Mystics. Take my word for it.

a reply to: Visitor2012

Am I correct in assuming that you think you know the ultimate right philosophy?

If so, please take a number and get in line.
Because, I'm sorry, but you're not the only one.

Not that in anyway was your comment anything more than nonsense.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Visitor2012

It is not even a statement.

Grammatically speaking, it is. Even if what it points to, has no meaning for you.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Visitor2012

Am I correct in assuming that you think you know the ultimate right philosophy?

If so, please take a number and get in line.
Because, I'm sorry, but you're not the only one.

No you're not correct in assuming. There isn't a right philosophy. Truth can't be philosophized. No thanks, I'll pass.

a reply to: Visitor2012

Ah, so you claim to know which is a philosophical stance.
Funnily enough, I think now would be a perfect time to refer you to a thread I recently made.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Visitor2012

Ah, so you claim to know which is a philosophical stance.

Funnily enough, I think now would be a perfect time to refer you to a thread I recently made.

No thanks. Knowing and philosophy do not go hand in hand. We know electricity, is that a philosophical stance? Of all the things we know, is there a philosophical basis for it? No, because there's no need for philosophical support. Philosophy is the mental pondering of a subject matter, which is acknowledged to be still unknown to the one doing the pondering. Philosophy is over rated and being a philosopher is nothing to be proud of, affectively advertising the fact that you know nothing at all, yet have a clever way of describing what you don't know and feeling intelligent about it.
Absolute rubbish.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Itisnowagain

It seems that you don't actually know what the word mystic refers to. A 'mystic' will happily admit that he/she knows nothing.

Would a mystic know what the word actually refers to after happily admitting that he/she knows nothing?

"Knowing nothing" is a contradiction. First, one cannot know nothing until he is deceased. Second, one cannot know that he cannot know, just like one cannot know that he does. "Knowing" is an activity performed by human beings, a human affair and endeavour. If one refuses to know, one refuses to participate. Believing one knows, and denying one knows, is the same thing—arriving at a conclusion, confirming, calculating, deducing, inferring, gathering, judging and valuing—knowing.

Mystics say they know nothing, so do scientists in their own way, which is why they put the word theory in front of all their surmises. So tell us, what do you know? Other than the fact that you exist and can perceive phenomena and think about the phenomena. Are your questions still there? In other words, what knowledge do you have about reality, that has ended your search and delivered you into absolute clarity about the reality and make up of this Universe?

a reply to: Visitor2012

Not really.
Philosophy is, in a nutshell, questioning.
Whether it be answering a question, or questioning your answers.

I am getting the feeling what you are saying, more or less, is that you know because you know.
Am I correct in this assumption?

a reply to: Visitor2012

The admission and basis that is "The only thing I know is that I know nothing." is first attributed to Socrates.
Who was a ?

a reply to: Visitor2012

Knowing is what humans do. Knowledge is a human affair. Saying we cannot know is to take knowledge out of the hands of men and put it...where? Where is this magical knowledge we cannot know?

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Visitor2012

Not really.
Philosophy is, in a nutshell, questioning.
Whether it be answering a question, or questioning your answers.

I am getting the feeling what you are saying, more or less, is that you know because you know.
Am I correct in this assumption?

Philosophy is questioning, which is the same thing as 'I don't know'. And it never leads to answers. Just more assumptions, more questions which generate more philosophies endlessly. The problem is that unlike scientists who admittedly say their surmises are 'theories', philosophers aren't as honest. They usually mistake their own philosophy (which is cleverly disguised 'questioning') for knowledge and pass it off to others as the same.

a reply to: Aphorism

I'm going to have to contradict here.
Believing is what humans do.
Not knowing.

If you want to get right down to it.
All knowledge really means is justified true belief.
All you have to do is look at how much has been considered "knowledge" or "fact" at some point only to be cast aside.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Visitor2012

The admission and basis that is "The only thing I know is that I know nothing." is first attributed to Socrates.
Who was a ?

He just said what many seekers have yet to discover themselves or afraid to admit. Still true today. If one is seeking answers about themselves or this reality, it means they know nothing at all. And if that person does not know about themselves, beyond silly philosophy or word-language, conceptual context, then he can't speak on the reality of anything else, not even about a single rock on the ground.

a reply to: Visitor2012

Again, not really, on really every point you've tried to make this time.
You might want to do some research as to what science actually entails too.
Because, if a scientist uses the scientific method looking to only prove what they think is true.
They're doing it wrong.

