Epistemological Nihilism.

[Tundra]

Nope. I gave a list of examples in post #15.

Knowledge is partly defined as something that is true. So how can there be false knowledge, It seems like you are conflating knowledge and belief/info in your memory... such as...

 

I am certain that knowledge exists because I can ascertain what "certain" means. You cannot impart meaning without some knowledge of language, concepts, and reality.

You may have some idea of language, concepts, reality etc. But how do you KNOW these things?

 

How do you KNOW what certain means? 

[dsayers]

How do you KNOW what certain means? 

Haven't you heard? Know means know!

 

This is a performative contradiction. How do YOU know what "know" means? Or what how, do, you, what, certain, or means means?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

No claiming that you believe X and claiming that you know X are two different claims. 

And It doesn't matter that I don't know if I believe X, I believe that I believe X. And I believe that I believe that I believe X, and I believe that I believe that I believe that I believe X, etc. But this recursion isn't an issue for belief because belief requires no justification, I explained this in the OP. 

 

I didn't argue that believing and knowing were the same thing. You can't have beliefs in an infinite regression. Such a thing is called knowledge. Knowledge terminates that. 

You keep saying you explained X in the OP as if explaining things in OP's has some higher authority. I rebutted your claim about recursive beliefs and justification. 

You have knowledge that you believe something. You know you believe. 

 

 

 

I may not know, for certain,

 

You do not get to change "know" to the phrase "know, for certain".  In your argument there is no difference between "know" and "know, for certain". You did not posit two categories of "know" or "knowledge". 

 

 

 

But I don't believe any of those things.

 

You don't know if you don't believe any of those things so stop making such factual statements. Calling it belief doesn't save things. Believe whatever you want in your head but when you start making statements about reality and correcting people you're using objective standards. 

 

You can't necessarily know if your place of employment still exists but still get ready to go to it I agree. But that's a different point. We're talking about not being able to know anything. When I go to my place of employment I have a reasonable expectation it still exists. I'm not saying to myself it cannot NOT exist. 

If I go and it HAS burned down then that's just called being wrong. 

 

I understand you believe that your belief you don't know anything at all doesn't inhibit you. The annoying thing is that you don't understand that it should somewhat inhibit you. 

 

It does matter that you claim to not know anything because you're not just sharing arguments with us. You are correcting us. 

 

 

 

As for "You don't know if belief requires justification" you're right... 

 

You don't know if I'm right. You don't know what right is. You don't know anything. 

 

 

 

A standard of godhood must be logically possible in order to be a rational standard. So lets reduce the standard of godhood so that it achievable! 

 

See how this line of thinking begs the question?

 

 

That's not remotely what I argued, I argued Your theory of knowledge requires omniscience. A standard of knowledge be must logically possible in order to be a rational standard. Omniscience is not logically possible. Therefore your theory of knowledge is not rational. 

 

I'm arguing your theory of knowledge is not rational because it's not logically possible. See?

 

My definition of knowledge is those beliefs that consistently conform to reason and evidence. But my theory is not the point. I don't have to come up with a theory in order to disprove yours. It's got nothing do do with not liking your definition. What does it matter whether I like it or not? My problem with your definition is that it's wrong. 

 

 

 

I could be a butterfly dreaming that I am Tundra. In the dream, tundra believes that she doesnt know if she exists. This is logically possible. 

 

FFS I'm not talking about your identity existing. 

You can put your self into any nonsense scenario or configuration of selves that you want  You need to exist in order to say you don't know if you exist. That's the only logically possibility. 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Asymptote 

 

WTF does that mean? Geometry? 

Do you expect me to deduce your argument for you from a wikipedia page? Is this "but in math there's this blah, blah... and that proves square circles exist" horseshit. The infinity was just an analogy. 

Just respond to the argument. 

[shirgall]

WTF does that mean? Geometry? 

 

Well, perhaps he was just being obtuse?

[RichardY]

No, because the existence of santa, and the shape of the world, exist outside the child. For the record I believe that santa isn't real and the world is round. If I am correct, then the child has false beliefs. 

The only way the concepts of:  world, santa, shape, round etc can exist are inside a child's or adult's mind. An internal world of memory, a form of matrix. The World does not exist independent of consciousness. Though some form of physical matter does.

 

I bring up the Matrix as a way to try and explain an Internal World (kind of like a MMO PC Game or Dream). Rene Descartes "I think therefore I am" developed the Matrix as a concept through Cartesian coordinates.

