Knowing that yeu know nothing

[Phantonym]

It's true that the thought people attempt that scares the shit out of me. People living in such a distrustful way are capable of anything. I bet most extremists do this too, in order to justify their behaviour.

I tend to think that it's not distrust but, in fact, trust. Trust in knowledge that will set you free. It's not anything negative or pessimistic that causes you anxiety, but instead, it can give you peace. If you acknowledge that you know nothing, you can free yourself from the restrictions.

Think about it this way. You "know" something and you hold on to that knowledge and when something comes along that crushes everything you've known before, isn't is horrible? You'd have to pick up the pieces and start from the absolute beginning. And that can be difficult. Causing you, indeed, to distrust everything that comes your way. Harbouring constant negativity.

But if you accept that you know nothing, that everything is in some fluid state, all the new information that you accumulate easily adds to the old and changes your perspective, and does so in a calm, peaceful manner. Personally, I see freedom in that.

 

[nolla]

I tend to think that it's not distrust but, in fact, trust.

Think about the world before great inventions. That which has made it a place of no certainty has been the search for knowledge. Now we have the capacity to destroy it. If people would have trusted in not knowing we wouldn't have all these problems. The only way of not letting it get worse might be to let it be. It is interesting that Lao Tzu seems to have seen the same "progress" in his time.

In a little state with a small population, I would so order it,
that, though there were individuals with the abilities of ten or a
hundred men, there should be no employment of them; I would make the
people, while looking on death as a grievous thing, yet not remove
elsewhere (to avoid it).

Though they had boats and carriages, they should have no occasion
to ride in them; though they had buff coats and sharp weapons, they
should have no occasion to don or use them.

I would make the people return to the use of knotted cords (instead
of the written characters).

They should think their (coarse) food sweet; their (plain) clothes
beautiful; their (poor) dwellings places of rest; and their common
(simple) ways sources of enjoyment.

There should be a neighbouring state within sight, and the voices
of the fowls and dogs should be heard all the way from it to us, but I
would make the people to old age, even to death, not have any
intercourse with it.

 

[Ginkgo]

This knowledge begets ignorance. The ignorant are placid like Buddha may have been. We have these perceptions to discern the truths within it. We navigate reality with these perceptions like the bat navigates the world with echolocation, like a butterfly navigates with ultraviolet vision, like the ant follows the trail with a pheromone trail. This is how we survive. We exist through these perceptions, and without them we would cease to exist. So we might say that we know because we submit to the unknown. Fling yourself into the void of faith.

I guarantee you that brooding over this knowledge will not enable your ascension to godhood. No. It will kill you. It will prevent you from taking a leap in faith, even when the variables of ignition have been checked and doubly checked and thrice checked. You will sit in submersed contemplation until you drown in ascetic delusion.

EDIT: Don't use this knowledge to spit information out in rejection. Use it to remove the barb-wire around your mind. To acquire all information and mold it into yourself. Inevitably, you will have a contradiction. What to do? What to do? Does cognitive dissonance form?

 

[DMCubic]

I noticed no NT's responded to this thread yet.

The title is all whack, the premise is illogical and I can't see how someone can possibly benefit from such a pessimistic state of mind.

That there's much more to learn than what we already know is a fact. And that in terms of the universe there's a long way to go for us. And due to our limited senses, unattainable to some degree.

Ultimately, striving for more knowledge will always be worth more to me than wiping the slate clean.

So, to end with an inspirational sentence that goes against the topic title. Build on the foundations of others, don't try to invent the world yourself a new.

The title *is* in fact whacked out in a sense. I would say that our practical knowledge of the world is certainly valid in the inferential sense. Anyone who enjoys air conditioning, automobiles, modern medicine, and supermarkets has empirical science to thank. But the premise is not totally illogical. When the Buddhists and others say that you should unlearn everything, they don't mean you should un-learn all the math and science and history you took in school.

