Today's discussion in class made my partner and me think about how to separate the ways of knowing. The more we talked about it, it seemed that there is no one method for knowing at a given time. If your way of knowing is emotion, you obviously have reasons behind those emotions. Looking in the reverse, blind hatred could be the reason for one's knowledge. Take George Bush, for example. I am sure that there are many people who simply hate this man because it is the popular thing to do, whether they will admit it or not. Because of this, they are also inclined to disagree with some of the President's other measures, with this dislike as their only reason. Even skepticism can be based on instincts, intuition or common sense. Is there any method that can really be isolated?
Also, going back to what Hannah Osborne said today in class about the effects of drug use, is there really anyone who believes that drugs or any other substance can be a source of knowledge? The effects of these is more like a dream; they are your own thoughts that may or may not be enhanced due to drug abuse. Personally, I don't see how opium seeds were able to give Samuel Taylor Coleridge his literary works out of thin air while damaging countless other people's lives, but that may just be me. Knowledge is transferred in one way or another through brains, not dried up leaves, pills, drinks, etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Excellent comments, and nice tie-in with the comments of others! What evidence can you give to show that the drugs in and of themselves do not give the visions, dreams, etc.? Would this be a place to bring in issues of brain science and what we know of how different chemicals affect the brain?
Post a Comment