/lit/ - Literature

>>22728788
If by "knowing how" you mean propositional knowledge of how something can be done, then this can have likeness to reality. It's no different than knowledge of certain causal principles of the form If X then Y, e.g. if I turn the knob and push, the door will open.

On the other hand, if by "knowing how" you mean the kind of knowledge that seems nonpropositional or even unconscious, like knowing how to tie your shoes but not being able to describe how to tie the knot, then I'm not sure if this is addressed.

Do you mean in the typical analytic JTB sense? Knowing is not propositional for scholastics or most platonists, it is the direct knowing of essences. Knowing an essence means knowing it as the cause of effects, not only temporally (efficient causes) but formally and finally. A thing's essence is part of its "how" because it is the form which it is "trying" to instantiate within becoming.

>>22728788
Knowing That - Existence - Purusha - Aham - Essence - Form - Superior Brahman
Knowing What - Essence - Prakriti - Idam - Substance - Matter - Inferior Brahman

The Only Knowledge about That is that it Exists, the Only Knowledge about what is about its attributes/qualities,

Existence is all Giving and all Pervading, an Essence that is Existence is God, an Essence by itself is a pure potentiality (think of the creative mind which can produce an indefinite number of image variants internally) Existence by itself is pure Actuality, Essence is the principle of the manifested world being itself the passive potential producing principle of a multitude or variety of categories, in truth in relationship to manifestation - the Essence and Existence can never be entirely seperated anywhere, they are inseperable like in that example.

So something like this is all that the ancients intended to explicate by these dyadic trends in their thought, the only question now is where do you stand between this dyad, which pole do you currently rest in? Are you more passive or active, unite the two within you

On an interesting note - microcosmically the vital force which you become wholly identified within deep sleep is undifferentiated in away which goes beyond individual limitations.

>>22728845
> the Essence and Existence can never be entirely seperated anywhere
Just like none of us can exist without a mother or father without exception.

>>22728833
Good intuition. I liked the way you broke it down for both examples. However, we would have to complicate what "reality" is with your first "know how" because you would be matching your mind with an imagined reality in an attempt to bring the current reality to that imagined reality. There's some complicated metaphysical entanglements in that, I think.

I'm not sure how to address the second example. Although, we could refer to it as a habit, and thus the mind is the reality. But there's not much of a mind there to begin, and it's weird relegating knowledge to something that is hardly even conscious.

There's also third "know how" I had in mind, which I think is an intensification of your first example. It would be a know how of how things can be done in general. e.g. a woodworker who can build you any kind of furniture, building, etc., given your needs, specifications, etc. It could be propositional, but in an infinite sense because there are infinite possible situations he could be given and he would have a solution for each one.

>>22728840
I don't think an understanding of knowledge as "apprehension of essence" resolves the question. An essence is a "what" (noun), hence a "knowing that _____." A "knowing how" can expand far beyond the boundaries of a singular essence for reasons I've explained here: >>22728863

>>22728863
>However, we would have to complicate what "reality" is with your first "know how" because you would be matching your mind with an imagined reality in an attempt to bring the current reality to that imagined reality. There's some complicated metaphysical entanglements in that, I think.
Well, for a Thomist this is just a matter of efficient causation. Objects have potentials as part of their substance. Potentials can be actualized by something actual. "Knowing how" consists in recognizing that something has a potential, and that you can actualize it. Your soul would be the efficient cause, the actual thing, of the initial act. So the reality you need to match is just the reality of these facts about acts and potentials.

>There's also third "know how" I had in mind, which I think is an intensification of your first example. It would be a know how of how things can be done in general. e.g. a woodworker who can build you any kind of furniture, building, etc., given your needs, specifications, etc. It could be propositional, but in an infinite sense because there are infinite possible situations he could be given and he would have a solution for each one.
I think Aristotle talks about this but I forget exactly how he describes it

>>22728892
>efficient causation
it's true but here's how it's not core experience

>>22728892
>"Knowing how" consists in recognizing that something has a potential, and that you can actualize it. Your soul would be the efficient cause, the actual thing, of the initial act. So the reality you need to match is just the reality of these facts about acts and potentials.
The way this is explained, I'm getting the impression that you're looking at an individual object and seeing its manifold potential. But what I'm trying to get at is to see when "know how" is internal and general, i.e. not about any particular object but about objects in general, the "third kind."

