“We do not know the totality of reality, therefore, there are specific things that we do not know.”

“We know that we do not know the totality of reality, therefore, it cannot be said that we know nothing, because we know at least that one thing.”

Presumes knowing occurs in the first place. There exists a possibility all is just a guess. In other words we have arrived at a belief. That is, that we think we know. The argument is based on that assumption.

Remove that presumption and the argument fails. Circular reasoning.

I don’t believe knowing is a requirement.

I suppose, I suspect, I guess, I observe and refine. As meme this conviction in knowing, is quite a virus.

Again, this idea of knowing as something that falls along a spectrum. I’m 26.7% sure of something. I’m 99.8% sure of something. I say I can never be 100% sure of something, though I act as if I’m 106% sure.

I don’t know. Is it just me? Why doesn’t this conception of “knowing” work for me?

I know that 2+2=4. If Godel or someone says well not really, then I say hmm, wow, ok. I guess you’re right. Good point. I mean, why can’t we just be fluid about the whole thing? It’s all so ponderous and heavy. We’re too tentative, at the same time that we’re too sure of ourselves.

Totality of reality? Is that 100%? 100% knowledge = God’s eye view? I’m not even sure it makes any sense at all to talk about some kind of totality of reality.

I agree that people should definitely be inspired to ensure that they verify and thus question whether they really know.

But to proclaim that nothing can be known inspires just the opposite. It is saying, “because we cannot know, we must just presume and move on.” It inspires the lack of even trying to be accurate. It “dumbs down” the population and enhances presumption and errors.

“We suspect that we do not know the totality of reality, therefore, there may be specific things that we do not know.”

“We suspect that we know that we do not know the totality of reality, therefore, it may potentially be said that we know nothing, because we only suspect we know at least that one thing.”

Scientific discipline is the saviour of all would-be absolutes. Probably.

Science is entirely an issue of verification and serves no other function.
Science can tell you if something is false.
It cannot tell you what is true.

You’ve presented the paradox quite appropriately. You’ve begun with a notion of relative conceptional capacity. That is to say relative to the conception of a whole there is variability in certainty, and with some humor I might add. I would not have been able to laugh had I known where you were going prior to your getting there. Some forms of humor are dependent on the setting up of an expectation then twisting it. You set it up to be a chain of mental construct involving mental conceptualization and the twist at the end, one of action. Thanks for the humor.

I am not aware if it is just me that this conception of knowing doesn’t work for. It seems to present some problems that are common to notions of an us.

I’ve been told 2+2=4, I have been able to use it, as an awareness of adding integers. For the sake of the conventions of providing change back from the dollar you have paid. Why is it we can’t be fluid about the whole thing? Some of us can, and some of us don’t seem to have that capacity.

The notion of omniscient, another particularly viral meme.

If knowing doesn’t exist it would have no opposite. Our guesses have provided plenty of inspiration for human achievement. There were those who claimed manned flight was impossible, yet there were some with a guess that it was. It wasn’t the people that thought it was impossible that tried, they were licked before they started. There were plenty with a guess that it was that didn’t achieve it as well, but it was eventually achieved by someone with a guess that it was. The degree to which that provides inspiration is variable in a population with such diversity in capacities.

I tried the same thing, but removed all instances of the word know and its forms, then realized the argument failed as it suffered from circular reasoning as the presumption and conclusion drawn were one and the same.

A new argument must be presented.

Science is not the only case were this seems to be inferred.

I have to be a little curious. For those very many on sites like this one who promote the notion that “we cannot know…we cannot know…we cannot know…”, what is your incentive for such a thought? What do you anticipate or hope for from convincing everyone that they cannot know anything? :-k

It all seems to go along with the “you have no freewill…you have no freewill…you have no freewill..”
I can easily see where that one is coming from and leading to.

