❓QUESTION:
What is the fundamental difference between Philosophy and Knowledge? Do they differ culturally? For example, what one culture considers knowledge, another might view as philosophy or simply belief. Do you think this is why modern natural sciences dominate as a form of knowledge, since they can be proven universally, regardless of location?
❗️LEE'S ANSWER:
Fundamentally, philosophy means the love of wisdom. Knowledge, however, is direct experience. Personally, I capitalize "Knowledge" to imply literal experience, not merely something "I was told."
In a more academic sense, philosophy is built upon assumptions. The phrase "let's assume..." often marks the beginning of philosophical inquiry.
A second characteristic is comparison or judgment, such as "the table is wider than the chair, therefore..." A more primitive form is moralizing, like "good is better than evil." In such cases, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes sophistry, which involves using personal conclusions derived from others' judgments.
Knowledge, on the other hand, doesn't merely rely on experience; it is fundamentally based on a Unified mechanism. Knowledge is always accessible subconsciously because it describes the very structure of existence. Individuals perceive it as their essential self. When Knowledge arrives, all judgments and all philosophy become obsolete and fall away.
You experience the arrival of Knowledge literally as joy and Love, because you recognize Yourself within it. One could say that Knowledge describes your very being, not through words, but as direct experience.
In the process of seeking solutions, the mind relies on memory and judgments. This often leads to the painful experience of a "thought-churn," a lack of peace, and tension. However, when an impulse of Knowledge arises—an insight, a brilliant idea—it is felt as elation and tranquility.
Inspiration is a sign of inner Knowledge that has not yet reached the conscious level. This means the body has already received the signal of Knowledge, but the mind cannot yet process it, as it is still preoccupied with judgment due to inertia.
Our scientific knowledge is predominantly built on judgments, as it inherently involves comparison. Newtonian physics, for instance, is a physics of comparison, not a physics of Knowledge. Its formulas lack an independent basis; nothing within it is truly self-contained, with every description given as "this is such because it contains so much of something else." The resulting stagnation in physics is already evident. For example, mass is being derived from a "mass carrier" – the Higgs boson – I'm simplifying here, but that's roughly the idea.
Consequently, science is utterly unable to define time and space, not because scientists are unintelligent (they are indeed smart), but because science itself prohibits it from doing so. There are even several conspiracy theories suggesting this was done intentionally. However, the issue isn't who implemented such a restriction, but rather that it represents an outdated paradigm of the human mind itself.
In the near future, we will inevitably shift towards relying on Knowledge. This will lead to a complete overhaul of science across all disciplines. Among the fundamental innovations will be the abandonment of the separation between different types of physics and chemistry; instead, there will be a unified system of Knowledge, from which specialized applications for various fields can then be derived.