>>22728845
Read Nagarjuna

bump

>>22729378
you cant just drop the nword like that. this is a blue board

>>22728913
The third kind of general "know how," like carpentry, is just a matter of understanding the potential within different types of universals (in this case, wood). So it's understanding how the efficient causation of your soul, working with your body, can realize these potentialities. That this knowledge comes in different forms, e.g. carpentry, plumbing, etc. only makes sense since different essences are involved and different essences have different potentialities.

This would roughly correspond to the gnosis/techne distinction in Aristotle and other Greek thinkers.

Playing an instrument is likewise actualizing potentiality.

>>22731182
This is a great start. How would you try to relate this to the "likeness" definition of knowledge? Since this is a very internally-focused knowledge (one's capacity), and the object of this knowledge is general and non-specific until it is actualized (thus complicating the likeness definition of knowledge).

bump

nump

qump

This is now an Aesop Rock thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npcGql9Ir6Y

Consider this proposition, being at the heart of pragmatism ...

What difference would it make either way? If you propose an idea or put forward a proposition, and you wouldn't change the way you behave or think as a consequence of it being proved or disproved, then what exactly are you even talking about?

Put your proposition forward and then figure out how you'd change your behavior as a consequence of it being true or false. If the answer is "I wouldn't change anything about my behavior or thoughts" then you're just arguing with the wind.

>t. philosophychad.

>>22734637
It would change everything for me, personally. It would steer me in the right direction and disregard noise.

>>22734656
You'll need to be a little more specific than that. How would it change your daily life?

The Scholastics' were more or less chasing the intellectual tracers left behind by an endless series of deductive corollaries derived from more or less probabilistic axioms, taken as proven.

We take the theory of electromagnetism to be generally "true" because it's "true" that when I flip my light switch, the light comes on. The real measure of truth is as to what it allows us to predict, and whether it affords us some sort of control over material reality or not. What would you be able to predict or control in either case?

>>22734678
It would give me insight into what knowledge truly is, so I can either pursue it, or live my life knowing that it is unattainable. And with this clarity, I could steer others in the right direction too. I'm always making decisions based off of my perceived knowledge of things (knowing that, knowing how, etc.), so understanding what I've been trying to do with work wonders.

>>22734683
It seems as though you're not yet at the point where you possess enough knowledge of metaphysics to be contending with these sorts of questions.

>It would give me insight into what knowledge truly is
Here's a hint: phenomenal reality is grounded in pain. This is actually something that can be proven with basic logic.

Why is that? Set out to discover or create the formula which demonstrates this fact and then you'll be in a good place to begin contending with the Scholastics. Personally, I'd just ignore 99% of them unless you're interesting in the history of thought. If you want to actually understand reality, then pursue metaphysics, game theory, phenomenology, and pragmatism.

>>22734698
>It seems as though you're not yet at the point where you possess enough knowledge of metaphysics to be contending with these sorts of questions.
I've quite well read, and I'm not a beginner to these kinds of questions. So, I find that statement to be rude and presumptuous
>Here's a hint: phenomenal reality is grounded in pain. This is actually something that can be proven with basic logic.
Are you the "muh pain" autist?

>>22734710
>Is politely informed that he's not well read enough in a rather niche subject to contend with these questions.
>Calls his voluntary partner in the dialectic that he initiated and purportedly within which he wants to engage rude and presumptuous
>Calls me a "pain" autist when I tried to throw you some scraps of direction, which you asked for in the OP
You're not a philosopher, and with this attitude you never will be.

>>22734720
You didn't inform me. You don't even know who I am, nor have you asked any questions related to what I've read, so how would you even know? And you're not even addressing my questions. You're obsessed with the "metaphysics" of pain and you think it's the answer to everything, even though you're terrible at explaining why.

So yeah, begone clown.

Correct. And this is why orthodox are right about this and this is the same theology of that led westerners to thinking the divine mind was like the human mind and why they became atheists

>>22734747
Explain. How is the Orthodox metaphysics different?

