# Basic Philosophy
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/basic-philosophy/85382
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [May 10, 2026, 10:54pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/basic-philosophy/85382 "2026-05-10T22:54:31Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@Socrates](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Socrates)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2026, 12:06am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/basic-philosophy/85382/81 "2026-05-16T00:06:01Z")
Vous disez quoi?
---
### Author:  [@Destiny](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Destiny)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2026, 2:57pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/basic-philosophy/85382/82 "2026-05-17T14:57:49Z")
There’s too many layers to this.
---
### Author:  [@Destiny](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Destiny)
#### Post date: [May 17, 2026, 3:19pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/basic-philosophy/85382/83 "2026-05-17T15:19:24Z")
> [@Nausamedu](#):
>
> > [@Destiny](#):
> >
> > You are the one who posits the existence of something which you by definition of your own existence, can not know.
>
> Which reasoning i refuse because you can easily defer to the fact that you learn and discover things as you grow up, or in other words there are clearly things which are outside of your knowledge, understanding, framework, perception and on and on the list goes.
You mean things as in, elephants?
But this is what I had been saying and you refused initially, with the mirror metaphor. So we agree on this now.
But what we do not agree on is that the collective reality that we experience taking part in (presuming there really is a separate you and I which we can not verify, since you bring up solipsism but which is definitely not my position) is necessarily coherent with all of reality; that it corresponds to the same Truth.
Heidegger and his truth-as-clearing.
Is math superimposed on the clearing, pre-emptively interpreting the clearing, as he thought, or is it actually itself a clearing?
If so it is still only _a_ clearing.
> [@](#):
>
> I can only reiterate my question: Why would you imply that we cant know the fact of our ignorance? Where does your reasoning come from?
First of all maybe you should stop trying to paraphrase me, you are getting more and more distant from what Ive actually said. At this point its either the opposite or even more removed.
Second, how are you logically justifying preaching about your ignorance? Doesn’t ignorance preclude the validity of any preach?
When Socrates said ‘i know that i know nothing’ (which I dont think actually said like that) it implies: **I know that I know nothing, not even that i know nothing.**
Don’t you even see this? This is a very basic logical deduction from ‘i know that i know nothing’.
This comes back to the second part of my OP which no one apparently manage to adddress but which was the whole point of it.
> [@](#):
>
> Meno’s paradox? That you cant look at something unless you know what it is?
> Or are you arguing solipsism? That only your own mind exists?
Just read me slowly, sentence by sentence, and go into these sentences. If you’re interested in what Im saying.
But you prefer to skip the difficult bits.
> [@Destiny](#):
>
> **Who told you they contradict and why did you believe him?**
Well?
> [@Destiny](#):
>
> **Omniscience is knowing. So subjectivity must still apply.**
**Well?**
> [@](#):
>
> > [@Destiny](#):
> >
> > No please look up the definition of truth.
> > Truth is valid conceptual representation.
>
> As i said: Pointing this out does not contradict that “what is true is real” and “what is real is true”.
Of course it does mean that you can not equate the words like that.
“This is a true story” has two meanings. One is that the story tels the truth, the other is that it is truly a story.
“This is a real story” does not have the same two meanings.
Can you see, if only as to you maybe a nuance, the difference?
My point is that ‘the’ whole entire truth does not, since truth is a meta level of real, need to correspond to the whole of reality, and that even truth as a function itself might not be able to coherently address all reality.
Do you agree that truth must be self coherent?
> [@](#):
>
> There is a photo of someone and i asked you who that is.
> And as a response you tell me “dont be ridiculous, this is not a who, its a piece of paper”.
> Yes. Technically correct, but also clearly sophism.
Says the guy who brought up the elephant example.
And this is again even more different from from what Ive said than the opposite to what Ive said.
I would not say your increasing straying in your paraphrasing from what Ive said is proof that the attempt to justify the idea of comprehensive objective truth leads to greater untruth, but it is amplifying the suggestion.
Lets go back to knowledge in the Socratic sense;
**I know that I know nothing, not even that I know nothing.**
What does this mean? Does it simply mean that I know nothing? Or … maybe something more strange, more interesting? More nuanced? What does it say about the nature of knowledge? How does it place knowing in relation to understanding?
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/basic-philosophy/85382.md?page=4)