Many philosophers enjoy trying to cut through this & clarify (others enjoy obscuring it further but ignore them). I'm not a philosopher
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
I'm much more interested in how they boil down to ideas, principles & values that affect society. (I'm aware this is a bit Foucauldian!)
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
The difference is that I don't think knowledge itself is contingent or relative. We just have variable barriers to getting at it.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I get a bit stuck on words like knowledge that have at least three meanings: personal kn, human kn, science...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BaileyNagy
Things that are known to be true because of evidence showing it to be so.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
That definition includes things that aren't true. (The evidence could be in error.) Does that matter?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BaileyNagy
People can be mistaken about knowing things, yes, but that wld be a barrier to knowledge. The truth wld remain true.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I finally read your article and it's vg. Pomo was +ve movement in arts and philosophy but blatantly illogical and disruptive in sciences.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BaileyNagy @HPluckrose
There is subjective truth, & it is hard for humans to be neutral observers, but that hardly means that an objective reality doesn't exist.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BaileyNagy
There is only subjective truth when it is about the subject & then it's objective. Eg I think coffee ice cream is yummy. I really do.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Helen Pluckrose Retweeted Helen Pluckrose
Helen Pluckrose added,
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.