What is Knowledge

This is what wikipedia (res. Oxford Universitiy) offers us: Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

Can anyone else offer another (maybe better, if one could say that) definition (if there is one) of knowledge? I'm quite interested.

Most of the time you hear: Knowledge is fact (are facts), knowledge is perception, knowledge is information, knowledge is wisdom, knowledge is power, etc.

I say knowledge is that which is known. Now we can debate what it is to truly "know" something. (Planescape: Torment :clown:)

Understanding why you made the same mistake twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I say knowledge is that which is known. Now we can debate what it is to truly "know" something. (Planescape: Torment :clown:)

---

so we're still at the same question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Understanding why you made the same mistake twice.

---

good one :laugh4:

I cannot help but side with Socrates on this issue...

which is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

which is?

---

...That there is no such thing as being informed, and that the only thing a truly knowledgeable person knows is that he knows nothing. Perhaps nihilism in a certain sense.

Just read Plato's writings about him. You have to read them to fully understand the validity of Socrates' claims.

Have you not studied Socrates yet in your school/Uni? I cannot think of a greater shame for educational institutions to not at least devote a sentence to the most pivotal philosopher in the Western History. How old are you, if that is not a secret?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

...That there is no such thing as being informed, and that the only thing a truly knowledgeable person knows is that he knows nothing. Perhaps nihilism in a certain sense.

Just read Plato's writings about him. You have to read them to fully understand the validity of Socrates' claims.

Have you not studied Socrates yet in your school/Uni? I cannot think of a greater shame for educational institutions to not at least devote a sentence to the most pivotal philosopher in the Western History. How old are you, if that is not a secret?

---

im studying him now... im reading theataetus... ive also read republic... i know about this claim, but he has some more, so i didnt know which one you were talking about :)

in a certain way socrates is definitly right. we know nothing FOR CERTAIN, but wether something is true or false is not a neccesity for us to know the things we know. atleast thats what i think, but ill come back to that more elaborately later.

edit: im 18. but i dont see why my age would matter :P im now freshman philosphystudent ;) but ive had socrates already some years back on high school.

The real question is, what is wisdom?

Mine is about 14. The +2 mod really helps.

A better question would be: "What is love?"

True knowledge is accepting that all things come to an end, in my opinion. If you have realized this, you're free.

Just like Nikos Kazantzakis: "I fear nothing, I hope for nothing; I am free".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azathoth

A better question would be: "What is love?"

---

I cannot believe I missed that. I saw the thread title for a second time, then rushed in, but beaten to it. :shame:

Knowledge is facts and things that can be taught to you. Wisdom is a different idea, and what the socrates quote is in reference too. Knowledge is knowing how to get somewhere, wisdom is knowing where to go. Ehhh, whatever, I just made that up.

Knowledge is what you know. Wisdom is knowing how to apply it.

A bit of an oversimplification, but, to me, that's the basic idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

The real question is, what is wisdom?

Mine is about 14. The +2 mod really helps.

---

wisdom and knowledge are 2 different things, im not asking the key to life, or the most important question, im just asking What is Knowledge, not love, not wisdom, not anything else.

but if asked i would say that wisdom is about the way you use your knowledge, in the moral sense of it.

edit: hadnt seen their posts before, but i agree with sasaki (did i say that?) and sheogorath


and hax, when you start talking about true knowledge, things get even more subjective than they already are :P no one can ever determine true knowledge for more persons than themself

I took a philosophy course last year. Half of the Semester was spent on the discussion "What is Knowledge?" I'll see if I can dig some of the theories up. Oh and the summarising answer was - we don't, and indeed cannot, know anything.

I'm pretty certain I had to answer this very question for a Philosophy class..

To save you the boredom of you reading 2 pages heres what I pretty much concluded.

Quote:

---

To describe knowledge then you have to consider all three factors. In a sense then knowledge can be defined as a statement, theory or any other written or verbal prerogative which states something to be both true and justifiable as well as that which is believed by the person stating it. Knowledge then is to know certain facts or events which can be proven true, justifiable and believable. Only by meeting the three criteria can statements or facts be proven and classified as knowledge. A knowledgeable person for example would also need to posses these three points in the actions they say or do to be a knowledgeable person.

---

EDIT: Actually I suppose in a way that was kind of pointless seeming very few people will know the 3 criteria I'm talking about. Oh well..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

I'm pretty certain I had to answer this very question for a Philosophy class..