What you do need to realize, though, is that none of it has *ultimate* validity because *all* propositional knowledge includes, either explicitly or implicitly, a reliance on unprovable first principles. For example, most scientists (and people in general) believe in matter that exists independent of any cognizing mind. This is entirely unprovable (just look at the flimsiness of G.E. Moore's "proof" of the existence of an external world, the best one we have yet in Western philosophy) and is an article of faith as much as believing in God (and George Berkeley notably thought that the latter was easier to believe in than the former). All the amazing progress science has made notwithstanding, many people are prone to the IMO arrogant assumption that these is ultimate truth in those findings. There is not. All scientific, mathematical, logical, and philosophical knowledge (hell, even our common sense) relies on unprovable axioms that employ undefinable terms. We make them up ad-hoc basically to ensure that we have grounding in our daily life and in our research. Evolution has shaped us to see things in certain ways and take certain first principles more readily than others, but then again Evolution also saw fit to bless us with appendixes, which are worse than useless since the only interesting thing they can ever do is rupture and kill you. So do understand that if you claim to "know" anything expressible in language (yes, even "I am"), you are necessarily going to have unprovable presuppositions you rest your knowledge on. These can be more (belief in a vengeful paternalistic sky-god) or less (belief that any two lines on a plane must either intersect or be parallel) toxic. And the only way to de-toxify them is to see that they are baseless assertions that we use because they are convenient and we want to create a body of theory on that basis (including naive realism, which most people don't call a theory at all - but it is).

The thing is, knowing this about our axioms doesn't mean our knowledge goes away. We just see it creatively. The non-Euclidean geometry that Riemann invented, making possible Einstein's work in relativity, came about because he questioned the axioms and undefined terms of Euclidean geometry. He realized that you could still get a meaningful and highly useful geometric theory by tweaking the old Euclidean axioms a little bit, a move many mathematicians saw as rather insane. Truly creative, truly powerful thought is barred to those who treat their axioms and undefined terms as sacred cows, or who haven't yet come to the understanding that unprovable first principles are at the root of everything they call knowledge. So by casting all into doubt, you don't wipe the slate clean. You erase all the useless scribbles, compactify and miniaturize what was on there already, and free up tons of new, empty space upon which you can write new things. In doing this we do, in fact, build on the foundations of others, the way Riemann built on Euclid. We just get better at pruning away the bullshit that comes from seeing axioms as rigidly defined truths delivered unto us from on high.


P.S. If you really want to bake your noodle, consider the fact that "I exist" is an unprovable first principle just like any other. What exactly do you mean by those two words? If you can't exactly say what they mean, then the statement is just a baseless assertion that you take as a first principle.

 

[wildcat]

This's regarded by some religions, and several ideologies, as the stepping stone to all else. After giving it a little thought, I think I've actually already been doing so without realizing it consciously.

The basic idea, is that yeu know nothing; to understand or learn anything, yeu must first accept this, and understand that yeu truly do not know anything. One cannot correct a problem until the problem has been admitted to and identified.

Now that being said, we have a starting point to work with, similar to the "I think, therefore I am" starting point. Except... we can't really PROVE we think. We may believe such, but such can also be mere illusion and assumption. I've never truly had my thought process actively work, so much as it just magically comes up with related information and makes conclusions based on the information, but there's no real 'thinking' involved, it just happens. It's quite strange when yeu stop to try to think about the actual process...

Now that being said, we're stuck with knowing nothing. We can't even prove we exist, nor that we think. Great. So we have nothing at all.

And therein we can use that to determine that if we don't know anything, then we have no basis to assume that we know whot isn't either; we don't know that magic doesn't exist, that god is real, or that we aren't all linked to some hive mind a la the matrix. We have no clue whot is real, which means anything is possible.

Therefore, we can only rule based on whot seems most plausible, under the assumption that the information presented to us is accurate.

Our senses can be deceived, our minds can hallucinate or play tricks on us, our memories are largely just key points that get 'filled in' with guesstimates as needed.

Due to this, we really can only state whot we believe to be true, given this rather shaky foundation to work with.

Furthermore, this acceptance of our ignorance of reality as a whole, would put us on much better grounds to deal with people. We wouldn't really have racism because we would be able to accept that we flat out don't know anything about that person; all we have are assumptions. We wouldn't need ideological wars, as we would be able to accept others' viewpoints as merely a seperate interpretation, possibly due to having different information.

And most importantly, we'd be able to get over the concept of "knowing the truth".

Too many times we believe we "KNOW" whot god wants. Whot the heavans demand, that there is no afterlife, that we have a purpose and a destiny, and that everyone who disagrees is wrong.

