Cultivating a relationship of trust in conveying information and having it accepted such that it has the possibility of opening up the internal world of the one who receives it is a difficult process in a world of cynics and of overly credulous persons. So, as you’ve pointed out, we have masses of misinformation which is accepted and defended, and truthful information which is rejected through cynicism.
But the cynicism is often the result of disillusionment with power structures - falsehood propagated in the political arena can cause fallout that results in a cynical outlook in other areas. The end product is erosion of trust across a broad spectrum. And when our educational systems are geared towards business, commerce, technology etc. and do not encompass basic principles of understanding how to process information, how to think about and contextualize knowledge, then we are set adrift without the ability to navigate the waterways of comprehension.
“testimony requires both a speaker and a listener and a shared conceptual ground. The testimony will always fall short of its goal without this shared ground.” What you’ve articulated here is too true and it takes all of the sincere artfulness and expertise of one’s proficiency with language to attempt to begin to bridge this gap.
Given your interest in short story fiction that deal with Philosophy and Ethics, you might enjoy our literary magazine, that's all we publish. Feel free to read and/or submit via our website. https://afterdinnerconversation.substack.com/
Hmm. You say "We can only exchange knowledge, never transmit it" but I wonder. Exchange itself presupposes at least some level of transmission; otherwise, what is being "exchanged"? Testimony and teaching show that knowledge can be shared in ways that provoke understanding and growth in others.
You also say "Access to knowledge requires personal work, and no one can help." Again, I wonder. The claim that "no one can help" ignores that readiness for knowledge is not static or purely individual. In Plato’s cave analogy, the returning philosopher's role is precisely to provoke change in those still in the cave. This interaction helps cultivate cognitive readiness—a process through which individuals become prepared to grasp truths they were previously unable to understand. Readiness is not innate or self-generated; it is shaped through engagement with others, particularly those who can guide and challenge us.
It seems you me that your position here leads to a solipsism. Despite the social nature of knowledge. Think of consensus in an area of knowledge.
Your argument is internally inconsistent and fundamentally flawed. First, you dismiss the word "presupposes" without justification, yet exchange necessarily requires a shared mechanism for conveying information; otherwise, what is being exchanged? This is a linguistic evasion, not a substantive critique. Second, your claim that testimony and teaching cannot transmit knowledge ignores the empirical fact that humans learn from others all the time. If knowledge were purely individual, then education, mentorship, and even informal learning would be meaningless, which is demonstrably false. Third, your assertion that readiness for knowledge is "purely individual" contradicts itself. You concede that life circumstances and reflections following events provoke change. These circumstances are inherently relational—shaped by external interactions, environments, and testimony from others. Even if teaching only accelerates or facilitates this process, it remains a tool for provoking growth, which you cannot reasonably deny.
Fourth, your rejection of "cognitive readiness" misunderstands the concept entirely. Readiness is neither innate nor entirely self-generated. It is cultivated through engagement with others and life experiences. By your own logic, an individual’s capacity for reflection depends on interactions with their environment. Plato’s cave analogy explicitly supports this: the freed prisoner returns to provoke change in others, demonstrating that engagement is not just supplementary but necessary for fostering understanding. To ignore this is to misread the allegory’s core message. Fifth, your dismissal of consensus in knowledge creation is unsustainable. Knowledge is inherently social, and consensus is essential for validating truths and distinguishing them from errors. Without consensus, knowledge becomes entirely subjective, collapsing into solipsism—a position you claim to avoid but unwittingly endorse by rejecting the social dimensions of truth. Finally, your interpretation of Plato’s cave as a purely "intellectual approach to truth" is reductive. The allegory explicitly highlights the ethical responsibility of guiding others toward enlightenment through dialogue, testimony, and shared understanding. Your view not only contradicts the relational nature of knowledge but also the philosophical tradition itself, which thrives on the transmission and refinement of ideas through interaction.
Your response is nothing more than an evasion wrapped in arrogance. You accuse me of bad faith, yet fail to substantiate this claim or engage meaningfully with my points. If you truly believed your comments were "accurate and correct," you would demonstrate why, rather than resorting to vague accusations and dismissive rhetoric. Instead, you assert superiority while sidestepping any actual critique—a hallmark of intellectual insecurity.
You claim that transmission is an "illusion" without addressing the concrete examples I provided, from education to testimony, that demonstrate its reality. To call philosophy an "illusion of necessity" is ironic, given that your own arguments depend on engaging philosophical concepts to make any sense. If you believe seeking truth is "something else," then perhaps you should clarify what that is—because so far, your approach resembles dogmatism more than thoughtful inquiry.
dismissiveness is not an argument, and arrogance is no substitute for reason. If you cannot defend your position without resorting to ad hominem attacks and hollow posturing, perhaps it is your own understanding, not mine, that requires reflection.