To save you the boredom of you reading 2 pages heres what I pretty much concluded..

---

This is the True Justified Belief theory of knowledge, which has a severe fault in it and is discredited in the philosophical community. It is possible for someone to have something be true, believed and for that belief to be justified - yet the fact itself isn't known. Gettier showed this with the Gettier counterexamples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Oh and the summarising answer was - we don't, and indeed cannot, know anything.

---

How do you know? :wink:

Knowledge is superfluous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

How do you know? :wink:

---

Exactly what the lecturer said after making the point :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I took a philosophy course last year. Half of the Semester was spent on the discussion "What is Knowledge?" I'll see if I can dig some of the theories up. Oh and the summarising answer was - we don't, and indeed cannot, know anything.

---

i dont agree, imho for us to know something, we dont dont have to know it beyond all doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

we don't, and indeed cannot, know anything.

---

This kind of thing always struck me as the western equivalent of "what is the sound of one hand clapping".

A wiseman knows he knows nothing.

let us first dertermine what is needed for knowledge to exist? i think most if not all of you agree when I say that the first and maybe most important neccesity is a conscious subject (be it animal or human, theyre the same in this respect). A subject that is capable to process, use and pass on this knowledge.

Knowledge is collective conditioning if you put it like that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

A wiseman knows he knows nothing.

---

Ah, another Socratic philosopher here :beam:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

A wiseman knows he knows nothing.

---

A wise mine knows that he's human, and therefore believes he knows many things no matter how many times he quotes socrates.

-edit-

Which is what socrates was saying right? The oracle proclaimed him the wisest man in the world, and he disagreed saying that there were many men wiser, but then when he visited them he found that they were not wise at all, they only believed themselves to be, and that he was wiser then them only in that he did not believe himself to be wise. Or something like that, it's been a while since I read it.

here:

Quote:

---

Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

A wiseman knows he knows nothing.

---

Is this the Socratic circle? How can he know he knows nothing if he can know nothing (or not know anything) or if nothing is knowable? It makes one dizzy, I know.

We might never know if we know something (to be true beyond all doubt) but we do know something (wether it is true or false is an entirely different question).

The point is that if knowledge is not knowledge when it is false, that means that false knowledge can't exist. And without false knowledge to oppose true knowledge (good cant exist without evil etc), true knowledge cant exist either. So if true knowledge doesn't exist, and false knowledge doesnt exist, we can do two things; We can say that knowledge in itself doesnt exist, or we say that knowledge is simply knowledge, wether it is true or false. I opt for the second one, because I can observe the phenomenom of knowledge (ofcourse in the context i just placed it).

What is knowledge

Introduction

The question “what is knowledge” goes back (as far as we know) a couple of thousand years to Socrates whom, in Plato’s book Theaetetus, asks the young Theaetetus (hence the title of the book) how he would define knowledge. Theaetetus first answered by giving a few examples of what he thought to be knowledge, but after being refuted by Socrates, he came up with the following statement “knowledge is perception”. When one would ask this question nowadays he would most likely come across the following answers: Knowledge is wisdom, information, facts, truth, skill, experience, etc. Francis Bacon claimed knowledge to be (a) power. It is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. Plato’s formulation of knowledge as “justified true belief” has lost it’s popularity since the Gettier Case demonstrated its fallacy. There is and there probably will never be a universally aproved definition of knowledge.

I

Before we try to define knowledge, let us first try to list the requirements for knowledge to exist. I believe the first requirement for the existence of knowledge is the existence of a living, conscious subject (animal or human). A subject that is capable to posess, process, apply and pass on this knowledge. Secondly for knowledge to exist there is need of “an object (maybe call it concept?)” with which this knowledge can be related to. This object doesn’t neccesarily has to be empirical but can also be methaphysical (as defined by Kant). Therefore the existence of the subject is more important than the existence of the object in order for knowledge to exist. Knowledge takes form in the exchange between subject and object. This is the context which is needed for knowledge to exist. Knowledge has to be passed on to maintain its existence, knowledge that is not passed on dies, and dead knowledge ceases to be knowledge.

