Wikipedia is the indulgence to my fleeting passion. I love the idea of pagans. Every six months or so, I have to look up witches or werewolves or some name I happen to think of that has to do with alternative religion. Aleister Crowley, Sybil Leek, and Madam Blavatsky are the most recent persons of interest. However, the interest is waning....When it was waxing, I felt that I was getting close to the truth. I don't know what truth but some truth. This seems highly comical given that these people were also thought of as frauds. Oh well, leave it to me to find truth in the fiction. It's true though, you can! You can find truth in about anything. It's like star dust or Sandman's sleep, it's a residue from your comprehension of that truth or knowledge you are trying to find. A little truth, a little knowledge. Maybe I'm equating knowledge with truth. That can't be possible can it? Is all knowledge true? Is all truth knowledge? If an adopted child doesn't know she is adopted and thinks her adoptive parents are biologically related, that knowledge to her is true, yet it is not factual. Is what one thinks knowledge? Is knowledge only defined as a knowledge in what is scientifically based to be true. What is fictional knowledge? Oh god, I have to quote Nietzsche, "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial." I just googled Truth and Knowledge and this quote was from the first site on the list. It goes with my rambling nicely. I will get back to fictional knowledge or false knowledge in a minute. I want to go back to truth real quick-- if someone feels that something is true and believes it, is not a good basis for truth because feeling and believing are not tangible or that feeling and belief of an individual does not always agree with the common thought of every person. I still have a hard time with thinking that feeling and believing should have no credit in knowledge. It seems to discount our instincts--feeling something is apart of our instincts, isn't it? Aren't instincts scientifically based? Why are feelings so often deemed as mystical? What about belief? Is that an instinct? It seems like our logical brain needs to organize what we comprehend and has chosen belief as one of it's systems. Why is belief not scientifically based? Is all scientific information based on a common fact? Why not individually? Is it too hard to test? I admit, the testing would be expansive, but to totally discredit something that has been a part of human life for thousands of years is irresponsible, isn't it? How long have humans felt and believed?
Back to False Knowledge. I just started rambling on this blog and then I decided to Google some of these ideas and what do you know--there actually is such thing as False Knowledge. In fact, the majority of philosophers believe that there is no such thing. That's just it though, isn't it--that's what they believe. Do philosophers count belief? AHHHH, this cyclical pondering! I will not give up, I must know!!
What I was saying in the first place is this: even if you read something that is fiction or false still some truth can be gained.
No comments:
Post a Comment