A Philosopher's Challenge -

How is this not an ignorant statement? Do you believe that there is one answer to every question, or is that why you believe you can can answer every question? And even so, how is answering every question you are presented with proof of knowledge?

I think this is what the OP is getting at, which, in my opinion, isn’t so “ignorant.”

He isn’t trying to show proof of knowledge, but proof of what constitutes ‘knowledge.’ Something sufficient, practical, and agreeable to the masses. An ‘answer’ is only correct insofar as it is sufficient, or acceptable. In other words, you can give a pragmatic answer to any question, but that doesn’t necessarily implicate ‘truth.’

In JohnJones’ case, he only claimed the ability to give a culturally satisfactory, or “sufficient”, answer to any question. The “I know everything” bit seems more like a poke at such pragmatic thinking. The ability to talk, theorize, or state the obvious is not rare, but can seem as such for people who confuse sufficiency or practicality with ‘truth.’

In short, it is easy to give an answer that is simply sufficient. The task is in actually providing insight into the human condition (as it pertains to ‘reality’). Otherwise, we are just talking, theorizing, and stating the obvious.

But isn’t he just saying knowledge is what constitutes knowledge?

I think he’s suggesting that we have no measure of ‘knowledge.’ Something is ‘knowledge’ inasmuch as it is regarded as such. This is why we can treat any pragmatic, or otherwise culturally sufficient, idea as ‘knowledge’ without ever evaluating it in terms of ‘truth’ or ‘certainty.’ If an idea seems to work predictably, we can claim knowledge of it.

You’re quite the optimist.

In what regard?

I was expounding upon Diogenes’ statement, not that of the OP, to be clear.


The subject matter of philosophy - when it deals with science - isn’t science. Neither is the philosophy of history, history.

I have missed somethig?

Test me.

…actually the trick behind it is that I am a transcencental idealist, and so I can always refute questions based on a transcendentally real, scientific, basis.

Spot on, but for a blip at the end. There is no insight into the human condition that we don’t already know about.

Theres’s a hint of circularity there, but on whose shoulders it falls isn’t assessible thus far.

That’s clever.

i find it funny that you communicate so poorly that the whole thread is dedicated to interpreting what you meant.

i also find it funny that these people care about what you meant.

You’re saying two different things here, one right and one wrong.

Philosophy of history isn’t history. The subject matter of the philosophy of history is history, though. That is what the “of history” bit means.

I thought you could give to cultured satisfaction the answer to any question? Failed already. :stuck_out_tongue:

Ok I think your just saying something exists in itself like a self referencing identity. Your saying the answers to every question is “one” thing “this reality, in its self”. You can map (imagine) out knowledge with philosophy just like scientist map out higher dimensions of our existence through M theory and evolution. But the thing is you say transcendental idealist. So the only way this is true is if reality was transcendental hence your pov. This would mean the world is a hyperspherical polarity. A circle.

A (one) circle.*

Oh never mind then :slight_smile:

This is to say there is no possibility of further insight, of which we don’t yet claim knowledge? That’s a tad presumptuous, don’t you think?

Can you support this claim?

I know! It cracks me up!
You can be my fan.
There is a queue.