Welcome to enlightenment! =D> =D> =D>
Nihilism isn’t so stupid as some people think… 
I’m convinced that Socrates was a Nihilist, because he understood that the only acquisition of knowledge can come from knowing nothing. 
I looked up ‘contradiction’ in the dictionary and found this:
If you want to respond, remember you said:
Don’t take offence. I understand your position. I was only trying to help you with your epiphany and the complexity involved in carry it out.
Read some Camus. He basically says why bother with unknowable things and live your life with the concrete. Sounds like you might like it.
If this were really what you believe, than why even state it? To say so much about something that you don’t care about doesn’t make much sense to me.
How old are you?
camus was pretty boring, but i thought he added something to the existential scene…
oh and socrates said all i know is that i know nothing… beyond that no assertions can be made without contradicting the inital statement. if you want to advocate socrates’ position, then be prepared for a whole lot of nothing.
Totoise,
That you posted this tells me you are not fully convinced of it. You posted your thoughts as a challenge, the wording of it was a direct challenge to get folks to state their positions so that you may learn from them, you do care, you do learn and you do know something. A Nihilist can not be a nihilist within a society, its impossible. A nihilist would exist alone and aloof from humans or if one wished to take it to the direct objective they would end their life. I of course won’t support RU in saying you are enlightened because your post as a challenge and as a query means you are not fully steadfastly sure of your epiphany, you somewhere inside you knows you really could explore it more. That you have a grasp of it ,is worthy of applause, many never even get that light bulb go off. You have taken a step towards what understanding you on a personal level need for your life but, to end it at the beginning removes the epiphany as enlightenment and makes it a wall.
Can you really know that you know nothing, for to know that you would have to know something, hence contradicting your original claim?
Can one believe something without claiming to know it?
I think we can.
Agreed.
What constitutes ‘knowledge’ anyway?
I agree with you, Tortoise. The reason I get in trouble here is just that; I don’t know, and I try to point out to others that they don’t know, either
There are certain things that I do know, but they are fairly arbitrary. You don’t have to limit yourself by saying you only know yourself. For example, you said you know nothing about philosophy. Philosophy is a man-made construct, and as such you can know lots about its rules and content, even if they are somewhat arbitrary and/or meaningless.
Laying claim to an answer, however, is much trickier.
Lucky for us, our answer is hopelessly looped in on itself, so we’re nearly free from attack 
wasn’t it that the aquisition of wisdom was through acknowledgement of ignorance? in knowing what he didn’t know he has a better batting average when in came to calling things facts.
Yes, but nobody can deny Socrates’ usage of the term ‘nothing’ quite often by attempting to knowledge through ‘nothingness’.
My claim is a stretch, but not a big one from my point of view.