muralog/_input/posts/2019-06-18-i-know-nothing-i-see-nothing-i-hear-nothing.markdown

---
title: "i know nothing; i see nothing; i hear nothing"
published: 2019-06-18
---

## a brief explanation of a core philosophical belief of mine

> i will be making a sincere effort to keep this as short as i
> possibly can. it will not be a thorough or comprehensive explanation
> worthy of the time i've spent just thinking about it, so don't judge
> it as such. it's a summary thrown together on the spot with little
> to no forethought.

i titled this post using three recurring iconic quotes said by
sergeant schultz in the comedy television series **hogan's heroes**
which takes place in a wwii pow camp and that i highly recommend. but
the first one on there is basically the only logical conclusion i can
come up with when considering what the truth is and what it means to
really *know* something. to say one knows something, the way it is
generally understood, that person must be right. for example, a
flat-earther might say s/he knows the earth is flat. but to those who
do not think the earth is flat, the flat-earther doesn't actually know
that because they are wrong. in other words, the flat-earther *thinks*
they know the earth is flat but is simply wrong about knowing it.
another example to illustrate the implications of "knowing" something
being the truth: you remember putting setting your mobile phone down
in the kitchen and are so sure of it that you "know" it's there. only
it isn't when you go to retrieve it. you revise your thought from
knowing it was there to *thinking that you knew* it was there. it
wasn't knowledge, just an errant belief.

to be able to truly know something (and i'm skipping a few steps
here), you must be able to logically prove it's truth with absolutely
no possibility of error. pure logic assumes nothing. the closest thing
to pure logic that i am aware of is maths. mathematics is based on six
assumptions, for example:

` a + b = b + a`

there is no mathematical proof for that statement. it's the basis for
other proofs. if something cannot be proven, it cannot truly be known,
because assuming something isn't the same as knowing something and
every belief is based on varying degrees of assumptions. i do believe
that it is likely that some things are more probable than others. the
odds i'm hallucinating writing this or that i don't exist except in
the sense that the only truly conscious being in existence (who
presumably is reading this article) can attach a fake persona to the
words and that persona is therefore me—are both low/improbable.

> so… you're suggesting a paradox?

actually, there is nothing paradoxical about what i've said. i don't
know if any of this is true, but i do believe it is. and because i
can't prove any of it without relying on assumption, i am willing to
easily accept that i may very well be wrong. if i thought it was
possible to know that nothing at all can be known, then i'd be
proposing a paradox. instead, what i'm proposing is a belief. i
imagine that when one believes this as well as accepts it, it is
likely they will have a more open mind and hopefully be able to admit
to others and oneself when mistakes are made. also, it's ok to change
your mind about things. you do it all the time. don't think just
because you stated something must be one way at one point you have to
stick to that belief forever.

> i see nothing; i was not here; i did not even get up this morning!
> <p text-align="right">~sgt schultz</p>