[A4E]

From wikipedia org:

Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.

 

So knowledge is already defined without any requirement of absolute foolproof certainty.

[Tundra]

From wikipedia org:

Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.

 

So knowledge is already defined without any requirement of absolute foolproof certainty.

Neat. Keep reading on that very same page and you will see it talked about in the context of philosophy rather than every day usage. 

 

 

I didn't argue that believing and knowing were the same thing. You can't have beliefs in an infinite regression. Such a thing is called knowledge. Knowledge terminates that. 

You keep saying you explained X in the OP as if explaining things in OP's has some higher authority. I rebutted your claim about recursive beliefs and justification. 

You have knowledge that you believe something. You know you believe. 

 

It's not that explaining things in the OP has some authority, it's just that I already explained, in the very first post, why it's not a problem that beliefs are unfounded, that they are unjustified. Why it's not a problem that I Believe X, and I believe that I believe X, and I believe that I believe that I believe X etc.

 

You simply asserting that I need knowledge to have a belief is just that, an assertion. Not only that but it's putting the cart before the horse, if knowledge entails a belief, then how can knowledge be necessary for beliefs? This sort of reasoning would just open a different can of worms that causes problems for anyone who claims knowledge. WHY can't I have beliefs in infinite regression? Why is that a problem? Beliefs do not need any justification.

 

 

 

You do not get to change "know" to the phrase "know, for certain".  In your argument there is no difference between "know" and "know, for certain". You did not posit two categories of "know" or "knowledge". 

Thats mostly a grammar issue on my end, I meant for it to be read as I do not know, and I am not certain, not that I do know, but am not certain. Sorry about the confusion.

 

 

 

You don't know if you don't believe any of those things so stop making such factual statements. Calling it belief doesn't save things. Believe whatever you want in your head but when you start making statements about reality and correcting people you're using objective standards. 

 

I can make all the factual claims I want, beliefs can be true, and I believe that my beliefs are true, and I have reasons why I believe they are true, and I have reasons why I believe those are good reasons etc. When I correct people, it's because we share assumptions (not objective) about the world, and if those assumptions are true then other truths then follow. For instance, if we assume that our memories do not decieve us, that our senses are trustworthy, that I am not the only mind in the universe, etc. etc. And we work in an office together and someone says "wheres bob?" and you falsely say "he is in his office" and me having seen him leave, using all those assumptions I just said say "no, actually he just left"

 

where is the objective standard, other than truth, which I already admitted was objective, so it is not a point of contention. do you HAVE to have certainty to correct people? If you see someone buy a lottery ticket, and they say "I am going to win the lottery!!" can you say "lol no you wont!" even though you are not certain? 

 

You can't necessarily know if your place of employment still exists but still get ready to go to it I agree. But that's a different point. We're talking about not being able to know anything. When I go to my place of employment I have a reasonable expectation it still exists. I'm not saying to myself it cannot NOT exist. 

If I go and it HAS burned down then that's just called being wrong. 

Yes, and beliefs can be true or they can be false. The POINT is that you can clearly act, you can clearly move through the world, you can clearly live, without knowledge. This is an example. Every day you take actions believing things about the future, and surely you will admit that you cannot know what the future holds. This is a rebuttal to your point that I cannot argue without knowledge, I am arguing, therefore I must have knowledge. I CAN argue without knowledge, just as you can drive to work, uncertain and unknowing about the future, because you BELIEVE that work will still be there when you arrive. 

 

I understand you believe that your belief you don't know anything at all doesn't inhibit you. The annoying thing is that you don't understand that it should somewhat inhibit you. 

 

It does matter that you claim to not know anything because you're not just sharing arguments with us. You are correcting us. 

 

 

You don't know if I'm right. You don't know what right is. You don't know anything. 

why SHOULD it? Does your lack of knowledge about the future inhibit you from taking any action? Because surely all action is aimed at future goals, and the future is unknowable. 

 

Also I may not know what "right" is, but I have a belief about what right is, and as it turns out it's the same as yours! I believe that right means correct, it means in accordance with the truth, in accordance with reality that exists outside my mind. It doesn't matter that I don't KNOW. 

 

 

 

 

 

That's not remotely what I argued, I argued Your theory of knowledge requires omniscience. A standard of knowledge be must logically possible in order to be a rational standard. Omniscience is not logically possible. Therefore your theory of knowledge is not rational. 

 

I'm arguing your theory of knowledge is not rational because it's not logically possible. See?

