[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 1.04 MB, 1920x1200, green-forest.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14791234 No.14791234 [Reply] [Original]

Humanity knows nothing.

The universe is beyond our understanding or even comprehension, we do not posses the necessary components to understand a closed loop, that something just "is" and always has been, that it has no beginning or end, that it was always there. No amount of books, philosophy, movies, music or art will change this. We are not intelligent creatures in any sense of the word, we are conceited. All the theories of science and math are completely worthless, they're based on our poor understanding of the world around us. You can know nothing except that you know nothing. That's it, nothing more.

>> No.14791243

>>14791234
Wrong. Because to know that I know nothing, I have to believe that I can know something. Which means I have to know that I can know something before knowing anything, evem this elusive nothing.

Also, you're obviously projecting

>> No.14791248

>>14791243
Playing semantics doesn't prove anything, the only thing you can know is that you know nothing, that you are incapable of knowing anything.

>> No.14791395

>>14791248
define knowing. How can you say what you do?

>> No.14791398

>>14791395
>define knowing
"No"

>> No.14791401

The universe is irrelevant, we'll burn that bridge when we get to it

>> No.14791424

>>14791248
It's not exactly playing semantics. To come to the conclusion that I can know only nothing, I first MUST have come to the conclusion that I can know something. Basically your post is the equivalent of saying
>everything is relative
And my rebuttal is
>but for everything to be relative, there must be an everything, there must be a totality, an absolute, which by nature of it being absolute cannot be fully relative in nature

I could not know that I know nothing, could I not know in the first place. And neither could you

>> No.14791428

>>14791424
>It's not exactly playing semantics
It is, it's being purposely obtuse and deliberately manipulative to make it seem like you can't know that you can't know anything.

>> No.14791433
File: 25 KB, 273x338, ldzu5p6gjol31.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14791433

>>14791424
>To come to the conclusion that I can know only nothing, I first MUST have come to the conclusion that I can know something
Not true at all, if you saw something you couldn't comprehend, all you could say about it is you know nothing about it.

>> No.14791435

>>14791395
nice, just saw your coinciding post on the catalog.

>> No.14791438

>>14791435
meant for >>14791398

>> No.14791448

>>14791234
Shut up nerd

>> No.14791450

>>14791234
Your argument's implication is flawed because for us to ever know anything, there must be a gradual process of learning - of making mistakes and improving our theories and knowledge. We might not be intelligent now, and we might be totally wrong about science and philosophy, but as time passes these will improve.

Your normative statements are also not very useful because despite the search for truth is in itself worthy of your time. What else do you expect people to do with their time?

>> No.14791467

>>14791428
No dipshit. I'm not contesting that one cannot *truly and fully* know any thing. I'm contesting that the only knowledge there is is that there is no knowledge. Which is what you're saying. I'm saying that the knowledge of no-knowledge means necessarily that there is knowledge, since the knowledge of no-knowledge isn't no-knowledge in itself. There are both positive and negative qualities that can be known.

>>14791433
>if
Hypotheticals. The mind is equipped with pattern-recognition and the capacity to coerce yourself into believing whatever regardless. So even if I saw something near-truly incomprehensible, I would still see things I can understand like colours and shapes.

>> No.14791477

>>14791467
>I'm not contesting that one cannot *truly and fully* know any thing. I'm contesting that the only knowledge there is is that there is no knowledge
That's the same thing

>> No.14791491

>>14791477
No. Saying we cannot know anything is not the same as saying we cannot know everything. I'm conceding that we cannot know everything, that much is obvious. But knowing that, is already knowledge from which further knowledge can be gained.

>> No.14791497

>>14791491
>Saying we cannot know anything is not the same as saying we cannot know everything
Yes it is

>> No.14791500

>>14791497
Wrong. Because if we could not know anything, then we couldn't know that we cannot know anything.

>> No.14791548

>>14791500
Not true

>> No.14791556

>>14791548
Yeah well, go fuck yourself. You're not giving any counter arguments. And logically you absolutely have to be capable of knowing, at all, to possibly know that you know nothing.

>> No.14791629

>>14791477
>>14791497
>>14791548
>still claims to KNOW that the other anon is wrong
And I KNOW you're just trolling, but you're still a moron

>> No.14791648

>>14791234
.
We sit upon this spinning stone as Life - a flash in the pan of existence. We are animals first and civilized second. No amount of infinitely fractalized reasonings will deliver you to Truth, as that train moves endlessly forward. Might as well get off at some point and settle into the world.
Live, you beast, or die.

>> No.14791650

>>14791234
bro

where's the lit?

>> No.14791758

>>14791650
/lit/ is the de facto philosophy board, /his/ is supposed to be but it's not

>> No.14792292

>>14791234
We understand the universe sufficiently to predict outputs based on our inputs so thats good enough.

>> No.14792300

>>14791234
You should take 10 grams of mushrooms

>> No.14792302

>>14791234
>The universe is beyond our understanding or even comprehension
correct. can someone even articulate a single hypothetical scenario that i can't attempt to see through? like seriously, if we found a unified theory of physics tomorrow that still wouldn't answer any fundamental questions, we wouldnt be seeing through first principles

>> No.14792879
File: 2.54 MB, 500x288, 1561883512241.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14792879

>>14791234
>That's it, nothing more.
Also nothing new.

>> No.14793798

>>14791234
We will never know everything, but we are getting closer and wiser.