TV and Religion

[Edwardo Piet]

How can someone hold UNtrue objective knowledge?

How can someone hold objective knowledge in the first place?

There is no such thing. It is a misnomer. Knowledge is necessarily subjective. Even if all of "us" knew the same thing to an equal extent: it can at best be considered inter-subjective.

Oh, and there is no differentiation between untrue objective knowledge and true objective knowledge (for the sake of argument, if it DID exist, though it really cannot). Why would there be?

The philosophical sense of knowledge in the epistemology Wikipedia thread for example, that's about objective knowledge. The way I understand it, if you believe in something and it exists then you hold that knowledge. Philosophical knowledge is different to the general understanding of it. Subjective knowledge isn't really seen as knowledge at all is it? Because we can't really 'know' anything subjectively.

No... if "God" exists then those who know he exists were right in their knowledge.

Which means that that is objective knowledge in the philosophical sense I thought?

If it's just subjective and a matter of opinion then that isn't really 'knowing' that isn't knowledge in the philosophical sense. That's just knowing like when someone claims to know... or when someone says "I know that" about something considered obvious - that's different to philosophical knowledge.

There is nothing separate, save corretedness. Why should there be any other difference between correct objective knowledge and incorrect objective knowledge? What different occurs save correctness?

The correctness is what makes it objective I thought. On the other hand, it merely being subjective and opinion would mean it isn't really knowledge, it's just opinion.

Of course it is. Can you imagine it otherwise?

Yes, when it's defined differently to people merely claiming to know things. Epistemology is a whole field - if all knowledge was merely defined as what people claim it to be then there wouldn't be much of a point in studying epistemology, debating it, critiquing it etc, would there? There would be no point in even mentioning it if we could merely define all knowledge as what people think they know and leave it at that.

Even though it may know everything... it is a wholly different thing to say he is right about everything.

I'm talking about knowledge and truth here though. I'm not talking about 'right' in the sense of morals and ethics or whatever.

But what is "absolutely known"?

We don't know. But that doesn't mean it isn't there. Epistemology is a field of study that explores such questions as that.

A rock doesn't know anything at all... how can such a thing as "absolute" or "objective" knowledge exist in the first place?

By it being defined differently to subjective knowledge. Subjective knowledge is just people thinking they know and hence isn't really knowledge at all to my mind. Objective knowledge is when people both believe in something and that also happens to be objectively true. This can even apply to whether there are any objective truths at all or not. Because if there are, if there are objective truths - then those who believe that "know" it in the philosophical sense.

And even if a thing could be absolutely known... why should it be any more right than any other knowledge? There seems no reason to think this to me...

I'm just talking about the difference between the everyday understanding of "knowing" and the philosophical sense of knowledge really. As much as I can try, right or wrong, I try lol.

EvF