(May 2, 2013 at 1:39 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: rea·son-
1)To use the faculty of reason; think logically
2)The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence
3)Good judgment; sound sense
4)Logic A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument
5)To determine or conclude by logical thinking
un·rea·son·a·ble- Not governed by reason
ir·ra·tion·al-Not endowed with reason

This is a list of five separate definitions of "reason". Numbers 1 and 5 in the list are in the verb form, and 2, 3 and 4 are in the noun form. You have included two antonyms of the number 1 noun definition of "reason". I don't really see how this adds credibility to your argument.

---

(May 2, 2013 at 10:32 am)whateverist Wrote: Shall we make a list of what can agree that "we know" under one heading and then make another for all the knowledge claims vouchsafed by a single individual? Those items under the first heading are what we generally refer to as knowledge. Those items under the second heading are things of no general use to others. They can guide our own actions and be shared with friends but why blur the distinction?

Yes, but we'd still be communicating these concepts via textual language in a rationalist straitjacket. I think the following is a good example. Take the profound musical genius of Mozart. Only Mozart had the subjective knowledge of his own abilities. If I was a professor in musicology and had 10 PhDs, all on the topic of Mozart, no matter how hard I endeavoured to analyse and rationalise Mozart's genius, it wouldn't come anywhere near close to understanding Mozart's private knowledge, primarily because Mozart's musical genius is beyond most people's comprehension.

(May 2, 2013 at 2:21 pm)Love Wrote:

(May 2, 2013 at 1:39 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: rea·son-
1)To use the faculty of reason; think logically
2)The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence
3)Good judgment; sound sense
4)Logic A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument
5)To determine or conclude by logical thinking
un·rea·son·a·ble- Not governed by reason
ir·ra·tion·al-Not endowed with reason

This is a list of five separate definitions of "reason". Numbers 1 and 5 in the list are in the verb form, and 2, 3 and 4 are in the noun form. You have included two antonyms of the number 1 noun definition of "reason". I don't really see how this adds credibility to your argument.

---

(May 2, 2013 at 10:32 am)whateverist Wrote: Shall we make a list of what can agree that "we know" under one heading and then make another for all the knowledge claims vouchsafed by a single individual? Those items under the first heading are what we generally refer to as knowledge. Those items under the second heading are things of no general use to others. They can guide our own actions and be shared with friends but why blur the distinction?

Yes, but we'd still be communicating these concepts via textual language in a rationalist straitjacket. I think the following is a good example. Take the profound musical genius of Mozart. Only Mozart had the subjective knowledge of his own abilities. If I was a professor in musicology and had 10 PhDs, all on the topic of Mozart, no matter how hard I endeavoured to analyse and rationalise Mozart's genius, it wouldn't come anywhere near close to understanding Mozart's private knowledge, primarily because Mozart's musical genius is beyond most people's comprehension.

...dude. I pulled those off of dictionary.com

They're just definitions of the words used in the context which they are being used in this argument. The definitions are implied in the argument that contains them. Giving you the definitions is not an addition to the argument, it just seemed as though you did not understand the words.

(May 2, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: They're just definitions of the words used in the context which they are being used in this argument. The definitions are implied in the argument that contains them. Giving you the definitions is not an addition to the argument, it just seemed as though you did not understand the words.

No, they're definitions of the word "reason". The word "reason" has a lot of definitions; it can be used as a verb or a noun in a variety of contexts.

(May 2, 2013 at 2:21 pm)Love Wrote: Yes, but we'd still be communicating these concepts via textual language in a rationalist straitjacket. I think the following is a good example. Take the profound musical genius of Mozart. Only Mozart had the subjective knowledge of his own abilities. If I was a professor in musicology and had 10 PhDs, all on the topic of Mozart, no matter how hard I endeavoured to analyse and rationalise Mozart's genius, it wouldn't come anywhere near close to understanding Mozart's private knowledge, primarily because Mozart's musical genius is beyond most people's comprehension.

You have demonstrated precisely why 'knowledge' is the wrong term for what Mozart had. You don't 'learn' to be a Mozart. You can learn his music, and train your body. You can train yourself to recognize tone and pitch. You could, if you wanted, train yourself far more vigorously than Mozart ever trained himself. Mozart was composing music on multiple instruments at the age of 5. At the age of 30, even with a few years of music training in school, I could certainly not match even that. You cannot learn to be creative. You can only learn the mechanics of creative production. If Mozart had been born with my brain, he would never have become a legendary musician no matter how hard he tried. But maybe he would have been a halfway decent writer.

I write fiction for fun, and a simple fact about fiction writing is that you can teach someone how to write perfect prose, but you cannot teach someone how to be a master storyteller. There are people who try, and there are ways to make yourself better, but the masters of fiction writing, the real gods if you will, have the ability to invent scenarios and flesh them out and make them gripping in a way I only wish I could. What makes Mozart Mozart is natural talent. Talent is not learned. It is not knowledge. It is beyond everyone else's comprehension not because Mozart had unique knowledge, but because he had unique talent. His brain was wired, ahead of time, to be accidentally amazing with music. He no more understood his own talent any more than anyone else. Talent is not knowledge. You cannot learn it, you cannot share it. Maybe there is a way to quantify it, but we sure as hell don't know how, and it might not even matter.

