Regarding Ignorance.
 

From the third book ("Thoughts") of project Veritas, part of the greater project Humanitas.

---

Knowledge begins where ignorance ends. And at the very moment in which we get rid of the adopted concepts, preconceived without any justification, the moment in which we admit we know few or nothing about our surroundings, the moment in which we begin to look for the answers by ourselves; then, we will be wise. Wise not because we know everything, but wise because we know what we ignore. And once we know where our ignorance ends, we can begin to build true knowledge.

Take out everything unjustified or without any foundation, leave it aside; and realize what you know with certainty and what you don't. Only then you'll be able to seek real answers.

Question, check always the foundations. If they're nothing, the structure will fall down. If they're weak, they'll remain a few time until truth blows them down. If they're strong and thick, truth won't make them anything; because it's truth itself what sustains that thought.

Actually I don't think anyone KNOWS anything. If you think about it, what is to really know something? You can't ever be truly certain of anything, you can only define how much you believe in that fact.

Mathematic truths are pure knowledge: for example you can always verify that 2 and 2 are 4, no matter where, when or how.

If reality is not as simple to understand as maths is because there are many variables to be taken in count; but you can even determine those variables and how they make things change. The only thing is that you'd need patience, and patience,... Assumptions are the quickest way instead, but they just make "fake knowledge".

EG, I'd know how many war crimes are being made in Gaza; but I'd need to be there and observe everything to the point of having the need of omnipresence. What we can do however, is to contrast many, many points of view and see their common places. There is where facts remain on a posture. However, even that method is too slow. The quickest way is to interview the leaders and a few people on the street and show that on TV.

But that's another story, a story I'm working on right now.

The thing with knowledge is that it is never concrete, as information is constantly update with new discoveries. It's hard to have knowledge that isn't biased in some way, but like ZenitYerkes says "Mathematic truths are pure knowledge". The whole universe as we know it may work by mathematical processes but the stuff that's in it is a whole different kettle of fish. To know everything in one subject still shows that everything else is unknown, not always because of ignorance but simply because there is so much out there in the universe and one individual cannot even begin to know all. Maybe it all boils down to simple brainpower.

I say the answer to this boils on maths once again. See, when you make an algebra problem you can distinguish between the known data and the unknown data (numbers and x's).

What I am against, and what I try to say with that micro-essay, is that we cannot deduce what's x just because. We need to first of all, admit what we know certain and what we don't; then structure our "equation", have a method to reach that knowledge by the few data we're given; and once we know what x is, verify it.

Maths is the most perfect science because it's the simplest yet the whole universe lays on its logic. What I'd like to do is to bring the mathematic certainty to philosophy; that's one of the main points of an essay of mine called project Veritas.

Enough thread hijacking.

*smiles* I like this thread. :)

I agree with the author said, especially on how well-thought out it was. Without trying to derail the thread, I just wanted to include something here that pretty much corresponds with your post. There is a zen saying about 'emptying your cup' before it gets too full that it overflows. Too much information and concepts fill the mind; it crumbles. Empty your mind and you will learn much more than ever before. The same thing applies here.

When someone isn't willing to learn, or believes that they know everything, it blocks the way to true adventure; true learning. It allows them to be open-minded instead of being closed-minded.

To be honest, I have absolutely no clue how mathematics work. I will leave that up to you and other mathematicians and scientists. I also never heard of "Thoughts" either... Can you link me up a source of information that I can use to look it up? I searched Google but the responses were rather vague and hard to find. May I ask of you what exactly it talks about?

Uhm, the essay is mine; "Thoughts" is actually one of the other three books I'm working on right now. So I think I will add your quote to my work (if you let me to, of course).

Oh, I'm sorry LOL I originally wrote that it was for you but upon reading the post, I thought the passage below was written from the book itself in a different author. My apologies! Lmao but yeah, I find it to be a wonderfully written essay on its own... Congrats! *shakes hand* :) You should write more! I greatly enjoy your works of art in here. :D

Certainly, you may. :) Where are you planning on putting it?

Just here, on the "Regarding ignorance" micro-essay. And it goes there riiiight now :)

Hahaha okay. :) Thanks! Keep contributing in here, I'm sure many would like to hear your insights. *thumbs up*

I like to believe that ignorance is that which we don't know we don't know; Knowledge is that which we know we do not know.

This is where the four kinds of knowledge appear.

• Known knowledge: you're conscious of what you know
• Known ignorance: you're conscious of what you don't know
• Unknown knowledge: you are not conscious of what you know
• Unknown ignorance: you are not conscious of what you don't know

What I am against to is the people who prefer to ignore or avoid discussing certain points so they can "seem" right.

I think I would tend to agree with rasomaso on this subject.

Nothing can be proven correct and all knowledge is built on poor foundations.

2 plus 2 does not always have to equal 4 in all circumstances, as "2" itself is a concept of the human mind, as is the answer to the question. Answers to whatever question you ask will always be an interpretation, a concept, based on personal experience, view and prejudice. Therefore, no answer will ever be "correct" per-se.

(That may have made no sense whatsoever.)

Well, I have to disagree.

Truth is defined by myself as the relation between the concept and the object of study. The more accurately the concept relates to the object, describing it precisely; the more true it will be. Example, if we see a red car, I can say "Red car", and it'll be true because the car is red in that moment.

The foundations of knowledge should be based on reality; if reality changes, then knowledge should change with it to remain true. So, if after 10 years our car is not red anymore, and it's rather full of rust; we must say "This car is rusty", not "red" anymore.

And Fkeu, I can't see your point at all with the 2+2 thing. What are you trying to say?

Well, I say again, "Red" is technically the interpretation of a certain wavelength of the visible light spectrum and is subjective in itself. One person may see a red car, another may see something completely different. Therefore, the statement "It is red" is false.

True, but how can we personally define 'real'? Seeing as real is technically the interpretations of electrical signals, which each person both sends and recieves differently. If reality changes with every individual, you can never reach a general concensus and accurate knowledge will never be generated.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that nothing can ever really be 'true' because the very application of the word 'true' is subjective. I could say that there is a cup on my head. There may or may not be, but with enough belief, I can make it feel true to myself.

(May well be a poor example. I find it difficult to get my point across sometimes.)

But this is not a debate over whether general knowledge does in fact exist or not, I feel I have sidetracked this thread severely.