Philosophy Now Forum

Borrowing again from Descartes' soon-to-be most fortunate blunder of an utterance:

I think, therefor I am (?).

with this blutterance having viz.

I think not (i), knowing I am (ii) willing not to think (iii).

which, unlike the blutterance:
i. severs one from ones own thought process
ii. attains to acknowledgement of self
iii. demonstrates (control of) will (ie. self)

with an emphasis on each point:
i. for its inverse viz. 'identifying self by way of thought' being a root of insanity (ie. lunacy)
ii. for its inverse viz. 'believing self to be anything self is not' being a root of suffering (ie. hubris)
iii. for it necessarily reflecting any/all affirmative action of any/all beings

therefor the blutterance can be its own self-contained tautology: philosopher-man thinks himself to be something he is not (ie. a thought) resulting in lunacy lacking conscious knowledge of self. This is broad-spectrum. Now try:

I believe, therefor I am (?).

as equally absurd.

I believe not, knowing I am willing not to believe.

as equally sound. Try:

...knowing I am willing not to believe...

can this be a knowledge absent any/all belief? If yes:

All knowing is belief (?)

is falsified, as in:

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.

which is a/the singularity of absurdity itself !

All knowing is negation of belief:

(d) definite <----- (i) indefinite
__________________________
wherein:
(d) is any definite collapse(s) of any/all outstanding belief-based ignorance(s) less all-knowing, and
(i) is any superposition(s) sustaining any/all possible belief-based ignorance(s) less all-knowing

Any/all knowledge(s) negates any/all belief-based ignorance(s), thus:

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.

is an absurdity beyond measure (!) (ie. singularity).

What, I wonder, is the source of knowledge? Reality? Something else?

Do we know reality or this something else to be true? Or must we take it on faith that whatever is the source of knowledge is true?

After all, if we know this source of knowledge to be true, then there must be a known source behind the initial source, and so on.

Perhaps any basic source of knowledge must be accepted without evidence, accepted via ignorant belief.

Yet science provides us evidence of what we know to be real. Or is our reality only a projection of imagination?

How can we know that our evidence of what is real is real itself? Are we actually left with belief as the basis of knowledge?

I wonder.

What, I wonder, is the source of knowledge? Reality? Something else?

Can not all-knowing be attained to by indefinitely trying any/all belief?
Can knowledge serve towards knowing any/all not to believe?

Do we know reality or this something else to be true? Or must we take it on faith that whatever is the source of knowledge is true?

I believe I am...
I know I am...

Is one ignorant?
Is the other knowledgeable?

After all, if we know this source of knowledge to be true, then there must be a known source behind the initial source, and so on.

If one knows to indefinitely try any/all belief, could this not indefinitely yield knowledge?
How might one ever become stuck/stagnated?
What happens when a being(s) takes a mere belief as a certainty?

Perhaps any basic source of knowledge must be accepted without evidence, accepted via ignorant belief.

Does one certainly know ones self, or merely believe ones self (to be something they are not)?

Yet science provides us evidence of what we know to be real. Or is our reality only a projection of imagination?

Science begins with self (ie. 'con'; single): conscience.
Discipline of conscience is science-of-all-sciences.

How can we know that our evidence of what is real is real itself? Are we actually left with belief as the basis of knowledge?

I wonder.

Does it not take a believer to believe that which is not, is, and/or that which is, is not?
How does one know to keep them reconciled? What is the inverse of belief-based ignorance(s)?

If I am is real, and is used to infer all else, all else will be as real as I am is.
If I am is unreal, and is used to infer all else, all else will be as unreal as I am is.

Whatever degree to which ones knows ones own self is the same degree to which one can know anything at all, including any/all matters pertaining to the affirmative existence or non-existence of any god (ie. theists and atheists alike).

Therefor "believers" and "unbelievers" have this fundamental difference: an unbeliever can possess, as part of their body of knowledge, the same that negates the "belief" of the "believers" such that the unbeliever knows the believer is in a state of relative ignorance.

Believers persecute unbelievers for not "believing" in their god/deity/idol messenger. They simultaneously claim they, as the believers, are persecuted by the unbelievers (ie. inversion). Which is true?

Does it not take a believer to believe evil is good? How might knowledge keep good/evil reconciled?
What happens when a person believes to know either good or evil, and are wrong?

GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Believe to know = death
Know (not to) believe = (inverse of) death (ie. life)

Knowledge negates belief, thus:

All knowing is belief (?)

is a/the absurdity of all absurdities that embodies the collective ignorance of philosophy-as-a-whole. The blunder practically defines the stagnated state of philosophy.