II

Now we have listed the requirements for the existence of knowledge, let us continue by listing the qualities of knowledge. The first and most important quality I would like to adress to knowledge is that is without bounderies. The does not mean that knowledge can be definined without boundaries, but that knowledge itself superceeds (almost) all bounderies. It crosses the bounderies of time, because knowledge that people had thousands of years ago can still be knowledge now. That is atleast as long as this knowledge is passed on. Knowledge ascends the geographical and cultural borders, because what is known in Africa is also knowledge when it is known in Europe or America. And the knowledge possessed by Chinese people is still knowledge when it is possessed by Aboriginal people. Knowledge can even transcend the limits of the empirical world to the metaphysical one. It also surpasses the individual boundaries and it can be argued that this is immanent (apriori) to knowledge. That brings us to the second quality of knowledge, it is transferable. One could argue if knowledge is still knowledge when the person who possesses that knowledge is unable to transfer it to another person, taking into account that both persons are of the same intelligence and don’t have any handicaps that would make it impossible for either of them to pass on or receive this knowledge (deaf or mute being simple examples). This doesn’t mean however that what is known to one person is also neccesarily known to another person, or that all persons are capable of comprehensing all forms of knowledge. Knowledge is without morals, it this sense it is “free”. To know how to use an axe is in itself moralless, wether you believe that this knowledge should only be applied to chop wood or other “peaceful” means instead of war or killing people is in the field of ethics and what I will later define as “wisdom”. “Good” or “bad” are no requirements or qualities of knowledge, they can be atributed to knowledge, they can be used in relation to knowledge, but knowledge can still be knowledge without it being either good or bad. Knowledge has intentionality, it is always aimed at something, that something can be another object or it can be knowledge itself. Not only is it always aimed at something, it can be aimed at everything, thus we can have knowledge of everything that “exists” (in the empirical world) and even of everything that doesn’t exist (in the empirical world). This does not mean however that we actually posess all the knowledge we could possibly posess.

What is knowledge

Introduction

The question “what is knowledge” goes back (as far as we know) a couple of thousand years to Socrates whom, in Plato’s book Theaetetus, asks the young Theaetetus (hence the title of the book) how he would define knowledge. Theaetetus first answered by giving a few examples of what he thought to be knowledge, but after being refuted by Socrates, he came up with the following statement “knowledge is perception”. When one would ask this question nowadays he would most likely come across the following answers: Knowledge is wisdom, information, facts, truth, skill, experience, etc. Francis Bacon claimed knowledge to be (a) power. It is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. Plato’s formulation of knowledge as “justified true belief” has lost it’s popularity since the Gettier Case demonstrated its fallacy. There is and there probably will never be a universally aproved definition of knowledge.

Requirements for knowledge

Before we try to define knowledge, let us first try to list the requirements for knowledge to exist. I believe the first requirement for the existence of knowledge is the existence of a living, conscious subject (animal or human). A subject that is capable to posess, process, apply and pass on this knowledge. Secondly for knowledge to exist there is need of “an object or concept” with which this knowledge can be related. This object doesn’t neccesarily have to be empirical but can also be methaphysical (as defined by Kant). Therefore the existence of the subject is more important than the existence of the object in order for knowledge to exist.
Knowledge takes form in the exchange between subject and object. This is the context which is needed for knowledge to exist. Knowledge has to be passed on to maintain its existence, knowledge that is not passed on dies, and dead knowledge ceases to be knowledge.

Qualities of knowledge

Now we have listed the requirements for the existence of knowledge, let us continue by listing the qualities of knowledge. The first and most important quality I would like to adress to knowledge is, that it is without bounderies. This does not mean that knowledge can be definined without boundaries, but that knowledge itself superceeds (almost) all bounderies. It crosses the bounderies of time, because knowledge that people had thousands of years ago can still be knowledge now. That is atleast as long as this knowledge is passed on. Knowledge ascends the geographical and cultural borders, because what is known in Africa is also knowledge when it is known in Europe or America. And the knowledge possessed by Chinese people is still knowledge when it is possessed by Aboriginal people. Knowledge can even transcend the limits of the empirical world to the metaphysical one. It also surpasses the individual boundaries and it can be argued that this is immanent (apriori) to knowledge. That brings us to the second quality of knowledge, it is transferable. One could argue if knowledge is still knowledge when the person who possesses that knowledge is unable to transfer it to another person, taking into account that both persons are of the same intelligence and don’t have any handicaps that would make it impossible for either of them to pass on or receive this knowledge (deaf or mute being simple examples). This doesn’t mean however that what is known to one person is also neccesarily known to another person, or that all persons are capable of comprehensing all forms of knowledge. Knowledge is without morals, in this sense it is “free”. To know how to use an axe is in itself moralless, wether you believe that this knowledge should only be applied to chop wood or other “peaceful” means instead of war or killing people is in the field of ethics and what I will later define as “wisdom”. “Good” or “bad” are no requirements or qualities of knowledge, they can be atributed to knowledge, they can be used in relation to knowledge, but knowledge can still be knowledge without it being either good or bad. Knowledge has intentionality, it is always aimed at something, that something can be another object or it can be knowledge itself. Not only is it always aimed at something, it can be aimed at everything, thus we can have knowledge of everything that “exists” (in the empirical world) and even of everything that does not “exist” (in the empirical world). This does not mean however that we actually posess all the knowledge we could possibly posess.