Excellent article. Very thorough. Jim
Glad you enjoyed it, Jim. Feel free to check out the rest of Rags to Reason, there are over 40 philosophical articles to choose from 👍
Cultivating a relationship of trust in conveying information and having it accepted such that it has the possibility of opening up the internal world of the one who receives it is a difficult process in a world of cynics and of overly credulous persons. So, as you’ve pointed out, we have masses of misinformation which is accepted and defended, and truthful information which is rejected through cynicism.
But the cynicism is often the result of disillusionment with power structures - falsehood propagated in the political arena can cause fallout that results in a cynical outlook in other areas. The end product is erosion of trust across a broad spectrum. And when our educational systems are geared towards business, commerce, technology etc. and do not encompass basic principles of understanding how to process information, how to think about and contextualize knowledge, then we are set adrift without the ability to navigate the waterways of comprehension.
Excellent point, very well made.
“testimony requires both a speaker and a listener and a shared conceptual ground. The testimony will always fall short of its goal without this shared ground.” What you’ve articulated here is too true and it takes all of the sincere artfulness and expertise of one’s proficiency with language to attempt to begin to bridge this gap.
Given your interest in short story fiction that deal with Philosophy and Ethics, you might enjoy our literary magazine, that's all we publish. Feel free to read and/or submit via our website. https://afterdinnerconversation.substack.com/
Hmm. You say "We can only exchange knowledge, never transmit it" but I wonder. Exchange itself presupposes at least some level of transmission; otherwise, what is being "exchanged"? Testimony and teaching show that knowledge can be shared in ways that provoke understanding and growth in others.
You also say "Access to knowledge requires personal work, and no one can help." Again, I wonder. The claim that "no one can help" ignores that readiness for knowledge is not static or purely individual. In Plato’s cave analogy, the returning philosopher's role is precisely to provoke change in those still in the cave. This interaction helps cultivate cognitive readiness—a process through which individuals become prepared to grasp truths they were previously unable to understand. Readiness is not innate or self-generated; it is shaped through engagement with others, particularly those who can guide and challenge us.
It seems you me that your position here leads to a solipsism. Despite the social nature of knowledge. Think of consensus in an area of knowledge.
Your argument is internally inconsistent and fundamentally flawed. First, you dismiss the word "presupposes" without justification, yet exchange necessarily requires a shared mechanism for conveying information; otherwise, what is being exchanged? This is a linguistic evasion, not a substantive critique. Second, your claim that testimony and teaching cannot transmit knowledge ignores the empirical fact that humans learn from others all the time. If knowledge were purely individual, then education, mentorship, and even informal learning would be meaningless, which is demonstrably false. Third, your assertion that readiness for knowledge is "purely individual" contradicts itself. You concede that life circumstances and reflections following events provoke change. These circumstances are inherently relational—shaped by external interactions, environments, and testimony from others. Even if teaching only accelerates or facilitates this process, it remains a tool for provoking growth, which you cannot reasonably deny.
Fourth, your rejection of "cognitive readiness" misunderstands the concept entirely. Readiness is neither innate nor entirely self-generated. It is cultivated through engagement with others and life experiences. By your own logic, an individual’s capacity for reflection depends on interactions with their environment. Plato’s cave analogy explicitly supports this: the freed prisoner returns to provoke change in others, demonstrating that engagement is not just supplementary but necessary for fostering understanding. To ignore this is to misread the allegory’s core message. Fifth, your dismissal of consensus in knowledge creation is unsustainable. Knowledge is inherently social, and consensus is essential for validating truths and distinguishing them from errors. Without consensus, knowledge becomes entirely subjective, collapsing into solipsism—a position you claim to avoid but unwittingly endorse by rejecting the social dimensions of truth. Finally, your interpretation of Plato’s cave as a purely "intellectual approach to truth" is reductive. The allegory explicitly highlights the ethical responsibility of guiding others toward enlightenment through dialogue, testimony, and shared understanding. Your view not only contradicts the relational nature of knowledge but also the philosophical tradition itself, which thrives on the transmission and refinement of ideas through interaction.
Your response is nothing more than an evasion wrapped in arrogance. You accuse me of bad faith, yet fail to substantiate this claim or engage meaningfully with my points. If you truly believed your comments were "accurate and correct," you would demonstrate why, rather than resorting to vague accusations and dismissive rhetoric. Instead, you assert superiority while sidestepping any actual critique—a hallmark of intellectual insecurity.
You claim that transmission is an "illusion" without addressing the concrete examples I provided, from education to testimony, that demonstrate its reality. To call philosophy an "illusion of necessity" is ironic, given that your own arguments depend on engaging philosophical concepts to make any sense. If you believe seeking truth is "something else," then perhaps you should clarify what that is—because so far, your approach resembles dogmatism more than thoughtful inquiry.
dismissiveness is not an argument, and arrogance is no substitute for reason. If you cannot defend your position without resorting to ad hominem attacks and hollow posturing, perhaps it is your own understanding, not mine, that requires reflection.