Once we learn that we really flat out don't "KNOW" anything, maybe we can stop dealing in absolutes that only cause harm, and accept that there may be things out there beyond our understanding, and beyond our knowledge base.

Or maybe it's just late at night, I'm bored, and felt like ranting. Whichever.

If you know that you do not know you do not know that you know.
If you do not know that you do not know you are a fool.

 

[nolla]

Wow, Cubic... That sums it up pretty damn good...

 

[Phantonym]

If you know that you do not know you do not know that you know.
If you do not know that you do not know you are a fool.

Hehe. Exactly.

 

[Mole]

The title *is* in fact whacked out in a sense. I would say that our practical knowledge of the world is certainly valid in the inferential sense. Anyone who enjoys air conditioning, automobiles, modern medicine, and supermarkets has empirical science to thank. But the premise is not totally illogical. When the Buddhists and others say that you should unlearn everything, they don't mean you should un-learn all the math and science and history you took in school.

What you do need to realize, though, is that none of it has *ultimate* validity because *all* propositional knowledge includes, either explicitly or implicitly, a reliance on unprovable first principles. For example, most scientists (and people in general) believe in matter that exists independent of any cognizing mind. This is entirely unprovable (just look at the flimsiness of G.E. Moore's "proof" of the existence of an external world, the best one we have yet in Western philosophy) and is an article of faith as much as believing in God (and George Berkeley notably thought that the latter was easier to believe in than the former). All the amazing progress science has made notwithstanding, many people are prone to the IMO arrogant assumption that these is ultimate truth in those findings. There is not. All scientific, mathematical, logical, and philosophical knowledge (hell, even our common sense) relies on unprovable axioms that employ undefinable terms. We make them up ad-hoc basically to ensure that we have grounding in our daily life and in our research. Evolution has shaped us to see things in certain ways and take certain first principles more readily than others, but then again Evolution also saw fit to bless us with appendixes, which are worse than useless since the only interesting thing they can ever do is rupture and kill you. So do understand that if you claim to "know" anything expressible in language (yes, even "I am"), you are necessarily going to have unprovable presuppositions you rest your knowledge on. These can be more (belief in a vengeful paternalistic sky-god) or less (belief that any two lines on a plane must either intersect or be parallel) toxic. And the only way to de-toxify them is to see that they are baseless assertions that we use because they are convenient and we want to create a body of theory on that basis (including naive realism, which most people don't call a theory at all - but it is).

The thing is, knowing this about our axioms doesn't mean our knowledge goes away. We just see it creatively. The non-Euclidean geometry that Riemann invented, making possible Einstein's work in relativity, came about because he questioned the axioms and undefined terms of Euclidean geometry. He realized that you could still get a meaningful and highly useful geometric theory by tweaking the old Euclidean axioms a little bit, a move many mathematicians saw as rather insane. Truly creative, truly powerful thought is barred to those who treat their axioms and undefined terms as sacred cows, or who haven't yet come to the understanding that unprovable first principles are at the root of everything they call knowledge. So by casting all into doubt, you don't wipe the slate clean. You erase all the useless scribbles, compactify and miniaturize what was on there already, and free up tons of new, empty space upon which you can write new things. In doing this we do, in fact, build on the foundations of others, the way Riemann built on Euclid. We just get better at pruning away the bullshit that comes from seeing axioms as rigidly defined truths delivered unto us from on high.


P.S. If you really want to bake your noodle, consider the fact that "I exist" is an unprovable first principle just like any other. What exactly do you mean by those two words? If you can't exactly say what they mean, then the statement is just a baseless assertion that you take as a first principle.

This is surprisingly true. I can remember when I was first introduced to mathematics and I could plainly see it had no basis.

This bothered me until I read, "The Laws of Form", by the mathematician George Spencer-Brown which told me that all mathematics was based on an injunction, "Make a distinction!".

Mathematics is based on an injunction? Mathematics is based on an order?

How fascinating.

So rather than mathematics being based on unprovable axioms, it is based on a simple order, "Make a distinction!".

 

[Fluffywolf]

You don't define and you don't do anything with it. That is how it is supposed to be. Unconditional. If you can live with someone keeping this attitude, then you got it. You don't demand anything as you know you can't control the other in any case. They give what they want to give and you are happy, since all this is bonus to you if you weren't expecting anything (defining it beforehand).

