Your cat looks pretty ferocious.

Presumably the only exponents of propositional knowledge we know of are humans, since propositional knowledge requires symbolic language.

I also distinguish knowledge by acquaintance or familiarity, as in "I knew Catherine", and this can be more or less intimate as in "carnal knowledge", good friend or casual acquaintance. And then there is know-how. It seems obvious that animals are capable of both of these forms of non-propositional knowledge.

If your cat could tell you she is mad are you, matters might then be different; as it is you have to guess and allow for the possibility that you are projecting when you think she is mad at you.

Yes, all knowledge is perspectival. As to what the word 'knowledge' can be applied to, I think that is a matter of stipulation, not fact. — Janus

That said, I should acknowledge that it is a fact that there is a range of established stipulations, which hold some normative sway. Novel, creative usages are always possible, but they surely must exemplify something, however minimal, of the logic of established usage, and there is no guarantee that neologisms will catch on.

Think of this as taking an imaginary journey into how objects exist in the world. Correlationism always asks how these things exist in my world. OOO is trying to get to the idea that there are non-animal was of being in the world.

This brings up bigger notions to me. What does it mean for there to be an interaction or a relation between objects? And is it all relation (without an animal to perceive it), or is there something retained in each interaction?

For further reading on this, see this article.

A correlationist will say that we cannot imagine how objects exist "in themselves". We can imagine that they do exist in themselves, which is something else, obviously.

A correlationist will say that we cannot imagine how objects exist "in themselves". We can imagine that they do exist in themselves, which is something else, obviously. — Janus

Yes indeed. And how it is that objects relate and interact is a big part of that. Did you read the article?

What I like about Whitehead is he has "street cred" as a mathematical logicist (he worked with Russell on Principia Mathematica), but instead of buying into logical positivism he went way out in speculative metaphysics on being, like an odd analytic continental. Anyways, that doesn't prove anything here nor there about his ideas, but it shows that one can plow straight ahead and speculate in imaginary ways on being. Falsification is overrated :smile: .

I was right into Whitehead for a good while. I think process metaphysics is closer to actuality as experienced than substance ontology is. I like speculative metaphysics because it's an exercise of the creative imagination. Whether or not it accords with any absolute reality is unknowable, but I don't think that question matters at all, or is maybe even coherent. Falsification has no provenance when it comes to metaphysics.

I was right into Whitehead for a good while. I think process metaphysics is closer to actuality as experienced than substance ontology is. I like speculative metaphysics because it's an exercise of the creative imagination. Whether or not it accords with any absolute reality is unknowable, but I don't think that question matters at all, or is maybe even coherent. Falsification has no provenance when it comes to metaphysics. — Janus

:up: