Gnostic Agnostic, Discuss

[Joshpantera]

Knowing that you ultimately do not know. That's the highest level of knowing, is it not? 

[Blood]

Knowing that you ultimately do not know. That's the highest level of knowing, is it not? 

 

Not unless something an 18 year old says while stoned is "the highest level of knowing."

[Joshpantera]

Good point. There may be none higher.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism

 

Types of agnosticism[edit]

A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is stating that he or she has no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against. Agnosticism has, however, more recently been subdivided into several categories. Variations include:

Agnostic atheism The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.^[21][22][23]Agnostic theism The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.^[21]Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.^[24][25] Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism") The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."^[26][27][28] Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism") The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."^[26][27][28]    

[Blood]

If man were satisfied "knowing what he doesn't know," then no progress would have ever been made in anything, and mosquitos would still be murdering millions of people. 

 

"Agnostic" was invented by the atheist T.H. Huxley because he didn't understand what the proper definition of "atheist" was. A very common problem. If you read his definition, it's a complete word salad. 

 

Contra Huxley, atheism is not the mirror image of theism. It is, rather, a response to supernatural claims about "gods" -- any gods, be it Zeus, Vishnu, Osiris, or old יהוה of Israel himself. Until actual evidence for their existence is presented, the atheist response will be, "I don't believe in such an entity. It probably doesn't exist." 

 

A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

 

This is one of the most useless things a person can possibly say or think. "I don't know whether any invisible leprechauns exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out." "I don't know whether radioactive spider bites can cause human beings to have magic powers, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

[creative]

Knowing that you ultimately do not know. That's the highest level of knowing, is it not? 

I would say, truly understanding that change is the only constance in existence is the highest level of knowing.

[TrueFreedom]

"Knowing that you ultimately do not know."
 

It find that statement self-contradictory.  Was it meant as a paradox?  Might that be better stated as "Believing that you cannot know?"

 

Socrates was said to be the wisest man in Greece because he knew that he knew nothing.  Albert Einstein is quoted as stating, "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."  Education results in a humbling realization of ignorance.  This realization is common among history's greatest thinkers.  But as far as the highest level of knowing, philosophers have been developing ideas about that for ages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

[Joshpantera]

I probably should have added more depth to the first post. By saying ultimately I was talking about ultimate's as opposed to things that can be known like how to combat mosquitoes. Advancements of science and so on. 

 

This was not meant to be a paradox either. When facing the question of ultimate's, let's say, why does anything even exist in the first place, you would be unwise to suggest that you know the answer or could ever possibly know the answer. The highest level of knowing would be that you don't know why anything even exists at all. 

 

Could anyone ever know?

 

How could they. We can know how things exist but not why they exist. Let's say we prove an eternal cosmos. The lingering question once again is why does such a thing even exist in the first place? That's ultimate. And mystery is the root base of anything that exists.

 

It can't be a deity or anything like that though. If it were, then the question still remains why does the deity even exist in the first place and to that question there can't be any one fixed answer either. It would exist as a complete mystery with no fixed reason or meaning for it's very existence. So the mystery does not open the door to theistic reasoning as some might suspect. The mystery of any thing in existence would be greater than even the existence of a God.

 

Mystery ? > the existence of any realm  > the existence of any beings (Gods, People) that may exist in any realm (heaven for example)

 

This is likely why the educated have concluded on knowing (Gnostic) that they ultimately do not know (Agnostic).

 

So what I was driving at earlier would apply to some one like Socrates as a Gnostic-Agnostic. Perhaps even Einstein. 

 

"He who thinks he knows doesn't know, He who knows he doesn't know, knows"

 

Maybe I should have worded it as Gnosis-Agnosis instead of Gnostic-Agnostic. 

 

I think this is one way that Christianity and western monotheism has tainted pure naturalistic spirituality or mysticism. I think that mysticism rightfully ought to be addressed to our connection to the great unknown and our recognition of ourselves as that, thou art that as the Advaita Vedanta philosophy would put it. The God can only serve as a placeholder for the mystery of the great unknown which is what the ultimate factor actually turns out to be any which way we turn it. As illustrated above the mystery factor is greater than the existence of any God(s). To me there's such a thing as natural spirituality and natural mysticism where one can experience their own personal connection to the mystery of everything in existence. And such an effort would require Gnosis-Agnosis as an intellectually honest starting point. 

[TrueFreedom]

Ok.  But if you know nothing, does that not imply that you do not know anything and thus cannot know that you know nothing?

[Joshpantera]

Ok.  But if you know nothing, does that not imply that you do not know anything and thus cannot know that you know nothing?

 

It's not that you don't know anything at all in an absolute sense, it's that you don't know when it comes to the ultimate question.

