Can you admit this: "The only thing I know is nothing"

[Willamena]

Nothing. Words don't have meanings. They just have associations, which are all arbitrary.

Can you see where this is heading? We can't know a single thing

What is meaningless is to take away the meaning of "to know" (or even "to mean") by pretending it REALLY is something other than "abritrary", "shared associations", etc., and arbitrarily relegating it to non-existence.

 

[Willamena]

We understand each other because of shared meanings...

Yes! Meanings exist. So again, what does it mean to have meaning?

Now to complicate it further how do you know that what you wrote is what you intended to write? Do you know the meaning of what you wrote itself?

I know, because I was the one who "intended". It has no other meaning apart from my arbitrary, shared association, habitual use of it.

 

[Surya Deva]

Yes! Meanings exist. So again, what does it mean to have meaning?

Nope, meanings don't actually exist. They are not real entities, they are based on relations and conventions. Hot means nothing without understanding it in relation to cold.

I know, because [I was the one who "intended". It has no other meaning apart from my arbitrary, shared association, habitual use of it.

Not from a psychoanalytic point of view. You are assuming that you are an automonous centre of consciousness who has intentionality. If you are not, then what you wrote isn't what you intended, it was intended by forces outside of you. Thus you are not the knower of the meaning.

 

[Willamena]

Nope, meanings don't actually exist. They are not real entities, they are based on relations and conventions. Hot means nothing without understanding it in relation to cold.

The "hot" that exists in relation to "cold", and indeed to everything else in the universe, is "hot". There is no other "hot".

Not from a psychoanalytic point of view. You are assuming that you are an automonous centre of consciousness who has intentionality. If you are not, then what you wrote isn't what you intended, it was intended by forces outside of you. Thus you are not the knower of the meaning.

Which forces intended to write what was written? Who is the knower of the meaning if not "me"? And there again, you admit that meaning and knowing exist...

Don't mistake the use of English, in which "an automonous (sic) centre of consciousness" is built into the grammar, and in fact utterly necessary for its function, for a personal philosophy. I don't know any other languages. I could go back to putting "I" in quotes, if you like.

 

[Surya Deva]

The 'hot' is just a word we have created and given it a convention of referring to a temperature, but it doesn't really mean anything. Is a block of ice hot, it's certainly hotter than absolute zero

You see none of these words actually mean anything at the end of the day. They are just a set of conventions.

Which forces intended to write what was written? Who is the knower of the meaning if not "me"? And there again, you admit that meaning and knowing exist...

There are two possiblities:

1) An entity other than you intended to write it
2) There is no entity and therefore no intention

The knower of the meaning is either outside of you or does not exist. It is subject to the interpretation of others. A psychoanalytic interepretation would produce a completely different meaning to what you think your sentence means.

But in the end even they cannot know what the real meaning is. Which brings us to the same conclusion as before: We cannot know anything!

 

[Willamena]

The 'hot' is just a word we have created and given it a convention... They are just a set of conventions.

That's what a "word" is, yes, including the words "actual" and "meaning". They exist, they are real, and they are conventions. In all their fixed and arbitrary glory.

There are two possiblities:

1) An entity other than you intended to write it
2) There is no entity and therefore no intention

A third possibility is that "intention" exists in the universe, with or without entities to drive it, and our consciousness (another bit of the universe) in "utilizing" it is simply acknowledging its existence.

But in the end even they cannot know what the real meaning is. Which brings us to the same conclusion as befire: We cannot know anything!

But... that presupposes an imagined "real meaning" that is "out there", that is not the meaning that we "know". The one we know is the one we know exists.

 

[Surya Deva]

That's what a "word" is, yes, including the words "actual" and "meaning". They exist, they are real, and they are conventions. In all their fixed and arbitrary glory.

Nope, meaning is slippery There is no such thing as fixed meaning.

A third possibility is that "intention" exists in the universe, with or without entities to drive it, and our consciousness (another bit of the universe) in "utilizing" it is simply acknowledging its existence.

So we have three possibilities then. There is no knowledge here, there is doubt.

But... that presupposes an imagined "real meaning" that is "out there", that is not the meaning that we "know". The one we know is the one we know exists.

Does it? It shouldn't. Maybe there is no meaning at all.

You see as long as you have doubt about your so-called knowledge, it's not knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

There is no such thing as fixed meaning.

Sure there is, in the shared convention.

So we have three possibilities then. There is no knowledge here, there is doubt.

Is knowledge necessarily free of doubt, or is just the (arbitrary) meaning you've assigned to it? My knowledge isn't free of uncertainty. Why is yours?

Does it? It shouldn't. Maybe there is no meaning at all.

Yes, saying "in the end even they cannot know what the real meaning is" presupposes a real meaning that they cannot know.