Types of gaining knowledge

Knowledge only becomes knowledge when there is a subject capable of posessing that knowledge. Knowledge that is posessed by no one is not known and therefore per definition not knowledge. Knowledge can be gained by experiencing the world, by developing insights and processing information that one comes across in that experience. This way new or original knowledge is created (new is always original but original knowledge isn’t always new) This is knowledge that is not passed on from one person to another but that is gained individually without “help” of another individual. Sometimes this is knowledge that has never been posessed by any other individual (new knowledge, and sometimes it is knowledge that is or has been posessed by other subjects but the individual that has gained this knowledge wasn’t aware of that fact (original knowledge). Subsequently this knowledge can be passed on from one subject to another, who, provided that the passing happens correctly, also posesses that same knowledge. This knowledge however remains knowledge of the former person, meaning it is not own to the experience of the latter until he verifies this knowledge in one way or another in his own experience.

There are three types of gaining knowledge. Gaining new knowledge, meaning knowledge that has never before been posessed by any other subject (what we thought to be new knowledge can later be proved to be original knowledge when we find out that someone else had already known it). Gaining original knowledge, meaning knowledge that is or has been previously posessed by another subject but has nevertheless sprung forth from own experience. Gaining another subject’s knowledge, meaning the correct but unthinkingly copying of knowledge passed on to you by another person without experiencing or examining it yourself.

Types of knowledge

There are also three types of knowledge.
Knowledge of information (theoretical) meaning, the knowing of that which, through our senses (sensory organs), reveals itself to us in the experience.
Knowledge of skills (practical) which means, knowing how to make use of certain objects or tools in the context in which these objects or tools are meant to be used or could be used.
Knowledge of knowledge (apriori) meaning, the knowing about “objects” that are known.
Wisdom, which is not knowledge, is about how one believes knowledge should be ethically applied.

Knowledge of information is split into two other forms of theoretical knowledge.
Knowledge of phenomenons (phenomenological) which means, the knowing of the existence of a phenomenon (ansich).
Knowledge of explanation or cause and effect (synthetic) meaning, not only knowing “of” the existence of a phenomenon but also understanding it, so having knowledge “about” the phenomenon.

