9 Answers

  1. In this formulation, Goethe is, of course, wrong. Rather, those beliefs that lie at the beginning of all knowledge and those beliefs that serve as its crown are completely different “beliefs” in the meaning and it is impossible to express yourself clearly and at the same time call such different things in one word.

    Knowledge is undoubtedly preceded by beliefs. Philosophy has never been able to offer a convincing solution to the problem of grounds – a set of self-evident premises that you don't have to believe because they justify themselves. That is, I personally believe that Descartes ' cogito ergo sum is such a premise, but this is a debatable issue, and I am not ready to write down all those who disagree with me as fools, because I am much more likely to be a fool.

    Moreover, if we can consciously choose most of these premises, then some of them we are probably just born with. That is, a person at no point in his life is a tabula rasa, which is filled with his experience free from the influence of any beliefs. A brief introduction to this question can be found here: https://postnauka.ru/articles/76133

    Let's go back to Goethe. When I say that beliefs precede knowledge, what beliefs are I talking about? For example, about the belief in the very possibility of knowledge. And when Goethe talks about beliefs as the crown of knowledge, what is he talking about? On the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun. There is a gulf of meaning between the two, and the former is much more similar to what is usually understood as a belief than the latter.

  2. I think the meaning of this statement is very simple. The world is interesting, bright and you need to be able to see it. Beliefs should be born out of observations of life. You don't need to see the world through the prism of axiomatized principles, even very good ones. Whether I agree or disagree is a difficult question. Usually, life observation and belief formation are parallel processes that go hand in hand. But it is very useful to remember this thesis of Goethe's. And, of course, for Goethe, as a scientist and writer, it was fundamental.

  3. Scientific beliefs are systematically improved comprehensively. The ultimate absolute “crown of knowledge” practically does not exist.

    The “crown of knowledge”, if properly understood scientifically, is just another intermediate finale, a result – on the path of continuous refinement and deepening of knowledge and beliefs.

  4. Yes, I agree. This is a normal scientific approach. To be sure of something, it is necessary to follow the path of knowledge, that is, to collect material, analyze it and draw appropriate conclusions. And if a person is initially already convinced of something, then no knowledge will follow. It just loses its meaning, Why learn something, if everything is already known. This is a religious approach. Therefore, religion actively slows down the process of cognition.

  5. Beliefs are the product of knowledge, experience, and serious reflection. Without this, it is not beliefs that are possible, but blind faith or trust in someone else's opinion.�

    I don't know if Goethe said that, but it's a perfectly sound idea.

  6. What are your doubts?

    Cognition is learning (theory), experience, and belief is the conclusion that each of us draws from the lessons we have learned in life.

    “Persuasion is the beginning”, when young degenerates who have never worked and have never worked start trying to build not their own lives, but the whole reality at once, because they believe that they already know everything (remember the Bachelor in Faust: all experience, experience! Experience is nonsense! The meaning of this experience will not cover, everything that we learned from these years was not worth looking for and it is not worth knowing!).

  7. I think Goethe emphasized that prejudice interferes with the process of objective cognition. Which doesn't mean that being convinced is a sign of an idiot. What matters here is where this belief comes from? Whether it is a product of objective knowledge, or whether it has been blown away by the wind.

  8. In the time of J. Goethe, intellectuals liked to cast a fog, give their deep thoughts a certain mystery, poetically embellish one or another symbol, a halo. A kind of artistic packaging of the product, which the author decorated to feed this product to the public. But since over time, the meaning of words expands and changes, it is sometimes difficult to understand what the author who lives 100-300 years ago wanted to express with his statement, thought.

    I would not attach much importance to the quotes of intellectuals of the past. As I see it, it is much more important to have a dialogue with living people, and not with the dead, whose quotes we like to repeat and use when communicating, hiding behind them like a fig leaf, so that no one will notice our lack of intelligence or uncertainty. This does not mean that you should stop reading books – read for health, “argue with the author” in the process of reading, etc. But to look at the world through the eyes and speculative sketches of an authoritative husband means to refuse to learn for yourself, being directly in contact with the world.

  9. It sounds very logical to me. Of course, I do not know the context of this phrase, but I dare to assume.
    Most likely, this means that at first, when you start the process of learning, you can not be sure of anything. And in the process, you gain more and more experience and knowledge, and when you already have thorough information about something specific, only then can you be confident and convinced. That is, it is a consolidation of your knowledge and your experience.

Leave a Reply