I figured that I don't define it because I don't have it and have no desire for it, so I do not seek it either.

But that might work as well.

The dangerous aspect of it is potentially making the same mistakes over and over again, if you practice using perspective from knowing nothing and treat every situation a new. Experience (both mine and that of others) is more valuable to me, so I'll stick with that in the general sense. Instead of treating every situation from a blank perspective.

So no matter which way you look it. Progression is made through building up. Not breaking it down. Keep your knowledge and use it accordingly. That is wisdom.

Trying to look at things with newborn eyes has no wisdom in it.

 

[Fluffywolf]

The title *is* in fact whacked out in a sense. I would say that our practical knowledge of the world is certainly valid in the inferential sense. Anyone who enjoys air conditioning, automobiles, modern medicine, and supermarkets has empirical science to thank. But the premise is not totally illogical. When the Buddhists and others say that you should unlearn everything, they don't mean you should un-learn all the math and science and history you took in school.

What you do need to realize, though, is that none of it has *ultimate* validity because *all* propositional knowledge includes, either explicitly or implicitly, a reliance on unprovable first principles. For example, most scientists (and people in general) believe in matter that exists independent of any cognizing mind. This is entirely unprovable (just look at the flimsiness of G.E. Moore's "proof" of the existence of an external world, the best one we have yet in Western philosophy) and is an article of faith as much as believing in God (and George Berkeley notably thought that the latter was easier to believe in than the former). All the amazing progress science has made notwithstanding, many people are prone to the IMO arrogant assumption that these is ultimate truth in those findings. There is not. All scientific, mathematical, logical, and philosophical knowledge (hell, even our common sense) relies on unprovable axioms that employ undefinable terms. We make them up ad-hoc basically to ensure that we have grounding in our daily life and in our research. Evolution has shaped us to see things in certain ways and take certain first principles more readily than others, but then again Evolution also saw fit to bless us with appendixes, which are worse than useless since the only interesting thing they can ever do is rupture and kill you. So do understand that if you claim to "know" anything expressible in language (yes, even "I am"), you are necessarily going to have unprovable presuppositions you rest your knowledge on. These can be more (belief in a vengeful paternalistic sky-god) or less (belief that any two lines on a plane must either intersect or be parallel) toxic. And the only way to de-toxify them is to see that they are baseless assertions that we use because they are convenient and we want to create a body of theory on that basis (including naive realism, which most people don't call a theory at all - but it is).

The thing is, knowing this about our axioms doesn't mean our knowledge goes away. We just see it creatively. The non-Euclidean geometry that Riemann invented, making possible Einstein's work in relativity, came about because he questioned the axioms and undefined terms of Euclidean geometry. He realized that you could still get a meaningful and highly useful geometric theory by tweaking the old Euclidean axioms a little bit, a move many mathematicians saw as rather insane. Truly creative, truly powerful thought is barred to those who treat their axioms and undefined terms as sacred cows, or who haven't yet come to the understanding that unprovable first principles are at the root of everything they call knowledge. So by casting all into doubt, you don't wipe the slate clean. You erase all the useless scribbles, compactify and miniaturize what was on there already, and free up tons of new, empty space upon which you can write new things. In doing this we do, in fact, build on the foundations of others, the way Riemann built on Euclid. We just get better at pruning away the bullshit that comes from seeing axioms as rigidly defined truths delivered unto us from on high.


P.S. If you really want to bake your noodle, consider the fact that "I exist" is an unprovable first principle just like any other. What exactly do you mean by those two words? If you can't exactly say what they mean, then the statement is just a baseless assertion that you take as a first principle.

My problem with the method is that it is radical and useless. Like most arguements you use, most of them are subjective and perspective. Both of these key aspects of our society. Set aside the 'existance principle' for a moment, and I ask you to recognize that these aspects are real because we deem them to be. We created them, in order to guide the continuation of our species along a certain path. They are important factors that we deem neccesary to live in a state of potential harmony. But both have to be based on experience, knowledge and wisdom in order to make things work. The fact we don't live in harmony is only because we lack in our ability to right our wrongs, and come from different upbringings. But even in different upbringings, the fundamental aspects of life and the path we take, are similar to every human being. Potentially compatible.