Examples

When David sees new creatures (and he is the first person ever to see them) and he concludes that they are horses, then he has new phenomenological knowledge of horses. When David subsequently passes on this knowledge correctly to Adam, then Adam posesses another subject’s (in this case David) phenomenological knowledge. Because when Adam would tell Peter about the existance of horses he is in fact saying, David (who is the first posessor of this knowledge) is saying horses exist. Only when Adam himself goes outside, and sees these creatures for himself, concludes for himself that these creatures are indeed not some other known creature and agrees with David that they are horses, then he truly gains original phenomenlogical knowledge of horses. Adam now posesses the knowledge that previously wasn’t really his. He made the knowledge of David his “own” knowledge. Adam can now say: “Horses exist.” Because he has seen them himself and concluded himself that they were not another form of known creatures and he agreed with David (the discoverer of the phenomenon) to call them horses. Let’s assume that David finds horses so fascinating he makes it his cause to examine them further. He does this so thoroughly that he finds out everything there is to know about them, how they behave, what they eat, how they should be approached, etc. David now not only posesses knowledge of the existence of horses, but also knowledge “about” horses, which means that David has gained new synthetical knowledge of horses (ofcourse assuming that he is the first to ever posess this knowledge). He passes on this knowledge to Adam and the same thing happens as with the new phenomenological knowledge (ofcourse assuming that Adam is capable of receiving, processing, applying and passing on this knowledge). Now Adam applies this synthetic knowledge to use the horses (for his benefit). He uses his synthetic knowledge to gain practical knowledge of the horses. He learns for example how to ride a horse. Assuming that he is the first subject that ever knew how to ride a horse and therefore knew how to effectively use a horse (I’m not saying that riding it is the sole purpose for which a horse can be used), he has now gained new practical knowledge of horses. Adam correctly passes on this practical knowledge to Peter, but Peter only has original phenomenological knowledge (assuming that he has now also seen horses, concluded they were not another known animal and agreed them to be horses) of horses. He however correctly receives this knowledge and makes it his own by applying it in practise; he also learns how to ride a horse. We now have a person that has phenomenological and practical knowledge of horses, but lacks the synthetical knowledge. From this it must be concluded that phenomenological knowledge is the most basic form of knowledge, without which any other form of knowledge can’t exist. One can have only phenomenological knowledge of an object without having practical or synthetical knowledge, but one can’t have practical or synthetical knowledge of an object without having phenomenological knowledge of it. Adam writes a book in which he documents all his knowledge of horses to ensure that his knowledge will be passed on and won’t die with him. We now advance a few thousand years into time, in the meanwhile Adam has died and horses have gone extinct. However Adam’s book has been preserved, it is found by Sarah, who reads the book and correctly receives and processes all its knowledge. It is however impossible for her to ask Adam about this knowledge because he is dead, it is impossible for her to go outside and see the horses because they have gone extinct, but she however still posesses this knowledge. Because it is impossible for her to make this knowledge her own through experience, she in fact posesses the knowledge of another subject (in this case Adam). This type of knowledge is knowledge of knowledge. I’m aware of the fact that this type of knowledge (apriori knowledge) is in fact the same as having another subject’s knowledge. However, one is originally about the type of knowledge and the other about the way of gaining knowledge.

Wisdom

Knowledge should not be confused with wisdom. Simply, knowledge is (about) what we know, and wisdom is (about) how use that knowledge (on an ethical level). Knowledge is the concept that (aprioti) transcends (almost) all borders, it transcends the limits of time, culture, place and person. Wisdom however doesn’t (apriori) transcends all those bounderies, certain wisdom does, but not all. The same wisdom that was wisdom thousands of years ago doesn’t neccesarily have to be wisdom nowadays, while the knowledge this wisdom was about remains knowledge still. Per example, if thousand years ago it was universally believed wisdom to use an axe to kill people that didn’t agree with you, it doesn’t neccesarily mean that a thousand years later this wisdom is still wisdom. It can be believed universally to be foolish, but the knowledge this wisdom was about, namely how to use an axe (on a practical level), is still unchanged and is still knowledge. The same thing applies for cultural and individual wisdom.

False knowledge

This brings us to the question about true or false knowledge, or better said, the question of wether false knowledge is actually knowledge. I can answer this question quite simply by saying that in order for true knowledge to exist, false knowledge must also exist, because true knowledge will lose its meaning of being true if there is no false knowledge to oppose it. It would simply be knowledge. And if in the definition of knowledge it is implied that a condition of knowledge is that it has to be true, that will also mean that it is not knowledge if it is not true. Therefore in that context false knowledge would not be able to exist, and thus also true knowledge. Since we cannot, beyond all doubt, determine of anything that it is true or false, we have to decide that either knowledge does not exist or that truth or falsehood is not a condition for knowledge to be knowledge, that knowledge simply is knowledge (and wether someone believes that knowledge is true or false is an entirely different matter). I opt for the second decision because I can observe the phenomenon of knowledge. To say that knowledge is simply knowledge, wholly independent of any moral status anyone adresses to it, excludes neither the possibility of truth nor the possibility of falsehood and eliminates the dilemma (paradox) I sketched earlier and which has also been sketched by Socrates. The problem with truth as a condition to knowledge is that it will always become circle reasoning. This happens because we are unable to determine of anything, beyond all doubt, wether it is true or not. An example of this is the following: Knowledge is truth, we cannot know of anything wether it is truly true, and thus we know nothing. But how can we know truly that we know nothing? And so forth. Without truth as condition for knowledge we might not ever know, beyond all doubt, wether something is true or not, but we do know that we know something.

Conclusion

Knowledge can be defined as the concept that transcends almost all boundaries, it is free (of morals) and unbounded by anything. It transcends the borders of time, culture, person, even the limits of the empirical world into a metaphysical world. Because of its unbounded nature knowledge has no morals. Simply it can be said that knowledge is all that is known. This doesn’t only include all empirical science (knowledge) and all metaphysical science (knowledge) but also all the existing and possible forms of knowing.