Twokinds ARCHIVE Forums

Um...Hi! I'm Con Fett, and I am, as I have mentioned, a Cynic Agnostic philosopher. I follow the teachings of Socrates and Siddhartha Guatama, the first "Buddha", or enlightened one, of Buddhism. In being Cynic Agnostic, I am not sure about anything, and question everything.
This includes how much we truly know. Socrates questioned this as well.
Allow me to tell you a story.

Socrates was a Greek philosopher who lived in Athens around 700 BC. This is 2708 years before our own time. Near Athens, there was a hill. And upon that hill lay a temple, know as the Temple of Delphi. There, an oracle would tell people of their very future. "Know thyself." was inscribed above the entrance of the temple. Indeed, people came to know themselves. But one came to know others. "Who is the wisest in all of Athens?" asked the man. "Socrates is the wisest," replied the oracle. Upon hearing this, Socrates thought it surely was not so. He went around to all the wise people of Athens, asking them of how much they know. Socrates soon realized that he was truly the wisest. All he knew is that he knows nothing.

WHY? I thought about it. I have concluded 3 main reasons, that I will explain to the best of my ability. The final push to understanding must be made by you.

1) In what we call "logic", from where we derive all that we know, we simply attempt to recognize patterns, as well as calculate probability. However, there is simply no reasonable indication that any pattern exists. The ball can fall to the ground trillions of times, yet still only fall 1/2 the time! Upon probability, all that happens has reason to happen, and therefore all that happens happens inevitably. All that ever happened always had a 100% chance of happening. But we were not looking closely enough at the pattern of cause and effect to realize this, so we calculated a crude "probability".

2) What we call "perception" cannot be trusted. All that you perceive, all that you see, all that you feel, all that you taste, is simply a pattern of impulses in your being, what you believe to be your brain. The world around you is produced BY you. The world around you IS you. You have know idea what you are, where you are, or in what form you are. Neither do you know what exactly you interact with, if anything at all.

3) We have no "practicality" because we know no origin. You may think you know how to make a salad. But do you know where the leaves come from? Where the elements from the leaves come from? It all comes down to the origin of the universe, which we know very little about. No, you don't know how to make a salad. You especially don't know how to make that specific one you want to, because your part of the entities required to make the salad, as is the specific time you make it at. You don't know how these requirements were achieved, and therefore you have no "practicality".

In conclusion, we know nothing! :D
How mankind has progressed!!!

I like your signature... Really sums it up...

Alright here we go,
I can't really take on Socrates because number A) he's dead and number B) he's a veritable fortress of debate logic so I won't attempt to debate him (who knows maybe I'll get a chance when I'm dead) but ANYWAYS

As for the story of Socrates what you said is only semi true, he talked to seemingly the most knowledgeable people he could think of (politicians lawyers etc.) and found that other than what pertained to their field they basically knew nothing where as Socrates was willing to ascertain anything based on logical reason and still arrived empty handed... hmm a pointless addition but I figured I'd add it anyways.

1. Not quite sure what you're trying to say here other than describing what a human is, other then a never ending chemical furnace. I mean without describing patterns and what happens around us (despite its possible fictitious existence) we are nothing. Everything about us is based on the patterns that we perceive and how we respond to them.

2. Ahh but the Oracle has already covered this point, in a crude sort of fashion "Know thyself" and "Nothing in excess" (that one is kinda pointless but it was also above the entrance at the oracle) but the Know thyself one... the only thing you CAN know is what you are thinking, so what you are thinking must therefore be some sort of definition of yourself. Since nothing outside of your thoughts can be proven the only thing you can prove is yourself. So while it IS true that we technically don't know what we are, we at least know who we are (in reference to the individual not the group) and that is perhaps what is most important anyways.

3. I understand your point here, however... Why do we require the knowledge of the entire process of a salad's construction? while we might not know what comes before or after the salad is made we know how to take the parts and turn them into a salad and what to do WITH the salad, what more can you hope for? as long as nothing is interrupted the requirement for more information is secondary.
(Hmm an interesting parallel to existence here I mean you don't know what comes before or after and you are content with that for the most part until you die and see the next stage of... construction. but perhaps the parallel is the point?)

Interesting...
Everything is relative

Well, as proven to everyone who takes philosophy 101, your argument is just that, an argument. It isn't a fact. It isn't proven, you can't say "There is definatly no knowledge", you can only say "It is my cynical opinion that there is no knowledge". There's hundreds of counter-arguments. I wont list any here because, if you have taken Philosophy 101, you've probably heard all of them.

If you haven't taken that basic course, you really should, because claiming your view is the right view is kinda like saying your religion is the right one. You might think it so, but you'll never be able to prove it, and you'll never have everyone (or likely even most people) agreeing with you.

I'm an agnostic, not entirely a cynic. I question many things, but not all things. Don't really know why you're choosing to make a random argument supporting cynicism here....=p But I'll give you a thumbs up for attempting to gain support for your views of philosophy.

Just to clarify things, I fully acknowledge that we MAY not no nothing, but this is not necessarily so. The paradox here is that I don't know if I know nothing. :D

By the way, I've never taken a philosophy course, so I'm kind of self-made. There may be a few holes in my arguments. I mean, I've only had so long to develop them. :shock:

Philosophy 101 teaches us all the basic ways of thinking (cynicism is one of about 12ish I think? Someone can correct me on that number). All are acknowledged to maybe be the right way of thinking, but none of them can be proven one way or another...at least, not yet.

I'm partly cynical, but there's just too many things I have rationalized and proven (in my mind) that I know. Otherwise than those few things, I think cynicism is one of the healthier ways of thinking when comparing it to a few of the others.

The fact that I know nothing is proven is satisfying for me. And in taking course as I do, as I am, as when I am, and as where I am, I feel enlightened. I feel accomplished in this sense because I can choose my own reality, my own perception of existence, and know that the truth doesn't need be.

To believe what we want is to exist to put my philosophy simple. Existence is perception and perception is never made by some absolute truth. Otherwise, some sort of religion would have to be ABSOLUTE and correct, or someone's philosophy would have to be correct. Strangely enough, it actually IS! But it also is not correct entirely. Truth from fiction, fiction from truth. Zen.

Chaos, Balance, Harmony, all three fundamentally must have one for another. Chaos cannot exist without harmony to conflict with it. Balance cannot exist without Chaos and Harmony competing with each other. Therefore, I'm totally right, totally wrong, and always somewhere in between. Therefore, I serve my niche in my mind so that I can be thyself.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying though. ^_^;; These are just my hidden thoughts.

I think what moddex means is that since there is a burning ball of gas eventually when you get so far away you'll meet the dark. Not that they care if either exist but are simply there because the other is too. you wouldn't know what clean was if you didn't have dirty.. etc etc.

At least thats what I think he's saying

Sometimes I get burning balls of gas. Nobody wins when that happens.

I submit to you, that Fuzzle is the only truth, and you must appease him with many a bunny.

*explains this through a research style chalk board mathematic writing style montage*

I submit to you that I CAN get dirty without dirt.

I can get dirty in a bathtub instead of a gutter, :3