Yeah and I made an analogy, of a christian using a presuppositional argument.  Because thats what you're doing, you're presupposing knowledge exists.

 

A standard of godhood must be logically possible in order to be a rational standard (because god exists, duh!) How is that not the argument you are making, just with regards to knowledge? you seem to struggle with analogies by the way, I will try to refrain from them in the future. 

 

 Also how is my theory of knowledge not logically possible? It's logically possible, practically/pragmatically impossible, there is a difference. Or are you not using 'logically possible' in the way that philosophers generally do? It doesn't even require omniscience, it just requires justification. Hell it sounds simple enough, why dont you just tell me something you know, and show me the justification for it, then maybe I can finally know 1 thing. 

 

 

My definition of knowledge is those beliefs that consistently conform to reason and evidence. But my theory is not the point. I don't have to come up with a theory in order to disprove yours. It's got nothing do do with not liking your definition. What does it matter whether I like it or not? My problem with your definition is that it's wrong. 

 

How can a definition of a word be "wrong"? Unless you think language rules are prescriptions (topic for another time) 

 

That said, this isn't some definition I just made up, this is the classical philosophical definition of knowledge. 

 

But lets, for the sake of argument, spitball with your definition. Knowledge is a belief that consistently conforms to reason and evidence. 

 

So before the discovery of black swans, everyone believed that all swans were white. Nobody had seen a black swan. Every time anyone had ever seen a swan, it was white. Every time someone saw a white swan, that was another shred of evidence for their belief (hey look, another not black swan) This belief was/is false.

 

Did these people KNOW that all swans were white?  If yes, then how is it that they had knowledge that was false? shouldn't a reasonable definition of knowledge relate it to the truth in some way? If no (they did not know "All swans are white" they merely believed it), then your definition fails here because their belief was consistently verified by evidence and inductive reasoning. 

 

So now lets imagine these people, they know that swans are white. Suddenly, someone discovered a black swan. Now there is evidence that not all swans are white, does everyone suddenly lose knowledge? Or ONLY those who are aware of the evidence? 

 

Either way there are some weird implications, in the first case where everyone suddenly loses knowledge now that there is evidence somewhere, it implies that we can never KNOW if we KNOW something, because there MIGHT be evidence SOMEWHERE that contradicts our belief. 

 

If it's the latter then it means that the ignorant might be the most knowledgeable among us, if only exposure to contradictory evidence is what causes someone to get downgraded from knowing a thing, and simply believing a thing, then surely the most knowledgeable person in the world is someone who's NEVER seen any evidence of ANYTHING. If they have never seen evidence of anything, then every belief they have is in accordance with all the evidence they have seen.

 

FFS I'm not talking about your identity existing. 

You can put your self into any nonsense scenario or configuration of selves that you want  You need to exist in order to say you don't know if you exist. That's the only logically possibility. 

 

I don't think it's true that it's logically necessary to exist in order to say that you don't know if you exist. But you haven't really made an argument, you simply ASSERTED that it's the ONLY logical possibility. Do you have a reason why I should believe this is the case?    

 

Even so, this is all besides the point, because I DO believe that I exist, and I can believe I exist and doubt my own existence, doubt is just the absence of certainty. I am uncertain of my existence, but I am confident that I DO in fact exist. There is no reason I can think of why I would NEED to know that I exist in order to doubt that I exist. 

 

WTF does that mean? Geometry? 

Do you expect me to deduce your argument for you from a wikipedia page? Is this "but in math there's this blah, blah... and that proves square circles exist" horseshit. The infinity was just an analogy. 

Just respond to the argument. 

 

It's an analogy, an asymptotic is a line that we can come very very close to, but never reach. We can imagine many standards that humans strive for but can never reach, and people can be described as being 'close to' or 'far from' that standard, without that standard being actually reachable. 

 

For instance, certainty, we can never reach certainty, Just because this standard is likely impossible for humans, does not mean that certainty is some alien concept that we can never observe in varying degrees in beliefs. 

 

For instance, perfect resonableness, we can imagine someone who never makes a mistep in logic, and is a perfectly logical being who never errs. Just because this standard is likely impossible for humans, does not mean that reasonableness is some alien concept that we can never observe in varying degrees in people. 

 

[A4E]

"MY stance is that humans are incapable of knowing anything, incapable of gaining any knowledge."

 

What is your opinion on humans prolonging their existence, by hunting, gathering, or growing various food, that they learned from other humans, or by trial and error? How does this happen?