So to me it is important to keep what you know and expand on what you know, fervently. To be capable of learning from mistakes made by both you as well as others, and keep pushing the treshold of our existance further and further. And if everyone would do the same the world would no doubt be a better place. Just saying.

"Knowing that you know nothing" despite being a paradox, is attempting to go backwards on that line. How, in practicality, can that ever be considered a good thing? What positive results does it have? I can't think of any.

 

[matmos]

There is a lovely medieval book that addresses this.

It's called, "The Cloud of Unknowing", by Anonymous.

And the name of the author seems somehow appropriate.

I can remember dallying in the sunshine outside the Chifley Library with, "The Cloud of Unknowing", in my hand.

It was as though the author, anonymous as they are, were speaking directly to me. And it seemed as though the Weeping Willows, the Silver Birches and the flowers all had something to say.

But as there are so many anonymous members here, I am sure Anonymous is one of them.

We only have to listen.

Read the poem by Parmenides. The youth stands at the gates of Night & Day and is a fellow in the know. The gates are presented in the light, not as one might assume, in the Underworld.

He is told there is much to learn through listening and study (the words in the old Greek for both types of learning are different); but much he will never know. The goddess makes an important point: that knowledge is not being withheld from him.

The worlds of Night and Day are contraries, but this does not imply separation. Otherwise there would be no twilight.

It is vital to make distinctions - but foolish to assume separation.

So the youth exists between mortal and god. But there is no implied division.

 

[nolla]

The dangerous aspect of it is potentially making the same mistakes over and over again, if you practice using perspective from knowing nothing and treat every situation a new. Experience (both mine and that of others) is more valuable to me, so I'll stick with that in the general sense. Instead of treating every situation from a blank perspective.

This is not what I mean. Sure, experience teaches us, there is no point repeating mistakes. But keeping as open mind as possible is the only way to clear perception. This means that we must not take the knowledge we have too seriously. It is also knowledge to know this. This is why a child can't see in this way, even though there are similarities. It is not getting rid of knowledge itself but the attitude we have towards knowledge.

"Knowing that you know nothing" despite being a paradox, is attempting to go backwards on that line. How, in practicality, can that ever be considered a good thing? What positive results does it have? I can't think of any.

Human animal has the same capability as all animals to create balance with it's environment, but this balance was broken when we became conscious. So, the technique to counter this is to learn to become spontaneous again. But not in the same way than animals, there is no going back. If you try to let yourself float, your life will automatically find it's way, and it will do it because you are "programmed" to do so as a human being.

Every invention and attempt to make life easier seems to cumulate into destroying the environment. It seems silly to try to solve something with the same means that produced the problem in the first place.

 

[Fluffywolf]

This is not what I mean. Sure, experience teaches us, there is no point repeating mistakes. But keeping as open mind as possible is the only way to clear perception. This means that we must not take the knowledge we have too seriously. It is also knowledge to know this. This is why a child can't see in this way, even though there are similarities. It is not getting rid of knowledge itself but the attitude we have towards knowledge.



Human animal has the same capability as all animals to create balance with it's environment, but this balance was broken when we became conscious. So, the technique to counter this is to learn to become spontaneous again. But not in the same way than animals, there is no going back. If you try to let yourself float, your life will automatically find it's way, and it will do it because you are "programmed" to do so as a human being.

Every invention and attempt to make life easier seems to cumulate into destroying the environment. It seems silly to try to solve something with the same means that produced the problem in the first place.

The balance wasn't broken. Evolution just drove us into a higher level, where more things matter than just survival.

 

[lowtech redneck]

"Knowing that you know nothing" is simply a means of expressing the need to inquire after ever-increasing knowledge in a humble fashion, assuming everything that you reasonably think you know can be false due to inherent human limitations of thought and perceptions, and that theoretical systems one reasonably disagrees with can always teach you something. Its an intellectual humility that enables you to, for practical purposes, "know" more than you otherwise would, not an excuse to refrain from taking an educated stand on important issues.

In short, its tempering knowledge with wisdom.

I don't get why people are linking this to the rejection of the concept of "self," though....I am in no way advocating that, and I don't remember that Socrates ever did, either.

