to do things.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
That knowledge empowers you to do things.

But that "power" is still just potential. IOW, I don't have to do anything with it, I simply can.

 

[Turtle]

You do use it in some way, Why would someone learn something and hide it away?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Turtle
You do use it in some way, Why would someone learn something and hide it away?

Someone can have any number of reasons for gaining knowledge and hiding it away. Just because one shouldn't do this, doesn't mean that it is impossible.

 

[TENYEARS]

One may hide the knowelge for many reasons. Knowlege is not knowledge until it becomes a realization otherwise it becomes an object to ones existence. One becomes like a kid playing with matches and does not understand all the repercussions. Many people hear things and learn things, but that is parroting and for the most part not a realization. That is why I do not post logic and often post just riddles. A riddle forces direct experience to understanding or it is viewed as nonsense.

Real knowledge is power. It is a rush of experience you will not soon forget. It can neither be given or taken. It exists in itself of itself and is unchangable. It is an awsome rush. It exists in accordance with physics and not against it. It is the potential of all people and is there for the experiencing.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
One may hide the knowelge for many reasons. Knowlege is not knowledge until it becomes a realization otherwise it becomes an object to ones existence. One becomes like a kid playing with matches and does not understand all the repercussions. Many people hear things and learn things, but that is parroting and for the most part not a realization. That is why I do not post logic and often post just riddles. A riddle forces direct experience to understanding or it is viewed as nonsense.

Real knowledge is power. It is a rush of experience you will not soon forget. It can neither be given or taken. It exists in itself of itself and is unchangable. It is an awsome rush. It exists in accordance with physics and not against it. It is the potential of all people and is there for the experiencing.

TENYEARS, you said that one may hide knowledge, and then you said that knowledge is not knowledge until it becomes a realization. Is this contradictory?

 

[TENYEARS]

No, it's just that my realization of what knowledge is is not facts or ideas. It is a direct experience of the subject in a way that achieves a state of knowing. This goes back to a post in the old PF in a quote "There is a lie that tell nothing but the truth". If a person can figure out this riddle, they will cross a bridge that has no planks.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
No, it's just that my realization of what knowledge is is not facts or ideas. It is a direct experience of the subject in a way that achieves a state of knowing. This goes back to a post in the old PF in a quote "There is a lie that tell nothing but the truth". If a person can figure out this riddle, they will cross a bridge that has no planks.

An infant can achieve the state of knowing, as can pretty much every human being. Excuse me for being insistent, but, you still haven't answered my question.

I think the quote went: "There is a lie that tells of nothing but truth". This is not a riddle at all, but many - who have missed the real meaning of the statement - have thought it to be so.

 

[TENYEARS]

I agree, but each door has a different key for different individuals.

Yes and no to the contradiction. I was qualifying knowledge first as relative object and then it became a realization to existence. That seems to be the big question on the forum. To be or not to be. Is be real?

As for the quote I don't like to as you can see, but if one did not understand the those words, would it not be a riddle? In order to have an inkling one would at least have to realize there is an ocean one is not aware of or better yet to realize the ocean.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
I agree, but each door has a different key for different individuals.

Yes and no to the contradiction. I was qualifying knowledge first as relative object and then it became a realization to existence. That seems to be the big question on the forum. To be or not to be. Is be real?

As for the quote I don't like to as you can see, but if one did not understand the those words, would it not be a riddle? In order to have an inkling one would at least have to realize there is an ocean one is not aware of or better yet to realize the ocean.

Yes, each door does have different keys, but the "knowledge" is not the "key" it is what's on the other side of the "door".

I only thought it was contradictory because you said that there was no knowledge without realization. This point isn't really all that important though, now that I come to think of it, it could just be a misunderstanding.

It would be a riddle, but they wouldn't be able to find the answer. The answer cannot come without the question, and in the eyes of the one that doesn't understand the riddle, there is not question.

I like how you distinguish between realizing that there is an "ocean", and actually realizing the "ocean", it's an important point - and is the basic difference between knowledge and enlightenment.