Hi there,
So you will get used to this: I ramble. You are not meant to understand everything I say, if you did you could claim you were as smart as me, to which there would be no point, I know there is no point, so I ramble. Ok?
Now, the proposition is as follows: knowledge is necessary but not sufficient. Why? Well, I actually devised a simple thought experiment that proves this is the case. You are aware of the licensing effect, correct? If not I will explain: the licensing effect is the idea that if you have been good, that is to say especially good in some way, such that you realize that it is exceptional, you will be much more tempted to reward yourself, for being good. It's like saying you can predict why Eve ate the apple in the garden of Eden: Eve felt great about the possibility of knowing as much as God, when she realized that she knew this was possible, she licensed herself to eat the forbidden fruit.
Now its not all bad, sometimes there is a good reason to reward yourself. After all, why would you do anything if there was no reward? You wouldn't. That's how the idea gets its hooks in, anyway. "But wait a minute," you say "how does that prove that knowledge is not sufficient?" Well, there's a simple trick you can try that will short circuit you, straight away, if you try it, which will show that even though you have every reason to be tempted, you are not tempted. It goes like this: imagine that you know there is such a thing as the licensing effect, but you want to reward yourself now, as if you had done something good, when you haven't. Don't rule out the licensing effect, just reward yourself as if you have done something good.
You can't do it? Right? No matter how you tell yourself that you want to reward yourself because of the licensing effect and no matter how much you tell yourself that you know what it is and no matter how much you want the reward, yet you still cannot justify it, without giving yourself a reason. Why? Well, that is something of a mystery, but if there is one thing it points to, it is that knowledge clearly isn't sufficient (I'm looking at you Variant, but I digress). The thing is the licensing effects sole purpose is to associate good deeds with reward, so when you are not doing that it doesn't matter how hard you try, you can't justify it. If knowledge were sufficient, you could say "Sure, I know what the licensing effect is, I will reward myself now, for no reason" and you would, only that doesn't make sense, at all, and you will clearly be missing out on something if you try, which defeats the point of licensing yourself in the first place. See?
So, if you have ever wondered why people of faith don't fall in for the whole Scientism bent, with all its fact checking and counter-intuitive reasoning, the reasoning designed to protect the hypothesis from the possibility of not having to check facts, for example, then look no further than this thought experiment. No matter how hard you try, you can never justify knowledge in its own right, above other values. In fact, it is so futile telling yourself not to know something when you know it, that this reason in itself can be used to justify not knowing anything for justifiably long periods of time. It's called life and using faith to negotiate knowledge in this way is just part of the package.
Where it gets really interesting is when you consider "could God reward himself according to the licensing effect, even when He had no reason?" The answer, quite simply is no. Because if knowledge is not sufficient for men, it is not sufficient for God, either. See, you learned something about God too, so I am not just playing mind games that have no constructive end.
What this is, is a psychological Zen Koan, of sorts, if you are familiar with that. Something that refutes its own premises, in a manner of speaking, by allowing you to conceive a choice, that properly conceived is not really a choice after all. Zen Koans are a long tradition of mind-bending puzzles that have no answer, used by meditators to force their mind to harnass the truth, even when it seems impossible.
But I digress, I am wondering what you will make of this. Not everything I have said in this forum has been strictly theoretical, which is not unreasonable for a general discussion of philosophy but I am glad to have contributed something that is clearly in the philosophical vein. I practice very strict self-control, that's how I was able to come up with it (that and I have loads of spare time, as I think most other good philosophers do, but again I digress).
Please discuss pleasingly.
So you will get used to this: I ramble. You are not meant to understand everything I say, if you did you could claim you were as smart as me, to which there would be no point, I know there is no point, so I ramble. Ok?
Now, the proposition is as follows: knowledge is necessary but not sufficient. Why? Well, I actually devised a simple thought experiment that proves this is the case. You are aware of the licensing effect, correct? If not I will explain: the licensing effect is the idea that if you have been good, that is to say especially good in some way, such that you realize that it is exceptional, you will be much more tempted to reward yourself, for being good. It's like saying you can predict why Eve ate the apple in the garden of Eden: Eve felt great about the possibility of knowing as much as God, when she realized that she knew this was possible, she licensed herself to eat the forbidden fruit.
Now its not all bad, sometimes there is a good reason to reward yourself. After all, why would you do anything if there was no reward? You wouldn't. That's how the idea gets its hooks in, anyway. "But wait a minute," you say "how does that prove that knowledge is not sufficient?" Well, there's a simple trick you can try that will short circuit you, straight away, if you try it, which will show that even though you have every reason to be tempted, you are not tempted. It goes like this: imagine that you know there is such a thing as the licensing effect, but you want to reward yourself now, as if you had done something good, when you haven't. Don't rule out the licensing effect, just reward yourself as if you have done something good.
You can't do it? Right? No matter how you tell yourself that you want to reward yourself because of the licensing effect and no matter how much you tell yourself that you know what it is and no matter how much you want the reward, yet you still cannot justify it, without giving yourself a reason. Why? Well, that is something of a mystery, but if there is one thing it points to, it is that knowledge clearly isn't sufficient (I'm looking at you Variant, but I digress). The thing is the licensing effects sole purpose is to associate good deeds with reward, so when you are not doing that it doesn't matter how hard you try, you can't justify it. If knowledge were sufficient, you could say "Sure, I know what the licensing effect is, I will reward myself now, for no reason" and you would, only that doesn't make sense, at all, and you will clearly be missing out on something if you try, which defeats the point of licensing yourself in the first place. See?
So, if you have ever wondered why people of faith don't fall in for the whole Scientism bent, with all its fact checking and counter-intuitive reasoning, the reasoning designed to protect the hypothesis from the possibility of not having to check facts, for example, then look no further than this thought experiment. No matter how hard you try, you can never justify knowledge in its own right, above other values. In fact, it is so futile telling yourself not to know something when you know it, that this reason in itself can be used to justify not knowing anything for justifiably long periods of time. It's called life and using faith to negotiate knowledge in this way is just part of the package.
Where it gets really interesting is when you consider "could God reward himself according to the licensing effect, even when He had no reason?" The answer, quite simply is no. Because if knowledge is not sufficient for men, it is not sufficient for God, either. See, you learned something about God too, so I am not just playing mind games that have no constructive end.
What this is, is a psychological Zen Koan, of sorts, if you are familiar with that. Something that refutes its own premises, in a manner of speaking, by allowing you to conceive a choice, that properly conceived is not really a choice after all. Zen Koans are a long tradition of mind-bending puzzles that have no answer, used by meditators to force their mind to harnass the truth, even when it seems impossible.
But I digress, I am wondering what you will make of this. Not everything I have said in this forum has been strictly theoretical, which is not unreasonable for a general discussion of philosophy but I am glad to have contributed something that is clearly in the philosophical vein. I practice very strict self-control, that's how I was able to come up with it (that and I have loads of spare time, as I think most other good philosophers do, but again I digress).
Please discuss pleasingly.
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
