Mariela the Philosophy novice

Reading Heraclitus of Ephesus adds to my questions on the relationship between truth and knowledge. At end of last post and by the comments, it is clear that sometimes knowledge cannot get us to the truth. Knowledge without insight is not enough if the truth is wanting to be found. Today's philosopher says this and he calls people who gain knowledge with no insight a bunch of... dreamers asleep, to put it in nice words.  Heraclitus is saying that we are able to gain the knowledge and truth at the same time only by having insight, bridging the gap between the divine knowledge and human knowledge that Homer opened or aggravated. Heraclitus uses the word logos to describe what he believes in. Curd defines Heraclitus' logos as the "objective and independent  truth available to all." We all have the capacity to gain this independent truth but only through insight. Curd is really clear at stating that this insight is not just the inquiry aspect but the "understand

Last time I ended class with this thought: Xenophanes changed the Homeric views on god. It helps us question if religions define god for what it truly is. With the progression of their theories, I see the Milesians and Xenophanes and think that maybe the mind needs to be constantly evolving to get closer to the truth. Reading Pythagoras made me think about the relationship between truth and knowledge. Curd shows us a fragment were Plato makes a parallel between Homer and Pythagoras. They look alike in the fact that they both had people that followed them. The major distinction is Pythagoras striving for knowledge, his followers the mathematikoi and akousmatikoi both looking to gain knowledge in what they each venerated, while Homer convinced his followers by   his stories that reflected some of the truth about their society.   Curd mentions this fragment “Much learning does not teach insight. Otherwise it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and moreover Xenphanes and Hec