You see as long as you have doubt about your so-called knowledge, it's not knowledge.

Why not?

 

[Mister Emu]

If you cannot give an account of something then you don't have knowledge of it. You have a mere belief.

That is absurd. The ability to communicate is not a prerequisite of knowledge...

No the word refers to a feeling.

Yes, that is what I said, the "love" references a feeling, this feeling exists, regardless of the adequacy of words to describe it.

How do you know that this feeling is love? You can't.

There is a feeling, I call it love, it is commonly defined as: 1.a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2.a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
Dictionary.com

I can accept this though it does not convey the totality.

It is a mere social-linguistic construct. You've been told that love feels like x, and when you think x has happened you call it love.

The feeling exist, the word refers to it. When I feel a deep, profound affection, I call it love.

In Western culture love is synonymous with sex and infatuation.

I think you do injustice to the western ideal of love.

The word has no fixed meaning, we give it meanings. Therefore we cannot really know what love is

That is not true, we know what love is, to us. You are acting like there is an objective meaning to the word "love". It is a subjective feeling that we all experience uniquely.

As I said, you are hung up on words, when the words are not the thing. Regardless of whether I call it love or pasta, the underlying feeling exists and that is what I am conveying. Fortunately, in general, there is a common understanding with the word love, so when I am trying to convey the feeling, "love" is, just, adequate for my purposes.

 

[Surya Deva]

Sure there is, in the shared convention.

Not even there, because meaning is subject to interpretation

Is knowledge necessarily free of doubt, or is just the (arbitrary) meaning you've assigned to it? My knowledge isn't free of uncertainty. Why is yours?

That is because you have no knowledge. If you are uncertain about it's just belief. I never said my knowledge is uncertain. At this point I know nothing. I am just humble enough to admit it

I will update you if I know anything.

Yes, saying "in the end even they cannot know what the real meaning is" presupposes a real meaning that they cannot know.

It might have a real meaning. We just don't know.

Why not?

Because otherwise it is belief, theory. It's not knowledge. You should be able to give an account of knowledge.

 

[zenzero]

Friend suraj,

o matter how much philosophy you read, how many Vedas, Qurans and Bibles you read. The truth is in the end you don't know anything.

Thats exactly have been trying to convey through all the posts.
And so, one cannot say *of what use is knowledge if he does not share*
as then he is trying to say, * I knows something.*

Love & rgds

 

[Surya Deva]

That is absurd. The ability to communicate is not a prerequisite of knowledge...

You should be able to account for your knowledge for it to be valid. Otherwise it's just a belief.

Do you know what a car is? You could say a car is a complex made out of the elements bonnet, steering wheels, engine, breaks etc. But that isn't a car, the car is a whole new thing that results from these things coming together in a certain way. So it a whole new thing that is more than the sum of its parts. As soon as you give an account of it is destroyed. Then what is it? If I ask you what a car is, you will describe it exactly in terms of its elements, because you cannot say "a car is a car"

Another example ibwhat is the car? The car is made out of bonnet, steering wheels, engines, breaks, they are in turn they are made out of atoms, which in turn are made out of subatomic particles, which in turn are made of out of quarks and so on. So you can't even make a positive statement about the car existing. It may turn out there is nothing there at all, it was an illusion.

As long as the possibility exists that the car is there and not there, one cannot have knowledge of the car.

Yes, that is what I said, the "love" references a feeling, this feeling exists, regardless of the adequacy of words to describe it.

This feeling could be pain. It is said that love hurts, so is that feeling pain? The criteria for identifying what is love and what is not seems to be entirely subjective and hence a matter of belief only. One who self mutilates might call the release or pleasure/pain they get out from it to be love.

One might label the release of endorphins into the body as love. Does that mean everytime they are released one is feeling love? How does one measure if it is love one is experiencing. Again it is unknowable.

There is a feeling, I call it love, it is commonly defined as: 1.a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. 2.a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
Dictionary.com

I can accept this though it does not convey the totality.

Now I need to look at the meaning of all those words. Then the meaning of the meaning of the words that define those words and so on. There is still no knowledge just a pursuit of emptiness.

The feeling exist, the word refers to it. When I feel a deep, profound affection, I call it love.

Again, without being able to measure feeling, one cannot say what measure of feeling constitutes love. You said profound, how profound? What defines profound?

I think you do injustice to the western ideal of love.

Although it commonly used in that context. The definition of love is different for everybody, because it is subjective. As it is subjective you cannot even be sure yourself of what it means. How do you know that what you have called love is not really just varying degrees of pain?

That is not true, we know what love is, to us. You are acting like there is an objective meaning to the word "love". It is a subjective feeling that we all experience uniquely.

No we don't. If we did, I wouldn't be debating the proposition with you. There are plenty of people who don't believe love exists. It's another made up fiction.

