|
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667 |
- ---
- 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>
-
|