[Tundra]

"MY stance is that humans are incapable of knowing anything, incapable of gaining any knowledge."

 

What is your opinion on humans prolonging their existence, by hunting, gathering, or growing various food, that they learned from other humans, or by trial and error? How does this happen?

You can believe that "If I plant wheat, wheat will grow" is true, and it CAN be true, and you can still not know it.

 

Lack of knowledge doesn't impede action, it doesn't impede learning. 

[csekavec]

Existence is the first axiom of philosophy. Axiom, not assumption. 

 

Tundra, do you exist?

 

I don't know, I believe so, but I'm also fairly close to certain! 

 

Wow this thread really got busy since my last post! Long read. Here is my bit.

 

If you don't exist, you cannot contemplate whether you exist. Therefore I assert a posteriori it can be known that you exist. Identity is.  So in the very least you would have to say that certain things can be known, ie existence and the law of identity.

 

In order for your idea to be valid in this context you would need to somehow demonstrate that the principle of the excluded middle is invalid. Or propose something else that better matches and predicts experience. 

 

If you don't agree with my premise, I would ask you set down your system of inductive reasoning.

[Donnadogsoth]

You can believe that "If I plant wheat, wheat will grow" is true, and it CAN be true, and you can still not know it.

 

Lack of knowledge doesn't impede action, it doesn't impede learning. 

 

Tundra, what do you think is sufficient proximity to absolute knowledge to justify action?

[Tundra]

Wow this thread really got busy since my last post! Long read. Here is my bit.

 

If you don't exist, you cannot contemplate whether you exist. Therefore I assert a posteriori it can be known that you exist. Identity is.  So in the very least you would have to say that certain things can be known, ie existence and the law of identity.

How do you know that A=A? You don't. We just assume that it does. This isn't to say it's a bad assumption or it's not true.

Also I never said that I don't exist, I said that I very firmly believe that I do exist, so it makes perfect sense that I can think about my own existence. 

 

 

In order for your idea to be valid in this context you would need to somehow demonstrate that the principle of the excluded middle is invalid. Or propose something else that better matches and predicts experience. 

 

If you don't agree with my premise, I would ask you set down your system of inductive reasoning.

I don't need to demonstrate that the law of excluded middle is invalid, even this rests on top of unknowable unprovable assumptions. 

I can believe something, and not know it. If I believe something, it's not because I think it's invalid.

 

Tundra, what do you think is sufficient proximity to absolute knowledge to justify action?

Why does action need justification? 

 

[Donnadogsoth]

Donnadogsoth, on 09 Jul 2016 - 8:21 PM, said:

Tundra, what do you think is sufficient proximity to absolute knowledge to justify action?

 

Why does action need justification? 

 

Because we appear to have time subject to waste, which could be used for other, more certain and enjoyable things, if we haven't sufficiently justified going to the pain and expense of attempting the action in question.

[csekavec]

Tundra I invite you to share your method of inductive reasoning.

 

You claim I do not know that A=A even after I demonstrated why it is true (congruence with reality), why it is justified (inductively reasoned), and that I believed. 

 

If your argument hinges upon maintaining a baseless (ie no claim of truth or justification) belief while contrariwise asserting perfect knowledge of lack of knowledge I'm afraid this conversation won't persuade me. 

 

Likewise if your argument is upon certainty, asserting certainty of lack of certainty is a non starter. It all comes back to the three axioms that you haven't addressed.

 

If I misunderstand you, please explain again your basis of truth, justification, reasoning.

[Tundra]

Tundra I invite you to share your method of inductive reasoning.

 

You claim I do not know that A=A even after I demonstrated why it is true (congruence with reality), why it is justified (inductively reasoned), and that I believed. 

I also believe it's true, and congruent with reality, but when you ask "how do you know that?" and you say inductive reasoning, well inductive reasoning can never lead to knowledge. Just because you saw a ball fall 999,999 times doesn't meas you KNOW what happen the millionth time. It may give you a high degree of confidence but how could you know "well the past is indicative of the future!" you might say. Well if this is merely belief then it's not suitable justification for knowing the ball will fall. If you think you KNOW that the past is indicative of the future then I must simply ask "how do you know that?"  and you might say "well in the past it's been indicative of the future!" and this is circular reasoning, or in other words, ultimately foundationless. We don't KNOW that inductive reasoning works, we ASSUME it works. Assumptions cannot be a basis of knowledge.

 

 

 

If your argument hinges upon maintaining a baseless (ie no claim of truth or justification) belief while contrariwise asserting perfect knowledge of lack of knowledge I'm afraid this conversation won't persuade me. 