As I said, you are hung up on words, when the words are not the thing. Regardless of whether I call it love or pasta, the underlying feeling exists and that is what I am conveying. Fortunately, in general, there is a common understanding with the word love, so when I am trying to convey the feeling, "love" is, just, adequate for my purposes.

There can be no common definition of what a subjective feeling is, because it cannot be measured. How can I know that my 'love' is the same as your 'love'?

Here is an interesting idea from Krisna: The physical world is a plane of suffeing. There is no love here, just pain. What do you think of that idea?

 

[Willamena]

That is because you have no knowledge. ...
Because otherwise it is belief, theory. It's not knowledge. You should be able to give an account of knowledge.

How should you be able to give an account of knowledge if you have no knowledge?

 

[Willamena]

Not even there, because meaning is subject to interpretation

So?

It might have a real meaning. We just don't know.

Right. Any "real meaning" (apart from the meaning that is meaning) is imagined.

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm sorry Suraj, I had a point by point rebuttal get eaten up by an accidental button press I'll work on another tomorrow, until then, I will leave you with the following...

The words themselves do not matter as long as you convey your point to your audience. The words are not the knowledge. They are just symbols we use to convey it.

 

[.lava]

No matter how much philosophy you read, how many Vedas, Qurans and Bibles you read. The truth is in the end you don't know anything.

Can you admit this about your religion? Can you actually admit you don't know anything about the other world? Are you a seeker?

if you read to know, you're not a seeker, you're a reader.

other world is here, in this world each began to build it.

knowing nothing? it is obvious nobody knows everything. but just because a person did not like the reality he found in holy books, he says he knows nothing. that's a escape but nowhere to go. you know you were born but you don't remember, do you? people seek for their pleasure, so they keep seeking because real pleasure is not in this world. people who seek the truth, they find it and realize they are ignorant. i know i am. but that would be a lie if i said i know nothing. i don't know everything so i keep learning.

in Islam, there is a level where you witness hell and heaven before you die. those who reached that level are the people who's most loving, caring and praying for others. because they know how hell is like and they don't wnat anyone to enter there for eternity.

so, don't seek too long because you'll die. don't die seeking instead wish to reach your creator before you die. because when you die, you would reach it even though you did not want to or expect to.


.

 

[Surya Deva]

How should you be able to give an account of knowledge if you have no knowledge?

Exactly.

So?

Well as meaning is based on ones intepretation, there is no such thing as an objective meaning. It is all based on belief.

Right. Any "real meaning" (apart from the meaning that is meaning) is imagined.

There might be objective meanings, universal truths. At the same time there might not be objective meanings, universals truths. There might be a reality, there might not be a reality.

Are you familiar with Kants antimonies:

1. The universe is infinite/ the universe is finite
2. The universe is atomic/the universe is non-atomic
3. The universe is eternal/the universe is non-eternal
4. There is free will/there is determinism

The fact of the matter WE SIMPLY CANNOT KNOW! At our vantage on reality each possibility is just as valid, which lends to doubt. As long there is doubt there is no knowledge.

Therefore the Guru is right, "We know nothing!" All we have is beliefs, and theories(a set of beliefs)

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
Knowledge is related with mind/ego which gives birth to individuals.
One has to be only a part of the whole for which no knowledge is of any use; only surrendering the ego/mind/knowledge and so those whio are enlightened always say that i
*If he knows anything, it is that, he knows NOTHING*
Each moment, each sight, each sound, each word in this universe is pointing towards that; but are we conscious? are we awake?
Love & rgds

 

[Willamena]

Exactly.

You're speaking nonsense, now.

Well as meaning is based on ones intepretation, there is no such thing as an objective meaning. It is all based on belief.

So what you're saying is that it has a meaning based on one's interpretation, but yet you claim that meaning doesn't exist. Nonsense.

"Objective" is an interpretation. It, too, has meaning.

 

[challupa]

Back before language was used to communicate the Neaderthal were born with knowledge. Let me explain. The medicine woman of a tribe was born to a lineage of medicine women. The knowledge of what plants etc that were used in healing were passed down through instinct or a knowing. I would guess that this would be the most "pure" kind of knowing there would be. When Cro Magdon man came along they did not have these instincts and had to learn everything from scratch and through the communication using words. Words are only symbols society has agreed upon to mean certain things. In and of themselves they are meaningless. There is a huge difference between "knowing" and "belief" of something. It is also a very individual experience. While we all do have a similar idea of what each word means in society, there is not two people who have an exact idea of what each word means. Each of us translates each word uniquely and that is why depending on verbal communication can cause so much misunderstanding. Body language is far more reliable for example. While a shared meaning is necessary for us to understand the world we live in, it is very subjective and by no means conclusive.