Dissens ermöglichen!
Ohne können wir kein neues Wissen generieren.
Dissens ermöglichen!
Ohne können wir kein neues Wissen generieren.
Aaron Swartz's act of hacktivism was an act of resistance to a corrupt system that has subverted distribution of the most important product of the academy—knowledge.
As a genius of construction man raises himself far above the bee in the following way: whereas the bee builds with wax that he gathers from nature, man builds with the far more delicate conceptual material which he first has to manufacture from himself. In this he is greatly to be admired, but not on account of his drive for truth or for pure knowledge of things.
It is only by means of forgetfulness that man can ever reach the point of fancying himself to possess a "truth" of the grade just indicated. If he will not be satisfied with truth in the form of tautology, that is to say, if he will not be content with empty husks, then he will always exchange truths for illusions. What is a word? It is the copy in sound of a nerve stimulus.
Truth is an illusion, an imitation of a previously known idea.
And besides, what about these linguistic conventions themselves? Are they perhaps products of knowledge, that is, of the sense of truth? Are designations congruent with things? I
I wanted to highlight "Is language the adequate expression of all realities?"
Without language, what exists?
If deception is only deception because of a negative result, is deception without a negative result still deception?
What men avoid by excluding the liar is not so much being defrauded as it is being harmed by means of fraud. Thus, even at this stage, what they hate is basically not deception itself, but rather the unpleasant, hated consequences of certain sorts of deception.
Men don't dislike the act of deception, but rather the consequences of deception.
His moral sentiment does not even make an attempt to prevent this, whereas there are supposed to be men who have stopped snoring through sheer will power.
A man's morals do not prevent him from the illusion and deceptions of the world, is it possible that will power alone will wake his desire for truth.
They are deeply immersed in illusions and in dream images; their eyes merely glide over the surface of things and see "forms."
This reminds me of Plato, and illusion of what is real but not the real knowledge.
The pride connected with knowing and sensing lies like a blinding fog over the eyes and senses of men, thus deceiving them concerning the value of existence. For this pride contains within itself the most flattering estimation of the value of knowing. Deception is the most general effect of such pride, but even its most particular effects contain within themselves something of the same deceitful character.
Is ignorance better than knowledge?
One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.
Ouch. Do we really know so little? Or in accepting how little we know, do we know more than we realize?
What then, 0 Quintilian? is he who knows what is honest and just, himself honest and just?
Knowledge verses action
Accordingly a great orator has truly said that "an eloquent man must speak so as to teach, to delight, and to persuade." Then he adds: "To teach is a necessity, to delight is a beauty, to persuade is a triumph."(2) Now of these three, the one first mentioned, the teaching, which is a matter of necessity, depends on what we say; the other two on the way we say it.
What is said vs. how it is said
I do not think it of so much importance as to wish men who have arrived at mature age to spend time in learning it. It is enough that boys should give attention to it; and even of these, not all who are to be fitted for usefulness in the Church, but only those who are not yet engaged in any occupation of more urgent necessity, or which ought evidently to take precedence of it.
Rhetoric is helpful, but to Saint Augustine, not as important as "knowledge."
We make it also a subject of inquiry when a boy may be considered ripe for learning what rhetoric teaches. In which inquiry it is not to be considered of what age a boy is, but what progress he has already made in his studies. That I may not make a long discussion, I think that the question when a boy ought to be sent to the teacher of rhetoric is best decided by the answer, when he shall be qualified.
Age is less important than ability.
Let boys in the first place learn to decline nouns and conjugate verbs, for otherwise they will never arrive at the understanding of what is to follow. This admonition would be superfluous to give were it not that most teachers, through ostentatious haste, begin where they ought to end, and, while they wish to show off their pupils in matters of greater display, retard their progress by attempting to shorten the road.
The grammarian has also need of no small portion of eloquence that he may speak aptly and fluently on each of those subjects which are here mentioned.
