An explanation of what we know, while we know nothing.

First, thank you "Watcher-In-The-Shadows" for your post I "know" nothing. And neither do you. Your post triggered my response, and with out it I may never have come up with this clarified conclusion of my own thoughts on this topic.

So here is a summarized version of his post,

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
-Socrates

[e]Know,
Function: verb

1 a (1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of

2 a: to be aware of the truth or f actuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of

3 a: archaic : to have sexual intercourse with

SOURCE:know @ merriam-Webster.com

Seriously, you believe you "know" something. But none of us truly "know" anything. And it is when we delude ourselves into believing and stop questioning something that we believe we know anything. Think of everything that mankind has convinced himself that he "knew" through out history. How much of that has been proven incorrect? How can you justify believing yourself somehow better than they? Are you some how less failable and beyond them? Our senses can be tricked. And we can trick ourselves and if we let them others can trick us.

Just something to consider. A great number of possibilities believed to be impossible can only be dismissed with the incredulity of a peson who has deluded themselves they know *or others they have faith in to "know"* all that is within the realm of "possible".

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

WTS,

You are right on, hit the nail on the head, but I think your making the same mistake your pointing out. Take the statement you made and change the syntax a little,(I "know" nothing. And neither do you.) or (I know that you, and I, know nothing.); Thus, you state you know, while stating it is impossible for us to know anything. Don't take this as a personal attack please, this is a critique, I think you have the right idea but you are presenting it in a less than perfect matter. At the same time, no one should assume this means I'm making the claim that my presentation of the same idea is any better or worse, rather a different perception. Hopefully, by the time you finish reading my post, you'll see that perception is all we know.

1 a (1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of

The first validation of knowledge, and that it exists lies within this definition. I'm going to assume that we all have a fair idea of what the word perception means, I won't try to define it or provide a definition, I will rely on your understanding of what it means to perceive. Perception, as I perceive it, describes the way we understand anything, which is relative to our perception, or our understanding, creating a loop in itself and leaving the definition open ended, as perception is relative.

cognition- the process of perceiving, thinking, reasoning and analyzing.

Which is something all human beings are capable of, and a constant process that is naturally occurring in all people, constantly.

Those two seen as one, are a pretty valid synonym for the 2nd part of the definition, "to have understanding of."

It may be wrong to call Perception a natural constant, this may well be the case, but from with the argument I present now, I believe perception is a constant. If we didn't constantly perceive reality, there would be no reality, for reality to exist we must first perceive it to exist. The other part of the argument is that the perception is relative, just as Einstein's theory of relativity explains that one's perception of time is relative to variables of your reality, I postulate that one's perception is relative to ones concept of reality, which in turn is relative to perception.

What I'm getting at is "knowing" or making the claim "I know the world is round" is not making the claim, "The World is Round." When you know, you consider what you know to be fact.

Fact- a concept whose truth can be proved

And fact is nothing more than truth, which truth is only truth in the first place because, we "know" the truth to be true. Truth is a perception, Fact is a perception, Knowledge is Perception, and Knowledge is relative.

There is a good chance I'll follow up on this post I have a whole lot more to address and my mind is taming tangents in order to stop typing now; however, I have an appointment to make, you all can expect more to come.

If you found that interesting and you feel even the slightest bit that it contains a logical argument, Flag it, I would really like to here what others think about this. As I say truth is perception, the more perceptual truth we have, the more truth we can perceive. Thank You.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by inspiringyouth]

[edit on 29-7-2009 by inspiringyouth]

Sorry cant help myself. You tell WTS that they have presented their argument in a less than perfect manner. That implies that you know what "perfect" is? Does it not? And that this thread is a complete re-do but in a "better" way than theirs. How can yours be "better" or more "informative" when neither are relevant since there is no such thing as better, as we cannot know what better is, and the information that makes it more informative is somewhat questionable, since we know nothing!!!

Only a jest!!

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Toughiv]

reply to post by inspiringyouth


Um. Why don't you just add it to the thread that already exists and which you cite. Starved for a little attention?

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


Because they want flags - they openly ask for them. They did post in the other thread, telling people to come to this thread.

I made a thread as a response because my post isn't a reply it is a completely different idea, I am just building off of his thread because when I read it this is what I thought of. Replies to threads as active as that one get over looked.

I don't claim to know what perfect is, I stated that, I claimed his was imperfect, it was flawed. His statement is redundant, you can not know that you do not know, that is knowing. If you aren't going to contribute to the thread don't reply, off topic posts kill threads, don't deter this idea with your smug comments.

reply to post by inspiringyouth


Firstly I said it was a Jest! Secondly, if you know what IMPERFECT is you have a notion of what PERFECT is....silly silly argument.

