Okay, but I counter you with Aquinas' statement that what is known is in the mode of the knower. I completely agree that we fashion the world "out there" to our own make-up by the very act of representing it. But I don't think that fashioning something to fit our perceptions takes away from representing it "as it is." It's just that "as it is" means "as it is to us," and something can only be "as it is to us" if in fact this perception of "as it is" is drawing on something "out there", i.e., objectivity, which is by definition undefinable, without qualities, literally something we take on intuition or faith. IOW, something being known in the mode of the knower doesn't mean that that which is known *can't* tell us something about the real world "out there."
All it can tell us how we can meaningfully relate to our perceptions (in which "perceptions" is a tad presumptious, since we can not even reliably tell whether our sense tell us something about a world out there or about themselves) . And that´s all that´s relevant, anyway.
Anyway, I´d agree with your statement that "knowledge" always describes as something "is to me/us". However, the differences between "me" and "us" seem to be swept under the carpet in Aquina´s idea of knowledge/truth. We often simply assume that others perceive (for lack of a better word) in the same way we do, and oftentimes when it turns out people perceive differently (particularly when they are a small minority, and when their perception threatens the worldview that we have constructed for ourselves) are dismissed as crazy or ill.
Even if we let go the idea of "objectivity" - the concepts of "knowledge" and "truth" traditionally signify something more than "how the world is to me". Actually, their very purpose is to differenciate between "correct" and "incorrect" impressions.
From your paragraph above I can´t know what criteria you use for making this distinction.
As far as I am concerned, I am convinced that it´s all a matter of finding basic common ground from which we can come to agreements on the details. What each of us expects to be accepted as common ground is taken naturally or from social and cultural experience (or, if you prefer your religious terminology, on "faith"). Which means that anyone can come at any time and question it - without me or you being able to justify it.
Our common reality depends on our agreements (which are not always explicit but oftentimes implicit, unspoken, or simply assumed), in the first place. We all have a vivid interest in such agreements (this is what "quest for truth/knowledge" actually comes down to: the wish to gain common ground among the people we consider relevant).
And this leads me to the very reason I take issue with your OP: By questioning that which (demonstrably - see the "paradox" you admit) is a shared reality between you and me (i.e. that reason needs to be employed when comparing our views) you are going the opposite way: You don´t embrace our common ground, you are destroying our reality. Now, as I said above, you can do that, and you can do it any time. The question, however, is: Why would you do that - particularly when it is about something that is so axiomatic to yourself that you can´t question it without the question becoming a paradox? Each of your posts breathes the attempt to employ reason and demands reason from those responding. And that´s the very assumed common ground that brings people together in a philosophy forum.
And I guess my response should be: If you don´t want reason to be our common ground, offer something else.
What is the frame of reference for this statement?
(Assuming that this is not another mindless Elionai-style attempt of pointing out a self-contradiction by means of imposing a statement upon itself - which, to be honest, annoys me to no end; and assuming you are really interested in the frame of reference of *this particular statement* - for whatever reason. And I am fully aware that with any response you could ask the same question again, ad infinitum):
I don´t know, and I misspoke: There´s not only one frame of reference to any statement, but a whole bunch of them. That there are doesn´t mean we are necessarily aware of them (all). In my opinion this is one of the purposes of discussions: we get the opportunity to get aware of the frames of reference to our statements - when somebody else disagrees with them.
When we disagree there are basically two options
a. We share the frames of reference in which this statement is made (i.e. the statement is indeed that which we disagree upon), or
b. our disagreement is caused the our frames of reference are not the same (i.e. the disagreement lies deeper).
b, sadly, is often not taken into consideration in these discussions. People keep banging their heads discussing a particular statement when actually the problem is that the assumed common ground isn´t there.
Ok, if you want to hear one frame of reference in which my statement has been made: reason. I do know that per your OP you have cancelled reason as the common ground for these discussions - but then you haven´t offered anything to replace it by.
The subtle difference I see here is that you're seeing contradiction and nonsense, where I'm seeing paradox (or even contradiction) that by being a paradox or contradiction tells us something. Kind of like when we use reductio ad absurdum reasoning, we're reducing something to nonsense, which tells us something about this reduction to nonsense.
And
what does it tell us?
The fact that whatever system can not justify itself by means of this very system is not nonsense, it´s not contradiction, it´s not a paradox) - it´s banal and trivial, it´s a given. You can take any philosophical or epistemological approach and deconstruct it that way.
The interesting question, however: Why do people who usually feel very comfortable with such agreed realities suddenly and at some particular point discover this deconstructive approach as a their prefered tool?
Sounds good. So are you engaging in arguments out of the hope that concepts of God will ring true for you in some way?
No, primarily I am engaging in arguments out of the hope that I find out about the frames of reference that are required to render certain - to me completely outlandish or often even unintelligible - statements and ideas meaningful, intelligible and (from within that frame of reference) logical and reasonable. I am interested in people and how their minds work.
Or, to put it differently: I am engaging in these arguments out of the hope that there is still some common ground/shared frame of reference.
