Ignorance Overarching: Knowing the Unknowable

[Orx of Twinleaf]

Now, before I even start the thread, I must lead with a disclaimer. I know this community is among one of the tamer ones by far I've ever had the pleasure of observing, but the point still stands that touchy subjects can crop up, and if there is to be any real gain from a discussion of this nature we must all remember that philosophical discussions are best held amorally. That means that we all share opinions and thoughts without paying heed to moral or immoral contexts because we are all here speaking for the purpose of speaking and not to incite one another, no matter how outlandish or demonizing things may or may not become. To take offense where none is meant is to give offense where it will be taken. Don't take these things personally and don't let them incite you. If you are the sort that is agitated by having their worldviews called into question, do us both the favor and move along, as it will only distress you and then distress us for having distressed you. Moreover, no matter how dark or cerebral things may become, remember that I am just a reclusive madman: I am in no way preaching some manner of glorious truth and neither are any of us. These kinds of questions don't have answers, and that's why I bother asking them. Don't leave here taking any of these viewpoints as ones to live by. Especially the nihilistic ones.

Now, I am going to pose some questions for--I admit it!--selfish reasons. The simple truth of the matter is that no matter how much of my preciously short life I throw at these kinds of things I never get anything out of it that doesn't reek of nihilism.

Socrates was the one who said that the only thing he knew for certain was that he knew nothing. In the Socratic spirit, then, we must come to terms with the horrible truth that we can't know anything, and what knowledge we have is but illusory and clung to out of fear for losing what little we think we comprehend. Perhaps I was supposed to have a valve to turn off when outside of these thought processes so it didn't drag down my quality of life, but it would seem that I missed that particular memo.

So, entertain me would you? Riddle me this: when you cannot know anything, everything is thus unknown, and in the face of this most fearsome of oblivions, how do you manage going from one day to the next without collapsing into a spiral of despair? It is all well and good to say you ignore the problem, that's what we all do; what I would like to know is how those of you who cope with it directly manage to do so.

We see what we look for, and when I look onto the world I see pain and horror. Another may instead see joy and hope, but the point stands that both myself and that other person are seeing something. I see horror because it's there to be seen, and they see hope because it, too, exists. Those who look onto the crushing void at the end of their thin-spined book often are scarred with the awareness that somewhere there is always terror to be had, and this eternal shadow sours the taste of what pleasures life presents.

Pray tell, my ally in this pointless battle: how is it one might look into the face of facelessness and manage to smile back?

 

[Kanzler]

I think we can embrace the thought of not knowing anything, or at least not as much as we would like to think we know. If you think about it, there's no inherent reason for not knowing to be a bad thing. People might feel bad about it because it conflicts with their self-image, but then that's just a matter of adjusting your self-image to diffuse that conflict.

I also think it's pointless to say that we can't know anything, because whatever we do "know" it's clear that for most of us we "know" enough. For example, even if you can't tell whether you're living in a simulation or if white bread really tastes as good as you think it does (it doesn't), you can still carry on life and eating white bread despite the extent of your "ignorance".

 

[Orx of Twinleaf]

Yes, I suppose continuing to live not under the fear of not knowing but rather in spite of it is probably the best course of action ... if you have a spine.

Let us suppose that I haven't the nerve to so impose myself upon the world. While another might be able to simply flaunt their unsurety, to thrust forth their chests and demand of the world "what will you do about it?", not everyone is gifted with such sizable testicles, I assure you. Perhaps I simply don't have the strength of mind to adjust my loathsome self-image to shake off the doubt, whatever should I do?

It's all well and good if you make your own reason to live, but what if someone, try as they might, cannot fabricate such an excuse?

 

[Orx of Twinleaf]

Haha! Gwahahahaha! I think you just gave me a new desktop, thank ye! As for the verbosity of my posts: as far as I see it, if they've not the time to stumble through this mess of text, they're probably too busy for silly questions like this, eh wot?

Too often in modern times ignorant is used as a pejorative

Couldn't agree more, though I'm sorry to have made it sound that way myself, really. It is not so much that I consider it a bad thing, but for some people being ignorant is an uncomfortable thing. I must admit to having the occasional day of existential dread myself, in this regard, every now and again.

All human knowledge is just a google search away, creating a disincentive to learn as there really is no need to

Another unfortunate truth I've heard presented many a time before, though never quite in that manner, very eloquently put, I must say. What else is there to discover, really, but trivialities? I personally enjoy taking the occasional wiki walk or going swimming in the archives of research journals, but it all only ever serves to show me that we are in dire need of a new frontier to explore, and so I impatiently check my watch as I await the genius who will mark it out for us.



As for the second address, I do find it much easier to adjust my way of thinking when bouncing around these sorts of topics. After all, you're not helping anyone by tearing your hair out over the uncountable stillborns that grieve mothers all over the world every week that you can't do jack-doodle about.

