The first thing you need to know

[Faust]

Particularly as knowers, let us not be ungrateful toward such resolute reversals of the familiar perspectives and valuations with which the spirit has raged against itself all too long… : to see differently in this way for once, to want to see differently, is no small discipline and preparation of the intellect for its future “objectivity”—the latter understood not as “disinterested contemplation” (which is a non-concept and absurdity), but rather as the capacity to have one’s Pro and Contra in one’s power, and to shift them in and out, so that one knows how to make precisely the difference in perspectives and affective interpretations useful for knowledge. (GM III, 12)

That's Nietzsche.

If Nietzsche has an epistemological idea, this is it.

Knowledge is not a thing that's carved out of the world somehow. Knowledge is created in the space between perspectives. It's not a thing.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Could you give a specific (perhaps including the concrete) example of how what N said in the quote was used by you in relation to some issue? And what the knowledge is that came out of it, or, perhaps, what difference this view of knowledge led to?

[Faust]

Sounds like a community college philosophy class essay question. of course, that's what I've been addressing, over and over again, on another thread. Thought maybe I'd change gears and troll for posters who actually want to talk philosophy. I'm not sure they any longer exists here.

[Karpel Tunnel]

lol, nice jab. I find one reference to perspective in the ten things thread. I can certainly get the worth of the idea in the first part of your OP of wanting to understand, to challenge oneself to sit in other perspectives.

I am not sure, for example, what N means by the 'capacity to have one's pro and contra in one's power.'

Does that mean not having a perspective and banging it as a true believer on opposing perspectives - which could be seen as essentially: allowing the other to gain whatever benefits might be in that other perspective - but rather stepping into other perspectives so whatever use/knowledge is in there is also yours?

I am not sure what you mean by

the space between perspectives.

It seems like N, in the first part I mentioned wants a spaces that is not (just at least) between, but has one inside them also. Both plus neither. Rather than something that is not either.

[Faust]

If you understand that knowledge is an amalgam of perpectives, you understand what a perspective is. It's a tool. You should be able to see more than one perspective. You're not trapped by an inherited view, a received view. So you can use pros and cons as tools, rather than allow an inherited argument to control your thinking.

Knowledge is in the overlaps between perspectives. But even consensus lives on a continuum.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If you understand that knowledge is an amalgam of perpectives

as a rule? If you simply have one perspective on something, does that mean could not be knowledge?
I understand the advantage of having several perspectives - though I am trying to get at what is and what is not encompassed by 'perspective' in this context. It certainly helps me literally to understand what a cube is if I can look at it from several angles. But I have been assuming we are dealing with more complex phenomena. Knowledge of people's behavioral patterns or thinking, for example. Or how to run an organization or soceity. I see the advantage in both cases of have several perspective. But it seems like one can still have knowledge in specfic cases without multiple perspectives. (it's not that I am trying to criticize his or your position, it's more that I am trying to make sure I understand it.)

, you understand what a perspective is. It's a tool.

Or does it become a tool when one can question an inherited perspective and can have others? or is the tool striving to have others?

You should be able to see more than one perspective. You're not trapped by an inherited view, a received view. So you can use pros and cons as tools, rather than allow an inherited argument to control your thinking.

It would seem, then, that one must also develop some kind of intuitional skills to decide from which perspective one will be (most) guided by in a certain situation or even in general.

Knowledge is in the overlaps between perspectives. But even consensus lives on a continuum.

And again, just checking. Before it was the space between - which could be a way of saying the overlaps, but could also be something outside both, going by the words.

If knowledge is in the overlaps between perspectives, than it probably is a smaller set than most people think. And then one must have ways of choosing what perspectives to consider/try on/use as the litmus test for overlaps.

[barbarianhorde]

Let me help this thread out of the swamp of triviality in which Karpel already plunged it.

The quote clarifies that no knowledge can exist without it being a form of self-knowledge.

In case someone else missed that.

Particularly as knowers, let us not be ungrateful toward such resolute reversals of the familiar perspectives and valuations with which the spirit has raged against itself all too long… : to see differently in this way for once, to want to see differently, is no small discipline and preparation of the intellect for its future “objectivity”—the latter understood not as “disinterested contemplation” (which is a non-concept and absurdity), but rather as the capacity to have one’s Pro and Contra in one’s power, and to shift them in and out, so that one knows how to make precisely the difference in perspectives and affective interpretations useful for knowledge. (GM III, 12)

To prepare oneself for knowledge requires that one attain self-knowledge, which requires that one becomes capable of investigating and comparing ones own different modes of interpretation.