To quote Sir Karl Popper from his work "Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (1972)", a name and work you should be familiar with in reference to how we look at science today:
"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve."

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

a reply to: Aphorism I'm going to have to contradict here. Believing is what humans do. Not knowing. If you want to get right down to it. All knowledge really means is justified true belief. All you have to do is look at how much has been considered "knowledge" or "fact" at some point only to be cast aside.

Is that what you believe or is that what you know?

a reply to: Visitor2012

*sighs*

The impreciseness of the paraphrase of this as I know that I know nothing stems from the fact that the author is not saying that he does not know anything but means instead that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty but can feel confident about certain things

SOURCE

Which is at the basis of science.
Or should I say, science done well.

a reply to: Aphorism

In the context of what I said, how is this anything but a silly question?

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Visitor2012

Knowing is what humans do. Knowledge is a human affair. Saying we cannot know is to take knowledge out of the hands of men and put it...where? Where is this magical knowledge we cannot know?

So then what knowledge have you attained that ends the search for reality, self and the universe? Which happens to be the ONLY thing worth calling knowledge. Not your surmises not your philosophy (which is a question disguised) , nor your idea. But FACT. Because ultimately, you are the one who is talking about how blind humanity is, how stupid and ignorant their methodologies are, and how much of a fraud there spiritual teachings are, and how wrong their experience and idea of reality is, so let's hear some knowledge for a change.

What do you know other than the fact that you perceive existence? Even Siddhartha Buddha himself and all the sages should tune in to this answer.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Visitor2012

*sighs*

The impreciseness of the paraphrase of this as I know that I know nothing stems from the fact that the author is not saying that he does not know anything but means instead that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty but can feel confident about certain things

SOURCE

Which is at the basis of science.
Or should I say, science done well.

What a load of rubbish that was. If you don't know something with absolute certainty, then you don't know it AT ALL. There's no such thing as partial knowing. There's partial conclusion perhaps....WIP surmises maybe,theories.. but no partial knowing. If confidence is needed, then it is NOT known. Doesn't matter how confident you 'feel about certain things' which is the same thing as having faith in something. Faith, or confidence in something, is not knowledge of it.

'I know that I don't know anything at all' is a very honest statement. Every time a person philosophizes or pontificates, reflects upon the mysteries of themselves and the universe, they are saying the EXACT same thing to themselves, but in a different, and often elusive way. He just cut straight to the chase and wrote an honest statement of the only FACT he knows. While the rest of humanity pretends to know what is actually just a belief. And they label these beliefs 'knowledge'.

The interpretation you pasted is not an authority , it's just a man's interpretation of another man's words.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Science only has ideas, theories about existence and the make up of reality including our own consciousness which is doing the perceiving. The scientific process has nothing to do with it. The conclusions drawn from them are called THEORIES. which means it's not fact. It's a summation. An intelligent guess based on the combination of observation and certain assumptions.

I'm not against Science, at least they're honest. They admit and openly expose the underlying assumptions or unknown factors in their process. Thus why they openly call them theories instead of facts. But when it comes to casual conversation about self and the universe, it's the opposite. People defend the assumptions they have of themselves and reality, create Philosophies about them and preach them as if they were facts, while at the same time in the background, still trying to figure out who the hell they are. It's ludicrous.

Only seekers create philosophies and Philosophers are glorified seekers.

a reply to: Visitor2012

What a load of rubbish that was. If you don't know something with absolute certainty, then you don't know it AT ALL. There's no such thing as partial knowing. There's partial conclusion perhaps....WIP surmises maybe,theories.. but no partial knowing. If confidence is needed, then it is NOT known. Doesn't matter how confident you 'feel about certain things' which is the same thing as having faith in something. Faith, or confidence in something, is not knowledge of it.

And when we are completely certain something is true or fact.
We are practicing Dogmatic Thinking.
Don't believe me?
Here:

a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation. Synonyms: conviction, certainty

This is to be avoided, some of the most terrible acts in history have been committed by people completely certain they are right.

I'm going to just omit the next paragraph and my response...........
For the sake of civility.
But I will ask.
I thought you said it was rubbish?

The interpretation you pasted is not an authority , it's just a man's interpretation of another man's words.

No, what I posted was the most reasonable interpretation of what he meant.
Given the conversation he was said to be having.
Personally, on a small side note, I lean towards the idea Socrates was just another allegory Plato used that became popular.
The problem here is context, as it is with a lot of quotes.
Which is why certain people believe Plato's allegorical Atlantis existed.
They leave the context of a conversation about ideal societies out or don't know the full context.