Episteme: Three Kinds of Knowledge. Part II
Browse articles:
Auto Beauty Business Culture Dieting DIY Events Fashion Finance Food Freelancing Gardening Health Hobbies Home Internet Jobs Law Local Media Men's Health Mobile Nutrition Parenting Pets Pregnancy Products Psychology Real Estate Relationships Science Seniors Sports Technology Travel Wellness Women's Health
Browse companies:
Automotive Crafts, Hobbies & Gifts Department Stores Electronics & Wearables Fashion Food & Drink Health & Beauty Home & Garden Online Services & Software Sports & Outdoors Subscription Boxes Toys, Kids & Baby Travel & Events

Episteme: Three Kinds of Knowledge. Part II

Part two of a brief explication into the three kinds of knowledge. This factoid references the objective immaterial knowledge most truly knowledge.

The final sense of knowledge is obscure and incredibly hard to speak of. Objective knowledge is the truest sense of the word. It is what is true regardless of a knower knowing. It seems most true that this sense of knowledge is that which persists across culture. These immaterial, objective bits of knowledge are the most unseen forms of convention. The best examples are those things which are seen as least debatable. That a plane flies would be impossible and frightening a hundred years ago. Today we see planes fly without a second thought. It is this form of knowledge which I believe is most true to definition of knowledge. These forms of knowledge have the least, if any, reference toward the knower. Each step toward this knowledge changes the very way we think of the past. Once one understands what it means to defy gravity and take flight one can hardly question the possibility of flight. The thing is known in itself, an instant before one could question the possibility of ‘x’ as time progresses and objective knowledge is possessed one would hardly think to question ‘x’ without being scared of insanity.

I know the senses in which I speak of objective knowledge are odd, but that is in a way my argument. Think for a moment that prior to the concept of zero it would be impossible to speak of zero plus one being one. If the statement was uttered prior to the objective concept of zero being known it would fall on deaf ears. Posterior to the objective zero it is unquestionable what zero plus one is.

Perhaps the importance of such distinctions can be unclear, but it is my intention to show that we use three senses of knowledge in all of our references in day to day life. Most often we speak as if we know that which is ever changing, less frequently we speak of those things which we know and yet are ‘filtered’ through our own subjective perception. These forms of knowledge are for material reasons unique to the knower as a reference to personal thought. The final kind of knowledge, that which is most definitively knowledge is the sort we don’t even speak of let alone believe we have.

This is very important to remember. It is that we don’t see our objective knowledge that allows it to be objective. If for instance one were to see that ‘x’ was objective knowledge one would begin to understand that I have possession of ‘x’ which is objective. Immediately one begins to filter ‘x’ through ones past understanding.

It is my belief that objectivity cannot exist in a knower, as we necessarily taint the knowledge by believing it to be ours. The only sense in which a material thing could possess the objective sense of knowledge is if one were to understand and know oneself as the whole of material existence. Understanding that each moment this body persists is a moment closer to decay. That life does not end in death, it simply moves into life as decay.

Please see Part I of this factoid as well as my other factoids on epistemology

Episteme 101


Justified True Belief

Additional resources:

Need an answer?
Get insightful answers from community-recommended
in Philosophy on Knoji.
Would you recommend this author as an expert in Philosophy?
You have 0 recommendations remaining to grant today.
Comments (0)