Thats just you. The first thing a good philosopher learns is that he can’t know anything. The second thing thing learned is how to live knowing this.
Ah but only if he realizes he has blindfolds on.
I’m sure he’s talking about hellspawn, aka the new mick, just satan style.
Even Sartre on his death bed said his philosophy was unliveable. I guess my happiness compared to your’s would make yours seem sad. So I could see where you’re coming from.
If a philosopher ‘can’t’ know anything…than how can you know for a fact that you can’t know anything? You very well could know everything. Unless you can’t really know everything which would make what you said useless.
brilliant
- Epistemology. Subjectivity. Will/Representation. (I’m not going to go in depth)
Satre is right. The more you know, the more you realize how little you know. Nihilism is best left to the experts. The rest of the population is better left high[ignorant] on things like religion.
So, with that logic in mind, glad to hear you’re happy. (low blow)
Duder.
Knowing nothing is about as useful as having a hole drilled through your head. True nihilism is both pointless and impossible. What would be the point of going through life not believing in anything? What could we gain from such a false, hubris existence?
The fact of the matter is… knowledge is knowing. Wisdom is growing.
If you don’t know, it’s not that you don’t know, it’s that you don’t want to know., You are told the truth of matters, (knowledge) and instead of listening to that truth, grasp the straws of relativity, because it makes you feel safe.
It’s dangerous having an opinion…
Few people understand it, even fewer accept it, and even fewer can live with it.
It’s sartre, and he meant his philosophy was really unliveable not the more you know the more you realize how little you know…misinterpreter
I guess perhaps if you know more than me than you realize how little you really know, so why are you telling me what’s right? I’m sure the more philosophy you learn the more ‘confused’ you’ll get since not all philosopher’s theories can be correct. But if you will explain to me how someone who actually has ‘more’ knowledge can realize how he has less knowledge than possibly before? Has he not ‘gained’ more knowledge?
This statement of your’s hold’s no ground whatsoever, it’s basically another flawed relativism.
But what I really think you’re talking about here is something Philip Yancey discusses in his book called “rumors of another world” it discusses how much our scientist, philosophers, society, etc. have broken simple things down into more complexity. I believe the more you try to understand God’s creation’s then purhaps the more you realize how little you really know. And with that being said, I’m not quite sure why you’d want to gain more knowledge only to find despair that you know so little now.
Generally the population is high on humanism, not religion. Even if the population was high on religion and had false happiness, what’s wrong with that?
Maybe you should go into detail as to what you’re defending with your first statement.
Glad to hear I’m happy? Are you implying your not now? Because you’re right I’m very happy. When I die even if it was false happiness(which really doesn’t matter) I’m still left to die with peace, and if I’m wrong that’s the end of it. In your case you will be living a life searching for answers you’ll never find since you don’t believe truth exists(even though somehow that statement is supposed to be true) and when you do finally die you may or may not be left with peace inside, but if hell is real you will regret a possible loss of fulfillment in this life and definitely the next.
I would like to think you realize that what you thought to be right isn’t, the more you actually realize how little you know/knew.
The more aware you become of your surroundings, the more you realize that what you know is what you need/want to know to survive and not what is objectively there or objectively happening. This is when one realizes how far from objectivity people’s the know is. Hence the more you know the more you know that you don’t know comment. Yes, you are sure of what you think you know, and you feel good about it. You choose never to analyze it. You protect it like a holy grail, because you know once your know is broken so will you be broken. This why christians become hostile when their idealogy is put into question. Why it becomes personal. Why Mick chose to leave.
If you know you know then you know now what you know then and then you know that no is actually know and I am going to know that knowing is not and not is no which actually is know which actually is now knowing now is knowing then and there and knowing this is actually knowing when and i can keep this up for … If you read slow it makes no sense if you read fast it will know
Kris - I agree. The whole idea of “knowing” is extremely over-rated. Essentially a religious concept.
Faust, I knew you would get it LMAO.
I knew you knew I knew. I knew a new gnu, but the new gnu knew no new news. So I know no new gnus now. If new gnus knew new news, I’d still know no gnus, because new gnus and new news are old news to old gnus. I am an old gnu, now. But I know you knew that, no?
Knowing new gnu news now needs no new gnus, gnus know new news knowing gnus knowing news. you know the new gnus that know the gnu news no gnu is new so gnu’s news is news.
So knowing no new gnus is good news?
Only if Horton hears the gnus.
I think you just made my post look worthless.
I knew it!
Yes - But Duder could not possibly possess adequate knowledge of your being in the possession of this quality of ‘knowing’ - even had he known.
[size=75]Shameless bandwagon-jumping behaviour.[/size]
If you knew that I did know, then the impossibility of me knowing wouldn’t seem so impossible. What you know about that?