 

Likewise if your argument is upon certainty, asserting certainty of lack of certainty is a non starter. It all comes back to the three axioms that you haven't addressed.

Neato, care to quote where I said I am certain of lack of certainty? I am of course uncertain, but I have a belief about the matter, and I have arguments. Care to quote where I 'asserted perfect knowledge' ? 

 

as for the three axioms, which axioms are those?

 

Also Hard mode: How do you know an axiom is true? 

 

Editted: I'm going to assume by axioms you mean "truth, justification, reasoning." If am wrong correct me.

 

 

I've explained truth in this thread, I believe it's objective, it's alignment with an objective reality outside our minds.

Reasoning, This is a tool that we humans have, we use it to make coherent sense of the world around us in order to better increase our odds of survival. 

Justification, a justification for a statement of knowledge must be knowledge or greater. how could you build knowledge off of a mere belief, or a mere assumption? This is what causes the recursion problem for knowledge.

Because we appear to have time subject to waste, which could be used for other, more certain and enjoyable things, if we haven't sufficiently justified going to the pain and expense of attempting the action in question.

Then the 'proximity to certainty' needed to 'justify' action is subjective, just as risk tolerance is subjective, value is subjective, which ends to seek is subjective, and profits and losses from action (both expected and actual) are subjective.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Tundra

[csekavec]

You ask, how do I know an axiom is true. I answered before you asked in the post you quoted. 

 

The three axioms are: Existence, Identity, Consciousness.  I'm being very rigid when I say axiom. I mean irreducible primary. This is an important distinction from other knowledge types. Since you keep going back to the word assumption I presume you don't yet grasp the distinction. There are many good resources that discuss the varying qualities of knowledge and their why. 

 

Anything that has identity may be known. 

 

Knowing a thing is only in the past. It has zero predictive power - it either was or was not. How well predictions align with experience is how much certainty we have.  Perfect certainty is not a requirement for knowledge.  Certainty emerges from knowledge, not vice-versa. 

[Donnadogsoth]

Then the 'proximity to certainty' needed to 'justify' action is subjective, just as risk tolerance is subjective, value is subjective, which ends to seek is subjective, and profits and losses from action (both expected and actual) are subjective.

 

What you say is interesting but I'm worried about the implications.  Nihilism sounds like a way of getting out of doing things, a reason to "drop out".  How do you live your life differently from someone who is not an epistemological nihilist?

[Tundra]

You ask, how do I know an axiom is true. I answered before you asked in the post you quoted. 

I explained that induction cannot be a basis of knowledge in response to your claim that you know it because of inductive reasoning. So this re opens the question.

 

The three axioms are: Existence, Identity, Consciousness.  I'm being very rigid when I say axiom. I mean irreducible primary. This is an important distinction from other knowledge types. Since you keep going back to the word assumption I presume you don't yet grasp the distinction. There are many good resources that discuss the varying qualities of knowledge and their why. 

Okay, how do you know that A=A? It can't be induction unless you can explain how induction leads to knowledge or explain how my reasoning is invalid or flawed (first block of text on post #50).

 

 

Knowing a thing is only in the past. It has zero predictive power - it either was or was not. How well predictions align with experience is how much certainty we have.  Perfect certainty is not a requirement for knowledge.  Certainty emerges from knowledge, not vice-versa. 

 

We don't exist in the past only in the present so we must rely on our memory in order to 'know' something about the past.

How do you know your memory is trustworthy, reliable, and not falsified? 

 

 

 

[csekavec]

When you write, "It can't be induction" you are affirming the axiom of identity. You are using the axiom by making a truth claim.  When I get home I'll try to find some links if you'd like them. For me the best most beautiful explanation of philosophical axiom was in Galt's speech. 

[EclecticIdealist]

Axioms are not knowledge.  Axioms are assumptions we make because it is necessary to do so. What we believe to be axiomatic may prove otherwise as we gain further understanding and more information justifies a rejection of such an assumption. Such has not been proven necessary (and seems unlikely ever to be so) when it comes to the axioms of identity, existence, and consciousness, and the fundamental principles of informal logic or reasoning (such as the syllogism).

[RichardY]

What sort of value is there to me or others if Epistemological-Nihilism is "correct"? Why even have the conversation in the first place? To me the value is to try and eliminate contradictions in my own reasoning and better establish definitions in my own mind.