>>22734732
>You didn't inform me. You don't even know who I am, nor have you asked any questions related to what I've read, so how would you even know?
That cuts both ways, kid.

>You're obsessed with the "metaphysics" of pain and you think it's the answer to everything, even though you're terrible at explaining why.
>Obsessed.
Nigga I RARELY post on /lit/, I took pity on you for being caught in the flytrap of scholastic autism. You're asking what "knowledge" "truly" is, whatever the fuck that means. The smallest unit of knowledge is the quale (google it) which is itself an object comprised of the dyadic relationship between two subjects, those of being and non-being, that of pain and unconsciousness. From there, you can start building a coherent model of knowledge.

Go and study Charles Peirce or Leibniz.

The reason you're struggling with these basic ass questions is because you're sensitive and emotionally invested in your intelligence as a means to power. When you come up against someone with considerably more of it than you, and who has sharpened it to a scalpel sheen, and employed it better and more often and more objectively than you, your little sissy faggot brain throws up anger and shame in response.

>>22734780
>That cuts both ways, kid.
All you did was answer my question with a question, without ever leading the question anywhere near to my problem except a dismissive "you don't know anything, read more lel." Except, to me, your answer:
>is the quale (google it) which is itself an object comprised of the dyadic relationship between two subjects, those of being and non-being,
betrays your lack of understanding of the question and its depth. You're struggling to distinguish "know that" from "know how" and how that infinitely complicates the metaphysical questions at hand. Maybe you should read some Gilbert Ryle and be better informed on the topic.
>
The reason you're struggling with these basic ass questions is because you're sensitive and emotionally invested in your intelligence as a means to power. When you come up against someone with considerably more of it than you, and who has sharpened it to a scalpel sheen, and employed it better and more often and more objectively than you, your little sissy faggot brain throws up anger and shame in response.
Are you sure this isn't projection? I'm not particularly angry, just annoyed in the beginning because there was no punchline, and now amused because you're taking it personally.

>>22734796
Didn't read, you're a fag.

>>22734799
seethe

>>22734796
Oh, wait, you're retarded. There's actually no distinction at the metaphysical level between either species of knowing. It's a distinction born of ignorance about the nature of reality.

>Are you sure this isn't projection
As a Jungian, I'm pretty sure lmao.

>>22734805
Why wouldn't there be a difference? How does a "know how", such as knowledge of carpentry consist of a "likeness" relationship between the subject and the world? Unlike a "know that" statement, which is about propositional truths that can be related to a precise, definitive, and singular state about the world, a "know how" is indefinite and has no such concrete relation.

>>22734813
Because all knowing is founded upon the essential logical structure of reality, which is comprised of three indecomposible aspects, that of potentiality for being (monadic in structure), actuality of being (dyadic), and tendency (triadic).

If you'd read your Aristotle, Leibniz, and Peirce you'd know that.

When asked HOW understanding the difference between "knowing that" and "knowing what" would change the way you behaved, you couldn't give a single specific case. You just vaguely implied it would "be like, totally mind blowing man. It would change everything, bro."

You're not a scientist or a philosopher, you're just a dickhead. Do some serious reading.

>>22734813
Also, fuck you, kid. This is why people like me, educated people, who care about philosophy, are so cautious about wasting time with you hylic fucks.

I regret every second spent ever treating you people as anything other than animals.

>>22734838
>Because all knowing is founded upon the essential logical structure of reality, which is comprised of three indecomposible aspects, that of potentiality for being (monadic in structure), actuality of being (dyadic), and tendency (triadic).
You're repeating your shtick but you're refusing to listen. By your own criteria, "know how" would be monadic (it deals with possibilities), dyadic (knowledge is the connection between mind and reality), and triadic (it relies on habits, e.g. operating principles, laws of nature, one's own neuromuscular adaptations, etc.).

