We all have various degrees of knowledge. We are also ignorant of things; ignorant of things we can learn about, and much that is unavailable to even know about. What do we know about knowledge itself? How do we know what we know? What really constitutes knowledge? This is where epistemology comes in.
Source
Epistemology is the study or theory of knowledge, like other –ologies that study what they study. It’s looking into what knowledge is. The word comes from the Greek episteme and epistasthai “understand” or literally “over-stand”, from epi “over, near” + histasthai “to stand”. To know what you know, you have to understand how it is that you know it.
Knowledge conveys a true situation. To know about (or know of) something. Or to know that something is true. To know about/of something is a true situation of knowing about it, not that the something is true itself. These are two main types of knowledge: about and that.
True knowledge is what’s true and you can demonstrate it (i.e. the truth). This is knowing that something is true, which can be called level 2 knowledge. You can also know about or know of something, but not necessarily know that it is true or not. This can be called level 1 knowledge. It might be true, or might be false. False knowledge is knowledge that isn’t true, not that you know it isn’t true. For example, 2+2=5. People can accept false knowledge and believe it to be true. Knowing that something isn’t true, knowing that a false knowledge isn’t true, would be part of true knowledge. For example, if you know that 2+2=5 is false, then you know a truth about false knowledge being false and not think it’s true.
Knowledge can be true or false. You can know about something (level 1), and then you can know if that knowledge is true or false (level 2). Level 1 knowledge is to have an awareness of something. Level 2 knowledge is knowing if that awareness it true or false. You can know something happened, but can’t demonstrate or prove it to others. They would believe, trust and have faith and loyalty in your claim of truth, but couldn’t call it truth themselves since they don’t know if it’s true or not.
In knowing-how to do something, it’s true that you know how to do it if you can do it. It’s a form of knowing-that, not simply knowing about (knowing that I can do X). If someone else says they know how to do something, then you having knowledge-about them saying they can do something. If you see them doing that, then it demonstrates they know how to do it, and you now have knowledge that they can do it. You can also know how to do something theoretically, and practically. You can know how to do something from someone telling you how to do it, like in a book (how to cook something). But also knowing how to do it because you actually did it.
Knowledge about an idea or a belief is an awareness of something, real or unreal. This knowledge can be shared. Only when it’s verified and demonstrated as truth can be it referred to as a truth, or as knowledge that it’s true. In a world where a fork doesn’t exist (like at some point in the distant past), someone could know about the idea of a fork and then could be the first to create it into the world. To claim to have knowledge that a fork exists when it doesn’t and isn’t demonstrable, is a false claim. A belief in the fork existing isn’t a truth.
Eh why is this being downvoted $20?
The dark side is strong with some who hate me :P
I wonder if there is a level 3 or beyond. Oh, maybe I'm getting too meta here lol.
LOL, maybe, what would you classify as level 3? They are just terms to differentiate one from another one, the higher one is about knowing if it;s true or not, which matters more.
I guess it depends partly on the exact definition to the first two levels. Would the awareness of knowing that you don't know everything be a merely level 2? Would there be a line between what you know and an intuition or gut feeling of something you don't really know know but have a feeling about? Is it possible to go outside of your body to know at a greater level outside of the five or six main physical and tangible senses that we are generally aware of?
Knowledge is indeed something that shaped millions of minds. So did a poem, a fiction, a lie. A love poem is just an opinion, but the knowledge about love of a stranger can move hearts and shape ideas which can be realistic or not. Swimming in the informational pool and seeing from where each fishy comes is a tedious task, we can understand why some would rather enjoy the view and stop wondering. Seeking true knowledge demands effort and the human mind is comfortable
It's easier to be ignorant and in the bliss of not being bothered and suffering with knowing things ;)
So it seems. But ignorance is not bliss for those who take the time to think things through.
And now I’m going to throw a monkey wrench into this wonderful discourse...
The 3rd level is a reversion back to the starting line of knowing... because all truth contains within it the seed of its opposite. It is through the context of dark that we understand light and it is by light that we understand dark. The full picture is not clear one without the other.
So it is here that I say this... Knowing is a seed born from the understanding that it is not what you know but what you don’t know.
Truth therefore is relative to the situation and the objective view. One context shifts the perspective bringing to light a new layer of knowledge just below ones conscious self.
There is no end to the search because knowing depends entirely on the context of its next layer of secrets.
We as finite human beings never arrive... until mortalities knock sounds upon the door.
Then and only then will everything we thought we knew as truth fade away into brilliant all knowing.
The knowledge of good and evil has its demise in its relation to relative context (time, and perception) Truth is more a byproduct of the shifting reality than a static state of absolute fixed in time and space.
I disagree. The things we don't know can be infinite. You can act upon the things that you do know, not what you don't know. Things do shift, but there is truth that can potentially be known at particular time-frame instances in existence.
That’s exactly the problem. Knowing is static truth in an ever changing and expanding world. I agree that we act on what’s established but keeping in mind that truth is relative to the context of time, place, and person keeps us humble in our discovery of it. I am always seeking. Always learning. Always attempting to look at the world in new ways... because it’s not what I know that counts... it’s the realization that there is so much that I don’t know. Staying open and flexible is of vital importance don’t you think?
I think the concept of truth has always been present even before we came to be. Thus an idea circling one's head can be described as truth even not at first being demonstrable, afterwards being worked on it can be shown. As proof there's the example of Einstein. At first it takes to approach it mentally, afterwards try and fail and at the end to succeed. That we can't see it in the first place and need proof doesn't take away the truth being there in the first place. It only confirms it.
It can be true, but if you can't demonstrate it, then you don't know it's actually true. That's the point. By working at proving it, then you can prove it ;)
My point is, what drives our minds towards working on something isn't totally random. Yes it can't be shown at first but the truth doesn't care about being shown or not, it just is. Indeed we need the proof to enhance our perception because there's the perception what can't be achieved by our senses doesn't exist.
HIVE.D!
Objectivism and theories of concepts underly cognition and measurement. Since its all in a constant perceptual stage, i agree that we must explore much of the limitations of knowledge. Essence to me is epistemological. Some of these concepts in earlier philosophies rose through arbitrary meanings. Some abstractions again, at some point became Axiomatic concepts. Something that is perceived directly but grasped conceptually are to different things. To identify them consciously and self consciously as an epistemological need can be a very ambiguous endeavor.