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.
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.
…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.
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.