Now, I don't ask these things because I, personally, have problems dealing with them, I ask them because, corn's sake, they're some of the only things worth asking anymore. You said, yourself, Mr. Limerent, that modern discovery has been relegated to geniuses and only geniuses: there's no stone left unturned for us laymen to look underneath, no ocean uncrossed. And as if that weren't enough of a kick in the teeth, we very likely won't live to see such a point where space exploration becomes something any old fellow with a pocket of cash can decide to undertake.

As you put it, the entirety of human knowledge (or at least a goodly chunk of it) is but a keyboard-tap away. If I've some question, I need only ask the internet and I may be satiated. These questions, that don't have answers, are the ones worth talking about. Why waste our pitiable time discussing arthropod anatomy or chemical entropy or human acclimatization when any dolt with a connection to a search engine can put any such discussion to rest with a simple hyperlink?

These, gentlemen, are the issues worth talking about not because we need coddled in our fear or affirmed in our beliefs, but because, as Socrates is credited to have said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." We must ask questions all our lives if we wish to be fulfilled, and when so many of those questions can be knocked down before they are posed, these sorts of topics are all that are left.

That said, it is important to keep a sense of humor about you, and I appreciate you have done so (I have now aspired to refer to the noose as the waifu link for at least another week, ha!). So with that out of the way, mayhap we can address that, shall we?

What is funny? Can anything be funny, or would you posit that there are some things so serious or sacred that no healthy individual would laugh at such a thing?

 

[Kanzler]

What is funny? Can anything be funny, or would you posit that there are some things so serious or sacred that no healthy individual would laugh at such a thing?

I think anything can be joked about, or made funny. I don't think that things are inherently funny. There's nothing funny about a banana until someone slips on it. I think that given the depth and complexity of potential human interaction we're able to derive humour from basically anything. You can play something straight or you can subvert it - so even things that on the surface don't seem funny could be made to be funny.

 

[Orx of Twinleaf]

Quite so, Mr. Kanzler, quite so.

Personally I've always told myself that if I find something I refuse to laugh at, I've got no business laughing at anything. I believe it was an episode of South Park (crude, perhaps, but there are intelligent critiques under all of that) that put it this way: if any one thing isn't funny, than nothing is. Apologies if I messed up the phrasing, there.

It comes down to we don't get to decide what's funny, who are we, after all, but a bunch of pompous apes? Why should I ruin my day and my blood pressure besides by getting offended when it is just as easy to laugh?

To share a personal favorite quote of mine by Orvus, from Ratchet & Clank: A Crack in Time (peculiar choice for a quote, I know): "The universe has a wonderful sense of humor. The trick is learning how to take a joke."

 

[Purist of Black Water]

I wish I was still ignorant about a lot of things.
But over exposure in society is common
and if I don't know about it now, soon I will.

Not knowing is sometimes I feel, the best way to live.
you can't live a proper life if you worry about every little thing.

 

[Kanzler]

Nice poll, but I cannot agree with all of the options and went with the last one XD

I don't know if there is one objective, discoverable moral system in the same way that we discover the laws of the universe. There might be certain principles that are more or less universal, though. But I don't agree that different cultures can have morals that are all correct. I don't even think that all moral statements are equally valid.

 

[Midnight shadow]

For me personally, I don't find ignorance depressing, as I know that a single human cannot know everything, and I know things that other people don't. Sharing this knowledge is one of they key foundations of society. After all, if everyone knew everything why would we bother discussing it?

That said, I would like to point out that a lot of the so-called "knowledge" we have is nothing but theories and estimates, passed off as facts. For example, there is no such thing as a "historical fact". Every event in history we know about is based on clues, but the only way you can truly know if something happened is to see it for yourself. So really, humans are very ignorant creatures, despite our bests efforts to prove otherwise.

 

[Orx of Twinleaf]

Well put, Mr. Midnight shadow, well put. That is largely a reason I prefer to discuss things like this, because only very rarely will someone address a philosophical issue with some of those whimsical facts. Too often people take it for granted that two plus four is six, but they forget that it can just as easily be zero with modular-2 addition.

And that all comes back to what Mr. Kanzler expressed about moralities. He gave us his beliefs on the matter, as did anyone who answered my purposely-comically-hyperbolic poll, because beliefs are all that really apply in that case. One must be prepared to face their beliefs at the extreme, because if it breaks down somewhere and you can't define what line you happened to cross, it puts your beliefs into question. As Mr. Of Pen and Paper put it (quite beautifully, too, I might add), ignorance is quite the rare bliss in these times of technological knowledge-sharing. As airy as these "facts" presented may be, they are largely considered the truest thing we've access to, so there is precious little to apply our beliefs to, anymore, and a life without belief is quite hard to manage.

That said, how does everyone else feel about morality? Mr. Kanzler expressed a supposition that there might be a few mostly-universal moral aspects, anyone have any ideas what those may be?

