Rade said:
No, not at all. The "absolute uncertainty" is limited to that which "observes", as opposed to that which is "observed". From the perspective of that which is observed there is absolute certainty that it exists as an object with identity. In summary, that which exists, exists with absolute certainty, but our knowledge of that which exists must always be with absolute uncertainty.
certainly, rade, you are correct, i think.
and please continue reading to the end where, i believe, i clarify quite well.
the point that was being made, was not over the existence of the "thing" as a certainty. Rather, the point was, that the knowledge we are accustomed to having and like to have (our philosophy of knowledge, in this case), is fundamentally flawed; there is a fundamental ignorance that has not been examined fully, or at all.
this is something that is apparent to me, though maybe not so for many.
do not get me wrong.
we can do some really nifty things with this kind of knowledge, that's for sure, and i do not suggest stopping, by any means. but, if we are looking for Knowledge and Understanding (and this my point), and it appears that we will not find it in this type of enquiry.
maybe i will need to clarify the difference between "knowledge" and "Knowledge", which will shed light onto the difference between "understanding" and "Understanding".
"Knowledge" is complete, whereas "knowledge" is incomplete. my intention is only to examine this honestly/objectively, and if there is uncertainty of knowledge, then it cannot be said to be complete. nor can the understanding that it claims be complete. this follows logically, as it appears.
so, since we were talking about "know"ing objective reality, it seemed logical to mention that this "know"ledge was not really and accurate representation of what we mean when we say "knowledge". the idea behind "knowledge" is that it is somehow firm and unshakable, but we have found, time and time again that the kind of knowledge, we have been after, is anything but firm and unshaken. so it is probably better to call it something more like "speculating" or "hypothesizing". see my point?
Knowledge is of a different kind than how we have been thinking that we can find it.
ok, ok, like i said, our knowledge is pretty damn good! we can do many awesome things with things, and we have a knowing of what is happening, but we do not what "What It Is" that is happening. this "Knowledge" is of a different nature and it seems an invaluable realm of exploration. it might help us prevent making a lot of problems (some we can "patch up or "fix" and most others that we can't "fix") for ourselves by acting without Knowing. see?
We should be acting responsibly, based on a fundamental Knowing and also speaking responsibly, so as to not mislead those who believe that we already are. this seems apparent. we are not being responsible or acting responsibly when we act from the knowings that we get from this flawed kind of enquiry. no?
there is a knowledge that does not have inherent uncertainty and that knowledge is subjective. subjective knowledge is something that all have and can have, about it, without uncertainty. see?
maybe I've gone too far. but. like i said, i am trying to examine this honestly and totally, and i think that this should not be overlooked, in our examination.
