• creativesoul
    3.4k
    I never agreed to this. Knowing what certain statements mean makes transmitting knowledge much easier but young kids are obviously also capable of thought even though they don't know a language. Language is not necessary for thought, I think that proposition is absurd. It would even imply that cavemen were incapable of thinking but had that been the case we wouldn't have survived. You don't need a personal monologue running 24/7 to think

    Reason is required for knowledge. Language is not required for reason. Language is a form of knowledge. You cannot define knowledge without having the word "justified" or "validated" in the definition or else arguing with you is futile because if you don't have something like that in your definition then literally any statement is knowledge if one believes in it strongly which defeats the purpose of having the word "knowledge" when it just means "strong belief"
    khaled

    You're arguing with your own imagination.
  • khaled
    141
    arguing with someone who believes reason is not necessary for knowledge is completely futile. I KNOW I am right. And I KNOW you are wrong according to your definition of knowledge. See why it is futile to argue. That's not a no true Scotsman argument, reason is literally the basis for any argument. If you are trying to argue without reason you're not arguing you're bickering/fighting

    Not accepting reason as the basis for knowledge is a completely untenable position.
  • creativesoul
    3.4k
    The kid knows what "there is a cup on the table" means...khaled

    Knowledge, as I have defined it (a belief that stems from applying sound syllogisms) is not possessed by kids who have not reasoned their beliefs. There is every reason to deny a kid that...khaled

    How do you reconcile this obvious contradiction?
  • creativesoul
    3.4k
    Not accepting reason as the basis for knowledge is a completely untenable position.khaled

    And yet, I reject reason as the basis of knowledge, and do not have any issues with paradox or self-contradiction.

    It only follows that your claim is false.
  • creativesoul
    3.4k
    Reason is required for knowledge. Language is not required for reason. Language is a form of knowledge.khaled

    All reason is thinking about thought and belief. Thinking about thought and belief is existentially dependent upon language use. All reason is existentially dependent upon language use. All language use is existentially dependent upon shared meaning. Shared meaning is existentially dependent upon a plurality of users knowing how to use language. Knowing how to use language is knowledge. All is reason is existentially dependent upon knowledge.
  • khaled
    141
    I know you are wrong. I simply do. Therefore we are done arguing
  • khaled
    141

    Thinking about thought and belief is existentially dependent upon language use.creativesoul

    This is clearly incorrect. Unless you think young children can't think. Do you actually think young children and animals are incapable of thought?
  • khaled
    141
    soooooo.... You see the problem with your position now?
12345Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.