But the problem is that this analysis breaks down in understanding exactly how the monadic is monadic and the dyadic is dyadic. In fact, they seem to "intrude" on each other's territory. With "know how", we're not dealing with one possibility, but an infinite and undefined amount of them. Furthermore, how can the mind be "like" all of these different states all at once? It betrays the principle of non-contradiction. It doesn't make sense.
>When asked HOW understanding the difference between "knowing that" and "knowing what" would change the way you behaved, you couldn't give a single specific case. You just vaguely implied it would "be like, totally mind blowing man. It would change everything, bro."
You never asked for a specific case. To me, it's quite clear. I would end up de-prioritizing "know that" and prioritizing "know how" instead, and I would be focused on how to attain "know how" whenever I'm looking for people to learn. Personally, I would completely demote "know that" to a status below knowledge in most cases. Considering how, in our society, "know that" is elevated over "know how", I think that's a sea change in thinking.
>>22734852
Relax my guy. You're getting way too emotional. It's a bad look.

>>22734876
>But the problem is that this analysis breaks down in understanding exactly how the monadic is monadic and the dyadic is dyadic
Pierce has about 5,000 pages dedicated to that problem, you colossal retard.

Anyway, I gotta bounce, later loser.

>>22734925
Dawg, I've read like dozens of essays by Peirce and I still don't know the answer to the problem. Peirce himself was constantly revising his approach to things right until his deathbed. You're acting like these are clear-cut issues when they're really not at all.

I suppose you don't really know how to solve the question either. That's okay, these are problems that have perplexed our greatest thinkers for over 2500 years.

>>22734954
>Dawg, I've read like dozens of essays by Peirce and I still don't know the answer to the problem. Peirce himself was constantly revising his approach to things right until his deathbed.
Last post before I gotta run, son.

Oh, wow, dozens. Holy moley bro. Except he only ever published like one essay on the subject and everything else is insane garbled notes for like 70,000 fucking pages

>I suppose you don't really know how to solve the question either.
There is no solution because there is no problem, you're assigning words to ideas that have no basis in reality. There difference between knowing what and knowing how, at the metaphysical level, doesn't exist. It's a practical problem, which means it falls under the purview of pragmatism, which means you have to be able to define how it is that either proof against or for either proposition would alter your affectual behavior schemata.

Gotta bounce bro, I'm proud of you for reading DOZENS of Peirce's essays though. God damn, bro. Really put me to shame there.

>>22734710
>>22734720
>>22734732
>>22734780
>>>/lit/thread/20925620
this you? kek

>>22735001
>Oh, wow, dozens. Holy moley bro. Except he only ever published like one essay on the subject and everything else is insane garbled notes for like 70,000 fucking pages
Wait, so he dedicated only one essay, or 5000 pages to the problem? You keep changing your story.

Besides, I can name like 6 essays or other writings of his off of the top of my head that deal with the problem in some way. On a New System of Categories, A Guess at the Riddle, the Harvard Lectures, his correspondence with Lady Welby, etc. Peirce thought these problems were important.
>There is no solution because there is no problem, you're assigning words to ideas that have no basis in reality.
First of all, you're the one who introduced the definition of knowledge as a quale. Thankfully, it more or less matches how I defined knowledge traditionally at the beginning of the thread. But we're operating off of your framework, not only mine, at least until I introduce the "know that" versus "know how" distinction.

Second,, if "know how" involves knowing how to do things in general (the ability to bring into fruition a potentially infinite states of reality), but secondness deals with actuality (a one-to-one, particular likeness between two things), then how are we supposed to rely on the quale definition of knowledge? You treat quale as an instance of secondness (mind in coherence with reality), but when it comes to "know how", it wouldn't make sense.

In case I have to spell it out in clear philosophical language, it is the problem of universals and particulars and how to relate the two, which is literally one of the oldest and most perplexing problems in the history of philosophy. Your solution involves treating a universal subject as a particular object in order to relate it to other particular objects, without any consideration for the universality of the subject or the totality of the particular objects. It's
>Gotta bounce bro, I'm proud of you for reading DOZENS of Peirce's essays though. God damn, bro. Really put me to shame there.
It wasn't meant as a flex. But rather the fact that I've done plenty of reading of Peirce, so telling me to simply "read more Peirce", when we're brushing against the limits of Peirce's thinking, isn't going to solve the question.

You're going to have to stop posturing, flailing around emotionally, and evading the crux of the problem if you want this conversation to go anywhere. I've already restated it for you three times. I don't think I can do it again and make any effective difference, at least not without a new angle.

