So as I was doing my justice and wasting part of my day on YouTube, I came across a video on philosophy outlining Explicit and Implicit Knowledge.
This struck a note with me as in the past I believe I had relied predominantly on implicit knowledge while being deeply religious. Now since, by definition, implicit knowledge is inherently inconclusive and is easily deconstructed (i.e. faith, God, supernaturalism) why is it that it is so highly regarded in the religious realm? Now, agreeably, though the topic of "faith" has no sustenance I will concede that the implicit knowledge on faith, as a religious person, comes also with certain favorable assumptions such as "God will help me," "God cares," or "if I just pray harder then I'll feel better." Now these are favorable in that for some people people it certainly works to overcome whatever life obstacle or to deter a certain level of stress. So, admittedly, I'm quite happy for them.
But for myself...it is not satisfiable nor sufficiently suitable to curve my craving for the truth because it can distract from real solutions and only leave room for band aid remedies. I.E. If I suffer from depression or anxiety then it would be a considerable waste of time to lean on the implicit knowledge of faith which implies "God will save me" rather than take a naturalistic approach, through explicit reasoning, that prescribes the understanding of psychiatry and psychology to diagnose a more rationally savvy explanation, not to exclude a more plausible remedy for a lasting recovery.
Anyways, that's my two cents on that. Am I applying these two terms correctly? I'm not exactly a philosophy buff, though I appreciate it.
-LN6.626
This struck a note with me as in the past I believe I had relied predominantly on implicit knowledge while being deeply religious. Now since, by definition, implicit knowledge is inherently inconclusive and is easily deconstructed (i.e. faith, God, supernaturalism) why is it that it is so highly regarded in the religious realm? Now, agreeably, though the topic of "faith" has no sustenance I will concede that the implicit knowledge on faith, as a religious person, comes also with certain favorable assumptions such as "God will help me," "God cares," or "if I just pray harder then I'll feel better." Now these are favorable in that for some people people it certainly works to overcome whatever life obstacle or to deter a certain level of stress. So, admittedly, I'm quite happy for them.
But for myself...it is not satisfiable nor sufficiently suitable to curve my craving for the truth because it can distract from real solutions and only leave room for band aid remedies. I.E. If I suffer from depression or anxiety then it would be a considerable waste of time to lean on the implicit knowledge of faith which implies "God will save me" rather than take a naturalistic approach, through explicit reasoning, that prescribes the understanding of psychiatry and psychology to diagnose a more rationally savvy explanation, not to exclude a more plausible remedy for a lasting recovery.
Anyways, that's my two cents on that. Am I applying these two terms correctly? I'm not exactly a philosophy buff, though I appreciate it.
-LN6.626
"Just call me Bruce Wayne. I'd rather be Batman."
