I "know" nothing. And neither do you.

Dbl post.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Trudge


Not particularly. How you choose to take the word is up to you of course.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Our senses can be tricked. And we can trick ourselves and if we let them others can trick us.

Our senses can only be tricked by others when we are ignorant of the fact that others are continuously trying to trick us. So knowledge of this fact is imperative to self preservation.

Thousands of years ago it was written, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”


[edit on 20-8-2010 by soleprobe]

reply to post by soleprobe


To quote little old me.

And today's commonly accepted "truths" or "knowledge" often become tomorrow's quant beliefs.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Would you agree that knowledge can protect a person from harm?

reply to post by soleprobe


Even ignorance can protect someone from harm at times.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


yes.. and also knowledge can cause people harm at times. But it is useful, it exist and we have used it to protect and save lives.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


well im sure you and yours will keep touting "you know nothing" as long as it supports fantasys....

the use of deductive logic in the correct hands is a trustworthy thing.... i guess you would need to know the correct hands... and for that time is the only evidence.

Why would you want to even believe you can know if every advancement removes the ignorant beliefs in freewill and an afterlife?

Originally posted by Wertdagf
… every advancement removes the ignorant beliefs in freewill and an afterlife?

Well with regards to the afterlife I’ve seen no evidence to suggest any advancements in this area but what do you mean every advancement removes ignorant beliefs in “freewill”?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


This is a logical contradiction. You can never know that you know nothing because, if you do, then you DO know something, namely, that you know nothing, and this contradicts itself. Therefore, as a philosophical premise, it is logically inconsistent. Therefore, it cannot be true, despite it coming from the lips of Socrates.

reply to post by micpsi

The impreciseness of the English translation stems from the fact that the author is not saying that he does not know anything but means instead that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty but can feel confident about certain things; it could perhaps better be rendered "I know, through not knowing".

SOURCE

reply to post by Wertdagf


Not actually. People are people are people. That's without mentioning as to who is trustworthy is a subjective opinion or my distaste for allowing anyone to do my thinking for me.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by m0r1arty


Might want to read the material you are replying to.

reply to post by soleprobe


To a point you are correct. Technology or applied sciences is a very good and useful thing. But once you get past that and start getting into some of the whys and hows is where you are striking upon pure speculation that while sounding good may or may not be true with no real way to tell.

reply to post by m0r1arty


Tis not their ego that is bruised methinks. But projection being what it is, well, you know.