It is therefore evident that we can have a perfect knowledge of something without completely knowing it, as is the case with individual material things and immaterial beings (ibid., fol. 254r-v).
A first concerns what it takes to have real knowledge of something, knowledge that comes by acquaintance not just by analysis.
"Proving that they were negligent isn't enough; they had to have actual knowledge of something wrong.
"Most people learn every and anything they can about the subjects they are passionate about, I'm no different, I find it patronizing to assume I have no knowledge of something I'm influenced by, but I've also grown up with strangers assuming that.
The question ultimately becomes whether or not we value having knowledge of something that we have earned, and which becomes inextricably a part of us, but that is bounded by the limits of our mental capacity, or whether we are more comfortable with an infinite amount of knowledge which exists apart from us in a device and dependent on our ability to access it.
You have knowledge of something when, in addition to your true belief about it, you are able also to "go through the elements" of that thing.
First, when what we mean by 'know' changes from one context to another, what changes is the standards that we think must be met if someone is to have knowledge of something.
You have to have ownership of something -- and knowledge".
To me, understanding your immediate society as well as having a wider knowledge of global cultures is something that encourages understanding, tolerance and dialogue between people.
