"Information isn't knowledge. Knowledge is information with a commensurate amount of experience to go along with it." -Al Snow
In this day and age, we're drowning in information. The real question is, what's the quality of any said piece of information at any given moment? How can you tell what's "shit" from what's "legit"?
Who decides?
Who can you trust?
What sources aren't trying to deceive people for some sort of gain, be it monetary, political, or both?
The answer is rooted in understanding and reaching a rational EPISTEMOLOGY - HOW you "know what you know" is actually valid.
The majority of human beings on this planet substitute rational epistemology for arguments rooted in authority (scientists have this all figure out).
The reason these people have to argue via fallacy is because their root assumptions contain contradictions. Ingredients that don't belong. There is nothing to make sense out of because you have nothing to begin with. Multiply anything by 0 and see what you get.
In general people are going to be clueless that they're either abiding by or violating rational consistency, let alone where in the philosophical chain that actually IS - and how to rectify it rationally:
Metaphysic > Epistemology > Ethic > Politic > Aesthetic.
Let's use baking bread as an example.
What The F#*% Are You "Baking"?!
Could you take the ingredients used to make bread - flour, water, sugar, yeast - eat each one separately, and get the same nutritional value of those ingredients separated, as you would if they were combined into a successful loaf of bread?
Technically yes, but you're going to have an incredible stomach ache in the process.
This process is contradictory to health and nutrition despite containing ingredients which should feed you.
This is an example of the correct information being applied incorrectly due to lack of experience (Part 2 is all about this portion).
Now this isn't so bad because you already have the correct information, but you just need the experience to put it all together correctly. It's an obvious two-step process that creates a third step that transcends both steps via the genuine Knowledge created by the combination of that initial information, and the proper experience to correct your actions/behaviors accordingly.
The reason I use this example first is this is best case. Most people aren't only NOT using the correct ingredients to bake their bread, they're using foreign objects, then claiming those foreign objects are indeed yeast, flour, and sugar. They are also so programmed by contradiction they eat their own bread and convince themselves that it's bread, instead of the reality of sugar, rusty nails, a little flour, some sawdust, and glue.
My friends, that information is not only completely irrational, it's nowhere near Knowledge.
This is an example of the correct information being applied incorrectly due to lack of experience (Part 2 is all about this portion).
Now this isn't so bad because you already have the correct information, but you just need the experience to put it all together correctly. It's an obvious two-step process that creates a third step that transcends both steps via the genuine Knowledge created by the combination of that initial information, and the proper experience to correct your actions/behaviors accordingly.
The reason I use this example first is this is best case. Most people aren't only NOT using the correct ingredients to bake their bread, they're using foreign objects, then claiming those foreign objects are indeed yeast, flour, and sugar. They are also so programmed by contradiction they eat their own bread and convince themselves that it's bread, instead of the reality of sugar, rusty nails, a little flour, some sawdust, and glue.
My friends, that information is not only completely irrational, it's nowhere near Knowledge.
Replace "Bread" with "Rational Philosophy"
Instead of flour, sugar, water, yeast, think metaphysic, epistemology, ethic, politic, like the previous section:
Metaphysic > Epistemology > Ethic > Politic > Aesthetic.
When those ingredients - those "steps"- don't contradict, at all, you have solid philosophical position.
You're "baking the bread correctly", so to speak.
You're arguing a RATIONAL PHILOSOPHY (the entire point of this blog)!
Philosophically, many claim to be making bread, but they're actually using completely foreign objects (I.E. contradiction) in place of every correct (rational, I.E. non-contradictory) philosophical ingredient.
Most people are substituting yeast with rusty nails, and are unable to tell the difference because everything is infinitely relative to them...because they have BOTH a contradiction somewhere in their reasoning...AND they lack the commensurate amount of experience, study, etc. to correct it.
Then, when someone else - someone with experience, and thus genuine Knowledge of this same situation/topic/etc. - bites into their bread and kindly alerts them to the fact that there are rusty nails in their bread, instead of conceding and and thanking you for enlightening them, they double down and instead argue that you don't actually know what you're tasting, and science has used this method and it works, and is thus the most valid, accurate form of information, and thus knowledge.
Scientists have been baking bread with nails in place of yeast because that's how it is because science says so.
Circular reasoning city.
Circular reasoning is the only reasoning because there is no rational reason.
Their metaphysic contradicts, their epistemology is incomplete, and thus their ethic and politic are flawed by extension.
Start with the wrong ingredients, get the wrong result.
This is plain as day obvious when baking, but not so much when dealing with the mind.
So, how the hell do we know what's going on here?
How do we course correct?
The first step is understanding and accepting that not all ingredients - information - is/are equal, and then learning how to discern the correct ingredients so you bake an indestructible philosophy that will feed yourself and the masses, for life, in terms of "philosophical nutrition".
Stay tuned for the next several parts of this article series as we delve into just how to combat this bullshit...rationally.
Then, when someone else - someone with experience, and thus genuine Knowledge of this same situation/topic/etc. - bites into their bread and kindly alerts them to the fact that there are rusty nails in their bread, instead of conceding and and thanking you for enlightening them, they double down and instead argue that you don't actually know what you're tasting, and science has used this method and it works, and is thus the most valid, accurate form of information, and thus knowledge.
Scientists have been baking bread with nails in place of yeast because that's how it is because science says so.
Circular reasoning city.
Circular reasoning is the only reasoning because there is no rational reason.
Their metaphysic contradicts, their epistemology is incomplete, and thus their ethic and politic are flawed by extension.
Start with the wrong ingredients, get the wrong result.
This is plain as day obvious when baking, but not so much when dealing with the mind.
So, how the hell do we know what's going on here?
How do we course correct?
The first step is understanding and accepting that not all ingredients - information - is/are equal, and then learning how to discern the correct ingredients so you bake an indestructible philosophy that will feed yourself and the masses, for life, in terms of "philosophical nutrition".
Stay tuned for the next several parts of this article series as we delve into just how to combat this bullshit...rationally.
No comments:
Post a Comment