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by inspiringyouth

 

Firstly I said it was a Jest! Secondly, if you know what IMPERFECT is you have a notion of what PERFECT is....silly silly argument.

Firstly, I apologize for my aggressive defense. Secondly, I do know that nothing can be perfect if it is flawed, but to define something as flawless would be a challenge. If you know of the game Mortal Kombat, then you know of the term Flawless Victory, the perfect victory by the games definition, your awarded the title when you win with out receiving damage, as damage is considered a flaw.

By understanding that something flawed can not be perfect, I claim that I know what perfect is? You don't have to know the absolute definition of perfect to understand what imperfect is, perfect is difficult to conceive, but flaws stand out, and if it is flawed it is imperfect. That doesn't mean that if it were flawless it would be perfect since what can be defined a flaw is relative. So if you are trying to argue that for me to say it is imperfect, means that I am claiming that it is imperfect compared to the perfect form, I see where your coming from. Using imperfect to describe it was my mistake, a better choice of words, is that his argument contradicted itself, making it redundant. I see that redundancy as a flaw, which then, by my perception of it being redundant, makes the argument imperfect.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by inspiringyouth]

[edit on 30-7-2009 by inspiringyouth]

reply to post by inspiringyouth


Right, quickly just to explain my point. you refer to mortal combat, which I do know, i remember sub zero

A flawless victory is perfect, which you move to say that flaws stand out. Ok right. Firstly, you have defined what a flaw is. Therefore, you know the situation whereby there are no flaws. So to say that something is imperfect, you are noting the flaws within the argument. Therefore, if those flaws were not present, you would have a flawless...perfect...argument. Hence my point, once you define imperfection, you have also defined a state of perfection have you not?

Secondly, just to say your argument is well thoughtout, informative and logically presented. Hats off !

Cheers,

Brad

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by inspiringyouth

 

A flawless victory is perfect, which you move to say that flaws stand out. Ok right.

Firstly, you have defined what a flaw is.

Therefore, you know the situation whereby there are no flaws.

So to say that something is imperfect, you are noting the flaws within the argument.

Therefore, if those flaws were not present, you would have a flawless...perfect...argument.

Hence my point, once you define imperfection, you have also defined a state of perfection have you not?

Cheers,

Brad

I have not.

As I said, flaws are relative. Relative to the individual who points them out as flaws, relative because for one to know what a flaw is, is to know; And as I explained in the original post, to know is to perceive, it is but to think you know. Who am I to say what is flawed as if it is an absolute truth, I am no one to say something like that. I know, I perceive, I conceive, that the argument I have deemed imperfect, is flawed, and this knowledge is nothing more than opinion. For me to say it as I have you may interpret it as you will, you may see no flaws, you may see a perfect truth, what you see is what you see and what I see is what I see. I see imperfection due to flaws, I do not see any perfect form nor can I conceive one at this point, and if I ever did, and so called it flawless, called it perfect, due to the relativity of knowledge, it would be perfect by my perception. This post is about what knowing is, and how knowing is completely relative, what you know is what you have decided you know by your perception of reality and what is. I do have a notion, I do know what perfect is, and I do know that it is not "we know nothing." In the end you may know that it is perfect, that it is flawless, and this knowledge is truth as knowledge is perception and true to you it would be, and the only truth is what is known to be truth which is again a perception. Regardless it will always boil down to what you know, and I will never be able to prove what you know to be right or wrong, as it is right, for you, regardless of if it is wrong for me. "Popular Knowledge" is what we call fact, what many know, the consensus allows for acceptance but it doesn't change that the fact is still relative. If we all knew the same exact thing, if we all perceived the exact same reality, if we had no choice to perceive it differently, we all looked down the same hall, then the understood meaning of knowledge could be absolute and definite, until then we will live in chaos.

reply to post by inspiringyouth


So what you are saying is, you were unjustified in saying that the other posters argument is imperfect. Since flaws and perfection are relative, it would have been imperfect for you, but not necessarily everybody else. So it may have been for you, but to communicate that fact is to preach to the world that you hold that to be true and that we should share in your belief, otherwise you would have not shared it.

So therefore, in communicating that statement, you are stating that "you believe it is most probable to be flawed" (since you cannot KNOW) but you state it in a matter of fact way. How improper!

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Toughiv]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
-Socrates

Socrates never said that.

Epic fail.

reply to post by Astyanax


Astyanax long time! Youre quite right, when defined straight from the Greek it translates to "I know as a non knowing" or "I know that I don't know"

But its funny, I knew the next time I see your post, it would be along the lines of dismantling an OP's argument

Let me know when you next start a thread