This means in turn experiencing oneself as a phenomenon, rather than not at all, as is the case with the sickly and sterile.
Nietzsche formulates a challenge of health.

[Dan~]

but rather as the capacity to have one’s Pro and Contra in one’s power, and to shift them in and out, so that one knows how to make precisely the difference in perspectives and affective interpretations useful for knowledge.

My understanding of this is :

It would be great if we could be a fair judge of our own ideas.
Able to be supportive or critical of our ideas.
This means mental independence,
which means self sufficiency.
You can't sit around pondering things unless you are self sufficient in some way.

if i am wrong, tell me why?
I'm just trying here.

[iambiguous]

Particularly as knowers, let us not be ungrateful toward such resolute reversals of the familiar perspectives and valuations with which the spirit has raged against itself all too long… : to see differently in this way for once, to want to see differently, is no small discipline and preparation of the intellect for its future “objectivity”—the latter understood not as “disinterested contemplation” (which is a non-concept and absurdity), but rather as the capacity to have one’s Pro and Contra in one’s power, and to shift them in and out, so that one knows how to make precisely the difference in perspectives and affective interpretations useful for knowledge. (GM III, 12)

That's Nietzsche.

If Nietzsche has an epistemological idea, this is it.

Knowledge is not a thing that's carved out of the world somehow. Knowledge is created in the space between perspectives. It's not a thing.

If Nietzsche were still around today, I'd ask him the same thing: What on earth does this mean?

It's yet another "intellectual contraption" qua "general description" of a particular aspect deemed to be embedded in the "human all too human condition".

What knowledge of what things in what context?

Or, sure, why go there -- up there? -- at all?

[Meno_]

He says the same thing over , as an implication of perspectivism between logical positivism and that of deontologocal certainty , that is why reading him Consider his aphorisms reversely, attribute the 'should' of his message from the what 'is'
His message is not grounded in fact, it is grounded in a future perfect.
This is a paradoxical message based in an inevitability that he hopes will transverse a mythical past with a future promise.

He had to write conversely, in order not to sound co contradictory, which would have been rejected out of hand.

[Karpel Tunnel]

but rather as the capacity to have one’s Pro and Contra in one’s power, and to shift them in and out, so that one knows how to make precisely the difference in perspectives and affective interpretations useful for knowledge.

My understanding of this is :

It would be great if we could be a fair judge of our own ideas.
Able to be supportive or critical of our ideas.
This means mental independence,
which means self sufficiency.
You can't sit around pondering things unless you are self sufficient in some way.

if i am wrong, tell me why?
I'm just trying here.

Self-sufficient makes sense to me. If you are not self-sufficient you are more likely to simply react. You are desperate. You don't have time, space and energy to reflect on your ideas. You don't have the safety. You are already struggling, and so it is too threatening, or at least more threatening, to entertain the possibility that your perspective might be wrong. Or tht other perspectives have truth in them. You might get smacking into considering this if your knowledge leads to choices and these do not work catastrophically.

But seems to be a strong human tendency when stressed to push habits and not breathe slow, evaluate, ponder, reflect and see what else might be true or work.

[Faust]

Karpel - you could be a hermit and have knowledge. But you would also have no one to dabate with about what is actual knowledge and what is not. Mostly, when a philosopher uses that word, he's talking about a collective effirt, and something like consensus.

It's the space between if you don't get that it'sin the overlaps.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Karpel - you could be a hermit and have knowledge. But you would also have no one to dabate with about what is actual knowledge and what is not. Mostly, when a philosopher uses that word, he's talking about a collective effirt, and something like consensus.

It's the space between if you don't get that it'sin the overlaps.

OK, it was the metaphor I found unclear. It sound more like, for example, where the set of empiricist ideas and the set of rationalist ideas overlap, that's knowledge. Or like if it was sociology - where the three main perspectives - symbolic interactionism, functionalism, conflict theory - agree, that is nowledge. Where they disagree that's not. Overlap between fundamentally differing perspectives. Which raises a lot of questions. But 'something like consensus' and collective effort, I get.