(May 2, 2013 at 2:21 pm)Love Wrote: Yes, but we'd still be communicating these concepts via textual language in a rationalist straitjacket. I think the following is a good example. Take the profound musical genius of Mozart. Only Mozart had the subjective knowledge of his own abilities. If I was a professor in musicology and had 10 PhDs, all on the topic of Mozart, no matter how hard I endeavoured to analyse and rationalise Mozart's genius, it wouldn't come anywhere near close to understanding Mozart's private knowledge, primarily because Mozart's musical genius is beyond most people's comprehension.

This gets at the distinction between formal knowledge and expert knowledge. Formal knowledge is the kind that is not always required to actually do a thing. The most common example is grammar. One might be an expert in language use as a speaker without having any formal knowledge of grammar.

I think Mozart would first and foremost have expert knowledge in the area of music creation. He may or may not have had any formal understanding. (If the popular story of him being schooled at a young age by his father is true then likely he did also have a formal understanding of music.) That Mozart "knows music" is self evident but what may we assume about how he 'holds' that knowledge? There may not have been anything systematic in the way he put music together and he himself may have been entirely unaware of 'how' he did it. If it was entirely intuitive then his 'knowing' music may have amounted to a skill and a knack. This is a very different use of "knowledge" than justified, true belief.

(May 2, 2013 at 3:16 pm)Love Wrote:

(May 2, 2013 at 2:57 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: They're just definitions of the words used in the context which they are being used in this argument. The definitions are implied in the argument that contains them. Giving you the definitions is not an addition to the argument, it just seemed as though you did not understand the words.

No, they're definitions of the word "reason". The word "reason" has a lot of definitions; it can be used as a verb or a noun in a variety of contexts.

Well spotted! But, as I said and as you have ignored, those are definitions of the word in the context you and I have been using it in. Why are you filibustering?

(May 2, 2013 at 3:51 pm)Ryantology Wrote: You have demonstrated precisely why 'knowledge' is the wrong term for what Mozart had. You don't 'learn' to be a Mozart.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with you; another example of relativism trumping reason.

Whether or not "talent" can be considered knowledge is obviously arguable. Mozart clearly had extremely sophisticated knowledge in classical music theory; to say otherwise is nonsensical.

(May 2, 2013 at 3:51 pm)Ryantology Wrote: He no more understood his own talent any more than anyone else.

On what grounds have you come to this conclusion? In terms of self-awareness and theoretical reflections of this self-awareness, I postulate that Mozart had a very thorough understanding of his own abilities.

(May 3, 2013 at 7:04 am)Love Wrote: On what grounds have you come to this conclusion? In terms of self-awareness and theoretical reflections of this self-awareness, I postulate that Mozart had a very thorough understanding of his own abilities.

Postulate all you want, but do you have any actual evidence that this is the case, or is this purely ipse dixit?

(May 3, 2013 at 7:04 am)Love Wrote: On what grounds have you come to this conclusion? In terms of self-awareness and theoretical reflections of this self-awareness, I postulate that Mozart had a very thorough understanding of his own abilities.

Understanding one's own abilities is vastly different than understanding the basis of inate talent.

An 8 year old chess wizard understands strategy in the game of chess. That does not mean he understands WHY he understand strategy in the game of chess.

Knowledge can be gained through talent. However, talent can NEVER be gained through knowledge.

(May 3, 2013 at 7:04 am)Love Wrote: I respect your opinion, but I disagree with you; another example of relativism trumping reason.

If you disagree, then you must believe that anybody can be Mozart if they gain the right knowledge. What can you know that would make you Mozart's equivalent? I suggest that it is unreasonable to think that musical genius is so rare because most people just don't know how to be a musical genius.

Quote:Whether or not "talent" can be considered knowledge is obviously arguable. Mozart clearly had extremely sophisticated knowledge in classical music theory; to say otherwise is nonsensical.

You, yourself, opened this discussion by pointing out that such knowledge is irrelevant. Musical theory is something anyone can learn if they apply themselves to it. It is not unique to anybody. It, therefore, cannot be the x factor which made Mozart a genius.

(May 2, 2013 at 3:51 pm)Ryantology Wrote: On what grounds have you come to this conclusion? In terms of self-awareness and theoretical reflections of this self-awareness, I postulate that Mozart had a very thorough understanding of his own abilities.

Understanding your abilities is not the same as knowing what makes you talented. I understand my ability. I can assess the level of my writing talent to some reasonable degree of sophistication, but that doesn't mean I have the slightest idea why I have this natural gift and inclination to write fiction. I would lie if I claimed I did. It is one of many things about my brain which are obviously true yet beyond my understanding. This is not 'knowledge'.