67 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
67 lines
3.4 KiB
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 its 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!
|
|
> <div class="bright">~sgt schultz</div>
|