No such grandiose plans. Just poking around a bit with in my own thinking. The lines I quoted were example of argument that at least… knowing this one one thing were possible. The reasoning struck me as circular. And from this the conclusion is that I have gone around chanting “we can not know”, thrice, and further, I may have anticipatory hope of convincing ‘everyone’? IRLAT!

Perhaps I might frame a question as well. What could be the incentive as shoe looks like it is on the other foot?

Try mine, I left some “knowing”'s in and that made it non-circular.

If there were a God, then that God would be a component of reality.

If there were not a God, then it would be a component of reality that there is no God.

I do not know whether or not there is a God.

Therefore, I do not know the totality of reality (as the existence or lack thereof of God is a component), however, it cannot be said that I know nothing, because I at least know that I do not know the totality of reality.

Why is it so hard for people just to say, “I don’t know.” It seems that Philosophers very often try to find a way out of it.

changes the conclusion yet still presumes knowing. How does someone leave some knowing in if something known hasn’t been established in the first place?

What is it you cannot do to live simply and peacefully in this world if you do not come to the knowledge?

Doesn’t presume knowing; presumes the potentiality of knowing. Knowing is a concept, one that has endured the rigours of logic and practicality, and to potentially know is logical and practical in many situations.

I don’t believe that ‘knowing’ has any such strict demands.

Do you know what language I’m writing this message in?

If you don’t know that, what does the word ‘know’ even mean?

Good question, what does the word ‘know’ mean? Think there remains some question, but here is what I’ve been told. To know is an assertion that what it claims is absolutely true.

When I think for myself I don’t reach absolutes. I didn’t think up the notion of true or not, nor that of knowing. I didn’t invent the language, I didn’t invent logic, I borrow from it as it has been conceived of by others. When I borrow from it, I am not strictly speaking, thinking for myself, I am borrowing from an others thinking. I didn’t invent this cluster fuck of absolutes, relatives of subjective or objective. I have been indoctrinated into it through coercion - comply or fail.

There are those with a belief, that if they borrow from this reasoning and that reasoning that they are somehow thinking for them self.

I think some of us feel something odd about all these (pretending/presuming) that go along with knowing, truth, moral, and so on.

And the underlying element that seems to be causing this odd feeling (and subsequent questioning) is the sense (or illusion) of certainty, and the absolute certainty to be exact, that supports all other notions mostly at subconscious level.

Most people are so sure of so many things while some of us become aware of the uncertain nature of pretty much anything, little by little or all by sudden, and then notice the huge gap between common thinking pattern and more precise understandings.

In short, certainty (and absoluteness that comes with) is the foundation of all delusions that we live, including that of “knowing”, “existing”, and even “being aware/conscious”.
We don’t really know, exist in the way we want to think.
And when we do know something, it’s in very relative and restrictive/limited sense and in no way in the absolute and general sense most of us tend to imagine/hope.

I agree. Knowing absolutely and knowing relatively. That’s sort of a cluster being aware of so many dependencies the ‘knowing’ is specific to. English, being a particularly flexible language opens the door to the possibility that I’m really not speaking the language you think you know as English or I think is strictly English.

Reality isn’t so much an illusion. The illusion is that so many live their lives with all these filters intact and what they think of as reality is limited to this rather narrow view. Reality is not limited by limited perceptions, and includes frequencies of sounds we do not hear, light energy we do not see, odors we do not smell, tastes we can not distinguish. Often what is thought of as real is but a fraction of what is real. Add all the sensory perceptions of all life forms together and In this thinking you are closer to what may be considered reality then what a single human believes reality to be. So which relative reality do we mean when we speak about reality?

apologies if my previous post sounded like a rant.

"If there were a God, then that God would be a component of reality.

If there were not a God, then it would be a component of reality that there is no God.

I do not know whether or not there is a God."

then that would be a component of reality too, that you don’t know.

What is required to be considered a component of reality?

That’s fine, but in Reality, there still either would or would not be a God, and I still wouldn’t know.