rattus rattus’ blog

We have already quoted Calvin & Hobbes here several times. In Wikipedia’s entry on Calvin & Hobbes it says:

Calvin sees Hobbes a different way (alive), while other characters see him as something else (a stuffed animal).
— Wikipedia, 2007-03-15

In fact, there is a whole article on its own about Hobbes including a discussion of his reality, also quoting creator Bill Watterson:

When Hobbes is a stuffed toy in one panel and alive in the next, I’m juxtaposing the “grown-up” version of reality with Calvin’s version, and inviting the reader to decide which is truer.
— Bill Watterson, as cited in Wikipedia, 2007-03-15

I remember having discussed this issue with friends. Apparently, many (that is most if not all of my friends) see Hobbes as a stuffed animal. They think that Hobbes as a real tiger exists only in Calvin’s imaginations.
Whereas, I think that Hobbes is real as a tiger could be, and it is only other’s imagination where Hobbes is a stuffed animal.

Though, this is imaginary, of course.

Knowledge may be defined in many ways. Sure, quite a number of people writing and talking about knowledge do not even care about defining knowledge (sorry no references here in order to protect the innocent). Moreover, one might deny the existence of varying definitions, though, I — personally — would see this as a sign of a view on knowledge differing from my own view.

Apparently, some people take the delicate concept of disfinism a step further: We do not know what knowledge is, therefore, naturally, let’s do research on non-knowledge, respectively ignorance and the unknown. (Mind you, I am not talking of myself I am just a liar.) Of course, this research shall add to the existing (scientific) knowledge (in contrast to existing non-knowledge).

As a side note, here is one more hint on why disfinism is a safe bet: As long as one does not define the concepts one’s work is based on, or the area to which one’s work applies, one can carelessly produce whatever others buy (or even do not buy). And they will, because consistency rules.

But is it of any use? The work? The knowledge? This blog?

You might well ask! As an example, let’s provide a definition for knowledge. Say, knowledge is what can be put into use, and what leads to something useful. In this sense, we may want to define non-knowledge as what cannot be put into use, or is useless (not to mention that this definition could come in useful). Please note that this is only an example of perhaps minor use — depending on your definition of use. Also, you might want to limit this definition’s scope to what is nonphysical.

What happens as you start gathering (useful) knowledge while you try not to accumulate non-knowledge, while you try to separate what is useful from what is useless, while you weed out ignorance, while you warn your fellows of possible non-knowledge, intended ignorance, and the temporally unknown?

Here is an answer by Bill Watterson’s character Calvin:

The more you know, the harder it is to take decisive action. Once you become informed, you start seeing complexities and shades of gray. You realize that nothing is as clear and simple as it first appears. Ultimately, knowledge is paralyzing.
Being a man of action I can’t afford to take that risk.

Is this knowledge useful? It’s hard to decide, isn’t it!?

The following conversation took place at Calvin and Hobbes’ family (see today’s cartoon at gocomics). Calvin to his mother:

I want the last piece of pie. Don’t divide it up. I want it all to me.

Calvin’s mother:

Don’t be selfish, Calvin.

Calvin:

So the real message here is “be dishonest”?

Of course it is. That’s why we are :)