 

[disregard]

This's regarded by some religions, and several ideologies, as the stepping stone to all else. After giving it a little thought, I think I've actually already been doing so without realizing it consciously.

The basic idea, is that yeu know nothing; to understand or learn anything, yeu must first accept this, and understand that yeu truly do not know anything. One cannot correct a problem until the problem has been admitted to and identified.

Now that being said, we have a starting point to work with, similar to the "I think, therefore I am" starting point. Except... we can't really PROVE we think. We may believe such, but such can also be mere illusion and assumption. I've never truly had my thought process actively work, so much as it just magically comes up with related information and makes conclusions based on the information, but there's no real 'thinking' involved, it just happens. It's quite strange when yeu stop to try to think about the actual process...

Now that being said, we're stuck with knowing nothing. We can't even prove we exist, nor that we think. Great. So we have nothing at all.

And therein we can use that to determine that if we don't know anything, then we have no basis to assume that we know whot isn't either; we don't know that magic doesn't exist, that god is real, or that we aren't all linked to some hive mind a la the matrix. We have no clue whot is real, which means anything is possible.

Therefore, we can only rule based on whot seems most plausible, under the assumption that the information presented to us is accurate.

Our senses can be deceived, our minds can hallucinate or play tricks on us, our memories are largely just key points that get 'filled in' with guesstimates as needed.

Due to this, we really can only state whot we believe to be true, given this rather shaky foundation to work with.

Furthermore, this acceptance of our ignorance of reality as a whole, would put us on much better grounds to deal with people. We wouldn't really have racism because we would be able to accept that we flat out don't know anything about that person; all we have are assumptions. We wouldn't need ideological wars, as we would be able to accept others' viewpoints as merely a seperate interpretation, possibly due to having different information.

And most importantly, we'd be able to get over the concept of "knowing the truth".

Too many times we believe we "KNOW" whot god wants. Whot the heavans demand, that there is no afterlife, that we have a purpose and a destiny, and that everyone who disagrees is wrong.

Once we learn that we really flat out don't "KNOW" anything, maybe we can stop dealing in absolutes that only cause harm, and accept that there may be things out there beyond our understanding, and beyond our knowledge base.

Or maybe it's just late at night, I'm bored, and felt like ranting. Whichever.

Utter hogwash. An insult to science and logic.

 

[thisGuy]

i think its deeper than arguing semantics...although if you argued long enough, you would end up with the same conclusion (whatever that is)

accept that you don't know anything and let the world be your teacher. do not try to supplement whatever you learn from the world with whatever you think you know (hence the premise that you know nothing).

clean your slate blank and start afresh

 

[nolla]

The balance wasn't broken. Evolution just drove us into a higher level, where more things matter than just survival.

You think the world isn't unbalanced because of us? Ok, that is more close to true denial of knowledge than anything posted on this thread. Well, ok, I guess we can say that world cannot be unbalanced, ever, even when it turns hostile to life, because life and the condition of earth will even then be balanced, yep...

But this is besides the point. I have been trying to explain you an attitude towards life, and you have been evading seeing this. So, there is no going anywhere from here, is there?

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

This is a typical example of a Strange Loop. I know nothing>I know I know nothing>I know I know I know nothing. Eventually you must realize that you must know something.

I understand why mystics and shamans of diverse skins tend to emphasize this(as well as a bucketful of scientists, philosophers and other paralyzing tentacles) and it's worth meditating on, especially if you enjoy brain exercises or would like some insight in to how relativity and quantum mechanics play a role in everyday life.


These are a couple of good books dealing with this subject. The first one is recommended reading(or any other book by Hofstadter, for that matter). The second one is a work of fiction: the main strange loop involves several characters suspecting that they are characters in a work of fiction by an author who is also a character who suspects he is a character in yet another novel which, consequently, is a work of fiction by a third author who is probably a character in another novel, and so and and so forth.

Amazon.com: Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (9780465026562): Douglas R. Hofstadter: Books

Amazon.com: Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy (9780440500704): Robert Anton Wilson: Books

Did anyone else begin to see "know" as an odd word after reading the original post? It seemed as if it were spelled wrong and then I starting associating it with wonkavision.