 

You can know that ultimately you don't know when it comes to why you even exist at all or why anything even exists at all. I was just using the expression in the ultimate sense which I tried to explain after the fact. I should have made that more clear in the opening post. 

 

I agree that if I knew nothing at all about anything then I could not know that I know nothing at all about anything. 

 

That reminds of the issue of truth considered by Aristotle. 

 

"Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted then even the following claim would be false, the claim that there is no true assertion."

 

We can't claim that there is no truth without making a false statement and contradiction in the process. The same would be true of claiming that nothing at all can be known about anything. That's why I was trying to be careful not to give that impression because I 'know' that would be false.

 

I think that some things can be known while there are some things that can never be known. Just as I think that some things can be truly asserted while other things can never be truly asserted. it's a mix.

 

But in the ultimate sense we can only know (gnosis) to the point where everything drops off and we realize that we can know no further (agnosis).

 

That's what I mean to suggest by Gnosis-Agnosis and that's why I assume that most of the more intelligent people in the world express this sort of humility in the end.

 

The people expressing this sort of humility actually know a hell of a lot about a lot of things, considerably Einstein. And yet the more knowledge he gathered the more he realized just how much he didn't know, especially as would concern the question of ultimate's. So all in all I still think that Gnosis-Agnosis is pretty firm when applied to specifically to ultimate's.

 

In the sense I'm suggesting I can see how people could be:

 

Gnostic-Agnostic Atheists

 

Gnostic-Agnostic Pantheists

 

Gnostic-Agnostic Deists

 

Gnostic-Agnostic Theists (mono and poly)

 

It seems general enough to where it can apply to anyone who knows that they don't know the answer to the ultimate questions and is comfortable and ok with that.

 

"He who knows he doesn't know, knows."

 

While others may think they know the answer to the ultimate questions but truly do not, like fundies and apologists who think they have access to the ultimate questions. 

 

"He who thinks he knows doesn't know."

 

When put in a specific context the saying makes more sense. 

[TrueFreedom]

Though I sympathize with postmoderns, I don't see what a/gnosticism adds to agnosticism.  A strong agnostic believes strongly that nobody can know.  As far as one being certain that nobody can know, that still gets back to a long history of epistemological arguments.  Though we have many ways of acquiring knowledge, I find that all of them have their flaws.  I don't believe that we can know anything objectively, with certainty, as we are subject to the senses and faculties of animals rotating on a pale blue dot.  I would replace some of your knowledge claims with weaker terms such as understanding and belief.  These higher realizations may still be subject to higher creatures with higher understanding and better justified beliefs.  Don't you agree?

[creative]

You could also put it like this:

Thinking you know everything makes you a arrogant idiot incapable or thinking outside the box. Thinking you don't know everything and accepting that you probably are a idiot that barely knows anything gives you the ability to think outside of the box and learn and study things that you don't know.

Its like:

- A person knows god exists (just because):
Explaining this person why his beliefs are bullshit has no affect at all (since he is incapable of thinking beyond the illusion he has created).
- A person that doesn't know god exists:
Giving this person any information on the subject results im him THINKING.

 

[Joshpantera]

Though I sympathize with postmoderns, I don't see what a/gnosticism adds to agnosticism.  A strong agnostic believes strongly that nobody can know.  As far as one being certain that nobody can know, that still gets back to a long history of epistemological arguments.  Though we have many ways of acquiring knowledge, I find that all of them have their flaws.  I don't believe that we can know anything objectively, with certainty, as we are subject to the senses and faculties of animals rotating on a pale blue dot.  I would replace some of your knowledge claims with weaker terms such as understanding and belief.  These higher realizations may still be subject to higher creatures with higher understanding and better justified beliefs.  Don't you agree?

I wonder about this, could any other life forms in the universe no matter how advanced know the answer to why anything exists at all? 

 

I don't think they could. The reason being is that the question gets pushed back infinitely, eternally. If there can be no fixed beginning to existence itself, the existence of anything either known or unknown, then it's beyond any fixed meaning. In my view an advanced alien race could only possibly achieve knowing that ultimately they do not know as regards the ultimate question.

 

If we leave this universe and find a race traveling between universes would it be any different? I don't see how it could be. You can't step outside of an eternal realm to find meaning or reason for it's existence because it's eternal. You'd have to conclude that it just exists without any fixed meaning or purpose for it's existence, wouldn't you? And by extension that funnels down to everything else that exists like people or alien races that be out there somewhere. 

 

I'm not sure an alien species no matter how advanced could over come this question of ultimate's.

 

So perhaps Gnosis-Agnosis is a universal or even multiversal conclusion if this line of reasoning turns out to be correct. Something that we would have in common with any other intelligent beings in existence anywhere.