But I understand that you have to go. You've been saying that you needed to leave for about an hour now. Thank you for giving me more of your time, it means a lot.

>>22735001
>Oh, wow, dozens. Holy moley bro. Except he only ever published like one essay on the subject and everything else is insane garbled notes for like 70,000 fucking pages
Wait, so he dedicated only one essay, or 5000 pages to the problem? You keep changing your story.

Besides, I can name like 6 essays or other writings of his off of the top of my head that deal with the problem in some way. On a New System of Categories, A Guess at the Riddle, the Harvard Lectures, his correspondence with Lady Welby, etc. Peirce thought these problems were important.
>There is no solution because there is no problem, you're assigning words to ideas that have no basis in reality.
First of all, you're the one who introduced the definition of knowledge as a quale. Thankfully, it more or less matches how I defined knowledge traditionally at the beginning of the thread. But we're operating off of your framework, not only mine, at least until I introduce the "know that" versus "know how" distinction.

Second,, if "know how" involves knowing how to do things in general (the ability to bring into fruition a potentially infinite states of reality), but secondness deals with actuality (a one-to-one, particular likeness between two things), then how are we supposed to rely on the quale definition of knowledge? You treat quale as an instance of secondness (mind in coherence with reality), and that might work when it comes to "know that", but when it comes to "know how", it doesn't make sense. There's a categorical error involved.

In case I have to spell it out in clear philosophical language, it is the problem of universals and particulars and how to relate the two, which is literally one of the oldest and most perplexing problems in the history of philosophy. Your solution involves treating a universal subject as a particular object in order to relate it to other particular objects, without any consideration for the universality of the subject or the totality of the particular objects. It's sloppy thinking. If you cared about the truth as much as you say you do, you wouldn't stand for it too.
>Gotta bounce bro, I'm proud of you for reading DOZENS of Peirce's essays though. God damn, bro. Really put me to shame there.
It wasn't meant as a flex. But rather the fact that I've done plenty of reading of Peirce, so telling me to simply "read more Peirce", when we're brushing against the limits of Peirce's thinking, isn't going to solve the question.

You're going to have to stop posturing, flailing around emotionally, and evading the crux of the problem if you want this conversation to go anywhere. I've already restated it for you three times. I don't think I can do it again and make any effective difference, at least not without a new angle.

But I understand that you have to go. You've been saying that you needed to leave for about an hour now. Thank you for giving me more of your time, it means a lot.

>>22734838
>Leibniz
where does Leibniz ever talk about "triadism" or whatever the fuck? he's all about monads

>>22735058
>Put two monads together, now you have a dyad.
I wonder what happens when you add another monad ...

>>22735072
Luminosu

>>22735072
>Put two monads together, now you have a dyad.
but Leibniz was a monist who believed the world was constituted by only one kind of substance. false distinctions of "dyads" or any other kind of "dualism" would be wiped away by the pre-established harmony of monads. have you even read La Monadologie?
>I wonder what happens when you add another monad ...
still would be a monism because, again, pre-established harmony. but if I wanted to play devil's advocate, I could just ask
>what happened if you add another monad to a triad? then you have a tetrad
yet I bet you would sperg out and tell me that you can't do that for some trifling reason.

look, I'm not into counting games, I just like reading philosophy and talking about it.

>>22728788
Check out John Vervaeke's four level ontology. It directly answers your question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4gbs0Evx_I

>>22735110
This looks interesting at a first glance. I don't know if it will resolve the metaphysics of the question, but at least I hope it'll chop up the problem into more digestible bits than merely know-that and know-how. I'll start watching it.

>>22735099
nta but jesus bro, are you actually a tard?

>>22735183
>nta
you sound like the same guy to me. explain to me how im wrong.
>protip: you can't

bumperino

>>22735110
good vid

bump erino

>>22734780
>>22734852
>>22734925
kek are you gonna cut yourself later?

bump

I saw this exact post 1 or 2 months ago, the dead internet theory is real anons

>>22739279
You didn’t. Search it in the archives.
>inb4 the glowniggers deleted it

what about knowing WHY

Welcome to our new server centred mainly around western theology and philosophy, civility is the only rule here

https://discord.com/invite/VyCHeGH7dw