 

[Laurie]

I know that I will never know "everything" about anything. But not that I know "nothing" about anything.

 

[DMCubic]

My problem with the method is that it is radical and useless. Like most arguements you use, most of them are subjective and perspective. Both of these key aspects of our society. Set aside the 'existance principle' for a moment, and I ask you to recognize that these aspects are real because we deem them to be. We created them, in order to guide the continuation of our species along a certain path. They are important factors that we deem neccesary to live in a state of potential harmony. But both have to be based on experience, knowledge and wisdom in order to make things work. The fact we don't live in harmony is only because we lack in our ability to right our wrongs, and come from different upbringings. But even in different upbringings, the fundamental aspects of life and the path we take, are similar to every human being. Potentially compatible.

So to me it is important to keep what you know and expand on what you know, fervently. To be capable of learning from mistakes made by both you as well as others, and keep pushing the treshold of our existance further and further. And if everyone would do the same the world would no doubt be a better place. Just saying.

"Knowing that you know nothing" despite being a paradox, is attempting to go backwards on that line. How, in practicality, can that ever be considered a good thing? What positive results does it have? I can't think of any.

You say this method is radical and useless. I completely disagree. Two cases in point: natural science and psychotherapy. Science: it's not the 90% of scientists that stick to the old theoretical structures that advance our knowledge, it's the 10% that question and rock the boat, that think outside the box, to use the old cliche. It's that obnoxious ten percent that lead to things like the heliocentric model of the solar system, plate tectonics theory, and relativity theory. The 90% remainder are the ones that know that their current assumptions are correct. After all, they've built their careers on them. So of course the sun revolves around the Earth. Of course there is no such thing as continental drift. Of course space isn't curved. To be fair, without that 90% of conservatives there we wouldn't really get anything done because we'd have a proliferation of good ideas with no devoted subculture following them up, but that's the only bone I'm inclined to throw them. Without uncertainty and doubt we simply would not enjoy the paradigm shifts that cause the languorous beast of science to lurch forward over time. So when you say you are in favor of expanding on what you know, you need to remember that in principle and in countless historical examples, that advancement has come at the price of our sacred cows, and has rendered irrelevant volumes of results we once took to be true. But you are right - we don't forget what we know entirely every time this happens. We just forget what was based on the flawed assumptions.

As for psychotherapy, consider the fact that most people have it in their heads as a deeply-rooted assumption that they are worthless, unworthy, unlovable, et cetara. Look at yourself and see if this is not the case for you (and if it isn't, I'm thrilled). How can one get rid of it? The same way you do in natural science. You take a look at objective facts, and you see if they make more sense in light of new core assumptions. So when I feel bad because I got shot down by that pretty girl I chatted up in the bookstore, I don't have to assume it is because I'm worthless or no good, the same way I don't have to assume that when fire burns it's because of phlogiston. Maybe I just splashed saliva on her face and grossed her out without realizing it. The point is, when we have an underlying assumption, we tend to look for evidence that supports it. But the evidence is sometimes tenuous at best, and we find ourselves having to use some thick emotional logic (read: attachment to the assumption) to justify keeping it around.

As for the statement "I know that I know nothing" being paradoxical, it really isn't if you take it to mean that you understand that all of our thought requires some degree of self-referentiality (check out strange loops a la Douglas Hofstadter, which have been mentioned once already in this thread) and presupposition, including but not limited to implicit ontological assumptions about the nature of the referents of words. So I am adamant in saying that there is no such thing as knowledge in the sense that we can have infallible, unshakable, foundational truths of any sort whatsoever. But hey, life goes on, right? We have a lot of really good heuristics to work with that tell us a whole lot about the general kind of pattern that life follows, and a lot of coherent, consistent mathematical and logical knowledge that only produces pathological results every once in a while.

Knowing that you know nothing has pragmatic utility because it keeps you from letting culture foist the biases it calls truth upon you, which increases happiness. It keeps you from harboring distorted negative views about yourself, which greatly increases happiness. It keeps you from giving your unquestioning assent to the axioms and defining terms of prevailing scientific theory, which makes you a better researcher. Knowing that you know nothing does not keep you from developing results in science and math. It does not keep you from employing those results. It does not keep you from having meaningful relationships with other people. It just keeps you honest.