Quotes Tagged "truth"
It has always been asked in the spirit of: βWhat are the best sources of our knowledge β the most reliable ones, those which will not lead us into error, and those to which we can and must turn, in case of doubt, as the last court of appeal?β I propose to assume, instead, that no such ideal sources exist β no more than ideal rulers β and that all βsourcesβ are liable to lead us into errors at times. And I propose to replace, therefore, the question of the sources of our knowledge by the entirely different question: βHow can we hope to detect and eliminate error?β The question of the sources of our knowledge, like so many authoritarian questions, is a genetic one. It asks for the origin of our knowledge, in the belief that knowledge may legitimize itself by its pedigree. The nobility of the racially pure knowledge, the untainted knowledge, the knowledge which derives from the highest authority, if possible from God: these are the (often unconscious) metaphysical ideas behind the question. My modified question, βHow can we hope to detect error?β may be said to derive from the view that such pure, untainted and certain sources do not exist, and that questions of origin or of purity should not be confounded with questions of validity, or of truth. β¦. The proper answer to my question βHow can we hope to detect and eliminate error?β is I believe, βBy criticizing the theories or guesses of others and β if we can train ourselves to do so β by criticizing our own theories or guesses.β β¦. So my answer to the questions βHow do you know? What is the source or the basis of your assertion? What observations have led you to it?β would be: βI do not know: my assertion was merely a guess. Never mind the source, or the sources, from which it may spring β there are many possible sources, and I may not be aware of half of them; and origins or pedigrees have in any case little bearing upon truth. But if you are interested in the problem which I tried to solve by my tentative assertion, you may help me by criticizing it as severely as you can; and if you can design some experimental test which you think might refute my assertion, I shall gladly, and to the best of my powers, help you to refute it.
Of the gnostic so much has been cursorily, as it were, written. We proceed now to the sequel, and must again contemplate faith; for there are some that draw the distinction, that faith has reference to the Son, and knowledge to the Spirit. But it has escaped their notice that, in order to believe truly in the Son, we must believe that He is the Son, and that He came, and how, and for what, and respecting His passion ; and we must know who is the Son of God. Now neither is knowledge without faith, nor faith without knowledge. Nor is the Father without the Son ; for the Son is with the Father. And the Son is the true teacher respecting the Father; and that we may believe in the Son, we must know the Father, with whom also is the Son. Again, in order that we may know the Father, we must believe in the Son, that it is the Son of God who teaches ; for from faith to knowledge by the Son is the Father. And the knowledge of the Son and Father, which is according to the gnostic ruleβthat which in reality is gnosticβis the attainment and comprehension of the truth by the truth.