[freeztar]

I know it's not meant literally, but it's interesting to consider the "removal of knowledge". How would one remove knowledge? If it is unremovable, then we may have discovered a quality of knowledge.

[modest]

Denial - Not just a river in Egypt

In order to believe a lot of things in philosophy, religion and life in general we often have to delude ourselves into denying facts - which literally does remove knowledge. I hate to bring up religion, but it's just the perfect example.

[freeztar]

But with religion, we're talking about belief right?

I would argue that denial is a form of belief, or disbelief, rather than a removal of knowledge.

For example, I can tell someone that the earth is round and they can deny that and say that the earth is flat. They denied my argument not because they had the knowledge via experience to know that the world was round, but because they believed the world was flat.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by modest

I think a lot of Kant's transcendental idealism in his critique of pure reason is right in line with this thread.

Thank you for your input, Modest.

I was not aware Kant had said that, but that was where I was heading.

So we seem to agree that the difference between Knowledge and Belief is not one of degree but of kind.

So, two continuums, one consisting of <-- Fantasy - Hope - Belief -->

and another consisting (at the moment ) of only Knowledge.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Overdog

and another consisting (at the moment ) of only Knowledge.

It seems to me that wisdom would fit to the right of knowledge on the continuum.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by freeztar

It seems to me that wisdom would fit to the right of knowledge on the continuum.

I agree.

So,
<-- Fantasy - Hope - Belief -->
<--Knowledge - Wisdom -->

Any others any one can think of?

[Overdog]

Ok, if any others come up we'll add them in.

So my next question is where emotion fits into the picture.

[modest]

Originally Posted by freeztar

But with religion, we're talking about belief right?

I would argue that denial is a form of belief, or disbelief, rather than a removal of knowledge.

Denial can well be a form of belief, but what are we denying is the question. We can easily deny knowledge. We can choose not to seek it, understand it, or even acknowledge it. Denial leads to those things.

Originally Posted by freeztar

For example, I can tell someone that the earth is round and they can deny that and say that the earth is flat. They denied my argument not because they had the knowledge via experience to know that the world was round, but because they believed the world was flat.

And another Kantian quote comes in handy

Originally Posted by Kant

But although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience.

In other words some people may experience something and gain no knowledge from the experience. This could be because of denial. Someone could experience a round world then deny that experience and rob themselves of the knowledge for the sake of the "belief" in a flat world. I think this happens quite a bit more than people realize. So, I do think Kant is perseptively analyzing himself with this:

Originally Posted by Kant

I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief

[Overdog]

Modest, I would give you more rep for that post if I could.

[Overdog]

So I would say Emotion is the context within which both of the continuums exist.