Must have a wide knowledge paired with eloquence. Sounds like Cicero
et him who is convinced of this truth, bestow, as soon as he becomes a parent, the most vigilant possible care on cherishing the hopes of a future orator.
Teaching must begin at birth.
He has not a knowledge of all causes, and yet he ought to be able to speak upon all.
Gorgias said that you should kill your opponents' earnestness with jesting and their jesting with earnestness;
This will only work, though, if your audience looks to you as some sort of authority figure - if you don't seem to know what you're talking about, I think that doing what Gorgias suggests would only make you look foolish.
powers of persuasion most of all enhanced by a knowledge
Rhetoric not solely as skill in speaking, but also as being knowledgeable about a subject/having something real to say.
we must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed, on opposite sides of a question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to confute him. No other of the arts draws opposite conclusions: dialectic and rhetoric alone do this.
In order to persuade one must address and understand all facts in a situation. Art of opposites.
It is useful, in framing laws, not only to study the past history of one's own country, in order to understand which constitution is desirable for it now, but also to have a knowledge of the constitutions of other nations, and so to learn for what kinds of nation the various kinds of constitution are suited.
"Know [your] song well before [you] start singing" Regarding the breadth and depth of background knowledge needed, generalizing, for each subject.
The political speaker will find his powers of persuasion most of all enhanced by a knowledge of the four sorts of government -- democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, monarchy, and their characteristic customs, institutions, and interests. Definition of the four sorts severally. Ends of each.
Knowledge of government: tenants of political persuasion.
For ability, whether in speech or in any other activity, is found in those who are well endowed by nature and have been schooled by practical experience.
Isocrates's idea of 'being skillful,' which is composed of 'being naturally talented,' 'having learned,' and 'having practiced.'
the arts are made great, not by those who are without scruple in boasting about them, but by those who are able to discover all of the resources which each art affords
The definition of arts. Both Isocrates and Socrates claim that only complete knowledge can meet the definition of arts.
oblivious of the fact that the arts are made great, not by those who are without scruple in boasting about them, but by those who are able to discover all of the resources which each art affords.
Another argument for "true" knowledge (referred to as 'art' here). There is a recurring theme here about in order for someone to graduate from memorizing information to true knowledge, one must think critically about their subject at hand (admittedly, I may be reading too much into this)
But in order that I may not appear to be breaking down the pretensions of others while myself making greater claims than are within my powers, I believe that the very arguments by which I myself was convinced will make it clear to others also that these things are true.
He calls on his own studies, calling them the "very arguments by which I myself was convinced" and relies on his knowledge to deem his words true.
For I hold that to obtain a knowledge of the elements out of which we make and compose all discourses is not so very difficult if anyone entrusts himself, not to those who make rash promises, but to those who have some knowledge of these things.
Does this go back to the knowledge verses experience debate?
the teachers who do not scruple to vaunt their powers with utter disregard of the truth have created the impression that those who choose a life of careless indolence are better advised than those who devote themselves to serious study.
Is this stating that traditional teachers that hesitate to boast their knowledge without regard to the truth (possibly meaning the same thing as plato's "experience") inadvertently seem less educated than those who choose a life of careless indolence (sophists?)?
first of all, have a natural aptitude for that which they have elected to do; secondly, they must submit to training and master the knowledge of their particular subject, whatever it may be in each case; and, finally, they must become versed and practised in the use and application of their art
Against the Sophists (16).
those who know
I want to know how Socrates tells the difference between belief and knowledge. Capital letters Truth and Knowledge seem pretty important to him, but in this statement he's assuming that the ignorant and the knowledgeable are easily distinguished.
And I am afraid to point this out to you, lest you should think that I have some animosity against you, and that I speak, not for the sake of discovering the truth, but from jealousy of you. Now if you are one of my sort, I should like to cross-examine you, but if not I will let you alone. And what is my sort? you will ask. I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute; for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another.
Socrates again showing concern with ascertaining truth (love of truth/knowledge). Interested in a dialectic, not a debate concerned with being right.