[Will Torbald]

What sort of value is there to me or others if Epistemological-Nihilism is "correct"? Why even have the conversation in the first place? To me the value is to try and eliminate contradictions in my own reasoning and better establish definitions in my own mind.

Believing in something correct even if it has no value is the difference between a philosopher and a fanatic. The humility in accepting the limitations of the mind and the world should be value enough.

[Tundra]

When you write, "It can't be induction" you are affirming the axiom of identity. You are using the axiom by making a truth claim.  When I get home I'll try to find some links if you'd like them. For me the best most beautiful explanation of philosophical axiom was in Galt's speech. 

Right, I already, I believe that A=A, so it's not a problem that I do so, I am asking HOW you KNOW it. I gave you reasons why induction cannot be used as a basis for knowledge. Are you going to address what I said or are you going to just reference it and move on? 

 

 

 

When you write, "It can't be induction" you are affirming the axiom of identity. You are using the axiom by making a truth claim.  When I get home I'll try to find some links if you'd like them. For me the best most beautiful explanation of philosophical axiom was in Galt's speech. 

Okay, I am not saying the axiom is false. So me using it is besides the point.

 

explain how you KNOW that the axiom is true please. If you say induction, then please address the argument I gave for why induction cannot be used for a basis of knowledge.

[eschiedler]

The Law of Identity is not a formula - it is not derived from observation in the world. It is a bit of a misnomer to point to the Law of Identity with the "A=A" symbol. Rather, the symbol "A" would be sufficient, for to try to derive it or arrive at the Law by observation is to miss it entirely.

 

Rather, once you understand the Law of Identity, paradoxically, you see it everywhere. It is a "pre-cognition" requirement. In order to see things in a dualistic manner, as in the example of "line and not-line", you have to follow the Law of Identity.

 

From "A=A" you eventually derive the conclusion that the apparent duality of all things observed by consciousness is an illusion, and all empirical observations are limited in knowledge, as in they are formulas for predicting observations but are never the basis of firm knowledge. The fact that this logic is valid, however, is not an illusion. Valid logic is not equivalent to "knowledge", but rather the nature of Truth.

 

Eric Schiedler

[csekavec]

Okay, I am not saying the axiom is false. So me using it is besides the point.

explain how you KNOW that the axiom is true please. If you say induction, then please address the argument I gave for why induction cannot be used for a basis of knowledge.

 

Epistemology presupposes metaphysics. It's why I've been mostly writing about metaphysics despite the title of this thread. I've wanted you to put forth your basis of reasoning. You haven't, yet. So here then is the summary position of Plato and Hegel on this matter. 

 

If ones metaphysical view is "reality is unknowable" then it naturally follows that for each concept there is distinction between a type of knowledge one "knows" and a type of knowledge that constitutes a lesser "sensible" form, a "belief". After all an imperfect believe presupposes a perfect knowledge. That knowledge is unattainable by man. To know an "intelligible" requires a higher, omniscient perspective, or revelation. And if there are two states of knowing then there must be myriad shades. 

 

Of course this easily brings forth the problem of definitional truth. Ie, 2+2 is defined as 4, and so on.

 

Mystic philosophers differ how they approach it. 

 

Here then is the metaphysical problem, in case it isn't yet clear. If all truth is myriad then definitional truth which is binary cannot be. If definitional truth does exist then to what things does it apply? This is what your metaphysics must supply. 

 

This is the nature of axioms. They rely upon the true/false dichotomy. The nuance of platonic forms doesn't apply because the answer is yes, or it is no.

 

If you use an axiom, it follows that you agree that definitional truth is proper to that sphere. One can't have it both ways. If a spectrum applies, an axiom can't.  Saying "I believe the axiom but don't know" is a contradiction. Hegel tried to rewrite the laws of logic to deal with it. If you support his ideas, what are your rules of induction?

 

 

 

Here is a different argument. If knowledge requires omniscience of what point is it to demonstrate reality is unknowable? An intelligible requires a sensible. A sensible presupposes a sensation, which presupposes a percept. To perceive a thing is to perceive something specific. That thing either is or is not. Your perception of it either is or is not.  By the way "Not" isn't like the concept zero, which presupposes a thing upon which a quantity is applied. "Not" in the axiomatic use is the negation, Null, void, no thing at all. 

 

Axiom being an irreducible primary, all questions of philosophy come back to it. And this is why all deep conversations should properly start with metaphysics. 

 

Last idea for this post. What is the difference between unknowable knowledge and nonexistence?  Solipsism, anyone?