Knowledge is EVIL

[Skepdick]

No knowledge -> no suffering can definitely be tested to work by choosing not to pass known knowledge on to future potential knowers who are not aware of known knowledge yet.

Is that a variation of "Есть человек — есть проблема, нет человека — нет проблемы"?

You are such a problem-solver, you!

[Dontaskme]

No knowledge -> no suffering can definitely be tested to work by choosing not to pass known knowledge on to future potential knowers who are not aware of known knowledge yet.

Is that a variation of "Есть человек — есть проблема, нет человека — нет проблемы"?

I don't know what the above means to make that judgement.

But all I'm saying is that we have the solution to suffering by not passing the knowledge of known suffering on. Suffering will still be present in those that still are here knowing suffering, so until every one who knows they suffer has died, it will still be around.

.

[Dontaskme]

You are such a problem-solver, you!

Yes I am.

[Dontaskme]

One thing is for sure though, knowledge is not one of those causes. Not for me anyway.

Knowledge is the only cause of suffering.

How can you suffer if you didn't know you were suffering?

[Skepdick]

Knowledge is the only cause of suffering.

How can you suffer if you didn't know you were suffering?

I can't. Which is why your theory is nonsense.

I know that I am not suffering. Therefore knowledge cannot be the cause of suffering. If it were the cause of suffering, then knowing that I am not suffering would immediately cause me to suffer.

[Dontaskme]

Knowledge is the only cause of suffering.

How can you suffer if you didn't know you were suffering?

I can't. Which is why your theory is nonsense.

I know that I am not suffering. Therefore knowledge cannot be the cause of suffering. If it were the cause of suffering, then knowing that I am not suffering would immediately cause me to suffer.

Well of course you cannot know you do not know you are suffering without knowing you are suffering. And once you know something you cannot then not know that something you know. It doesn't work like that.

So when you know you are suffering, when you have knowledge of suffering, which you do because the word suffering is what knowledge informs ...would it be a good idea to inflict that knowledge of suffering on a new life knowing that new life would eventually acquire the knowledge of suffering ?

.

[Skepdick]

Well of course you cannot know you do not know you are suffering without knowing you are suffering. And once you know something you cannot then not know that something you know. It doesn't work like that.

So when you know you are suffering, when you have knowledge of suffering, which you do because the word suffering is what knowledge informs ...would it be a good idea to inflict that knowledge of suffering on a new life knowing that new life would eventually aquire the knowledge of suffering ?

You are incredibly confused. Your very first sentence is thus:

Having knowledge ..is suffering.

I have the knowledge that I am born.
I have the knowledge that I am NOT suffering.
I have the knowledge that I am enjoying my glass of wine right now.

It is pertinently obvious to me that knowledge does not necessitate suffering. Your premise is flawed.

[Dontaskme]

I have the knowledge that I am NOT suffering.

Having the knowledge of not suffering is still knowledge.

Your premise is NOT only flawed, but it's super super super flawed. Try again.

.

[Skepdick]

Having the knowledge of not suffering is still knowledge.

Precisely! And this knowledge (of not suffering) DOES NOT CAUSE suffering.

Your premise is NOT only flawed, but it's super super super flawed. Try again.

Yeah. OK. But it's not my premise. It's yours.

Having knowledge ..is suffering, and suffering is evil incarnate which is felt by every living sentient human being.

[Dontaskme]

Having the knowledge of not suffering is still knowledge.

Precisely! And this DOES NOT CAUSE suffering.

There is no known state known as the absence of knowledge. There is knowledge of the presence of knowledge, and the knowledge of not suffering is still the presence of knowledge, and knowledge causes suffering.

Your premise is NOT only flawed, but it's super super super flawed. Try again.

Yeah. OK. But it's not my premise. It's yours.

But I never said my premise was flawed, I said yours is flawed.

[Nick_A]

No knowledge -> no suffering can definitely be tested to work by choosing not to pass known knowledge on to future potential knowers who are not aware of known knowledge yet.

Is that a variation of "Есть человек — есть проблема, нет человека — нет проблемы"?

I don't know what the above means to make that judgement.

But all I'm saying is that we have the solution to suffering by not passing the knowledge of known suffering on. Suffering will still be present in those that still are here knowing suffering, so until every one who knows they suffer has died, it will still be around.

.

There is an article in the Philosophy Now magazine board about mora
lity. When you click on it you read: Information
The requested topic does not exist.


So I guess you are right. Morality leading to suffering doesn't exist. It does raise the question about which path of non-existence is worse: morality or suffering?

[Dontaskme]

There is an article in the Philosophy Now magazine board about mora
lity. When you click on it you read: Information
The requested topic does not exist.

Hmm, I wonder why that topic doesn't exist.

So I guess you are right. Morality leading to suffering doesn't exist. It does raise the question about which path of non-existence is worse: morality or suffering?

The desire for morality is your suffering.

[Skepdick]

There is no known state known as the absence of knowledge.

You don't know that you don't know things? Shame.

I know that I don't know things. That knowledge causes no suffering.

But I never said my premise was flawed, I said yours is flawed.

Very strange indeed. Since I have no premise - I was arguing against yours.

[Dontaskme]

There is no known state known as the absence of knowledge.

You don't know that you don't know things? ShameYou don't know that you don't know things? Shame.

You first have to exist to claim (You don't know that you don't know things? Shame.) that claim is knowledge.
If you say you know -YOU DON'T
There is no such knowledge as no knowledge, that CLAIM is also knowledge. Try again.

I know that I don't know things. That knowledge causes no suffering.

That knowledge is still a claim to know. Knowledge is the Known. The Known know nothing, and even that statement is a knowledge, it is a claim to know. So ANY claim made here within the mind whether it is a knowing or a not knowing is still knowledge which is SUFFERING. Try again.

But I never said my premise was flawed, I said yours is flawed.

Very strange indeed. Since I have no premise - I was arguing against yours.

Having no premise is still a premise of having no premise.
You were arguing against an assumption I have a premise, that you believe I have here, only because it is first known and believed in you there, else you wouldn't have recognised one here.
Try again.

.

[Skepdick]

There is no known state known as the absence of knowledge.

You don't know that you don't know things? ShameYou don't know that you don't know things? Shame.

You first have to exist to claim (You don't know that you don't know things? Shame.) that claim is knowledge.
If you say you know -YOU DON'T
There is no such knowledge as no knowledge, that CLAIM is also knowledge. Try again.

I know that I don't know things. That knowledge causes no suffering.

That knowledge is still a claim to know. Knowledge is the Known. The Known know nothing, and even that statement is a knowledge, it is a claim to know. So ANY claim made here within the mind whether it is a knowing or a not knowing is still knowledge which is SUFFERING. Try again.

But I never said my premise was flawed, I said yours is flawed.

Very strange indeed. Since I have no premise - I was arguing against yours.

Having no premise is still a premise of having no premise.
You were arguing against an assumption I have a premise, that you believe I have here, only because it is first known and believed in you there, else you wouldn't have recognised one here.
Try again.

.

Do you feel like I am fucking you yet?

Just curious.