 

[Kanzler]

There are two I can think of from the top of my head: consent, and harm.

 

[Midnight shadow]

Well, in answer to the poll, I went with the 4th option. We have many laws in our society that attempt to generalise the population. However, everyone is unique and there are too many situations where the law doesn't necessarily apply in my opinion. As a lifeguard in a pool part of my role is to enforce the rules, but there are certain situations where a rule makes little sense in being enforced. When that happens, I make a judgement call and decide if the rule not being enforced is going to increase the risk of an accident or injury happening.

To take another example, let's look at drink driving. In the UK there are very specific limits of alcohol you can have before driving, but the problem is that everyone is affected by alcohol differently, and some people can resist the effects more than others. If you are a person with a high tolerance to alcohol, is it acceptable to drive while over the drinking limit?

 

[Kanzler]

Well, in answer to the poll, I went with the 4th option. We have many laws in our society that attempt to generalise the population. However, everyone is unique and there are too many situations where the law doesn't necessarily apply in my opinion. As a lifeguard in a pool part of my role is to enforce the rules, but there are certain situations where a rule makes little sense in being enforced. When that happens, I make a judgement call and decide if the rule not being enforced is going to increase the risk of an accident or injury happening.

To take another example, let's look at drink driving. In the UK there are very specific limits of alcohol you can have before driving, but the problem is that everyone is affected by alcohol differently, and some people can resist the effects more than others. If you are a person with a high tolerance to alcohol, is it acceptable to drive while over the drinking limit?

But aren't you making a judgment call according to some kind of morality? I don't think the fact that you don't always enforce the rules leads to the conclusion that morality is nonexistent.

 

[Orx of Twinleaf]

Assuming universality by extension assumes generality, but as humans all we can do is think via categorization. We all know on some level that no two streetlamps are exactly the same, that on the molecular level they are each marginally different, that they each have a different story and history, and sheltered different people under their light, have known different bulbs. But for practicality's sake, the world's got a lot going on, so we treat them all as streetlamps. It is much the same with people. We think of the general populace as "people". It is only people we hold dear who are exempt from that umbrella term.

It is both a boon and a bane that humans are so unique. No one can deny that having some sort of legal system in place certainly helps a little bit in maintaining order, but the legal system is (ideally) amoral and holds itself above situations. It was because people realized that certain contexts can make breaking the law justified or preferable, and that is largely the origin of things like juries or even the judges, themselves. They get to weigh in and decide on the matter. Oftentimes these days it's more about deciding the guilt in the matter, but sometimes it does come down to whether or not they consider it justified, and they do have a say in possibly letting someone off the hook.

Legal systems are actually a very good example of a belief system because of their rigidity and the way some people play the systems or bend them to allow their actions. In can be like someone who is devoted to never lying being put in the situation where a murderer asks them where the orphans are hiding. A real belief system is almost amoral on its face. Would they lie to the murderer? Most likely. And then they would argue that under that duress, their precious system didn't apply. It takes true strength of mind to cling to a system so surely as to never back down from it.

Would someone be be in the wrong for being so devoted? Or would it be commendable that they point the murderer toward his next victims?

And to address Mr. Kanzler's remark, the problem is very often found in defining such things as harm. It's easy to say things like one shouldn't harm others, but then it comes down to distinguishing it it gets much harder. Is minor discomfort harm? Is it purely physical? Is there ever an instance where a little bit of harm is maybe beneficial to the participant (injections, incisions, other surgical things)? What if I can't tell when I inflict harm?

 

[Kanzler]

And to address Mr. Kanzler's remark, the problem is very often found in defining such things as harm. It's easy to say things like one shouldn't harm others, but then it comes down to distinguishing it it gets much harder. Is minor discomfort harm? Is it purely physical? Is there ever an instance where a little bit of harm is maybe beneficial to the participant (injections, incisions, other surgical things)? What if I can't tell when I inflict harm?

Sure, but it seems universal that we want to have consent and avoid harm, even if it might be difficult to tell when you have either. And as for your last point, I think it brings up another "universal" principle - intent. Lacking the intention to harm or violate consent might make an action less immoral than it otherwise would be.

 

[Midnight shadow]

But aren't you making a judgment call according to some kind of morality? I don't think the fact that you don't always enforce the rules leads to the conclusion that morality is nonexistent.

Well, the statement in the poll is actually a paradox. What is a moral code? It's a mindset that separates good from bad. So the second sentence in that option is saying if you have a good reason (i.e. that it is morally acceptable) then you can justify doing anything. It's the second sentence in the option that I agree with.

 

[Kanzler]

Well, the statement in the poll is actually a paradox. What is a moral code? It's a mindset that separates good from bad. So the second sentence in that option is saying if you have a good reason (i.e. that it is morally acceptable) then you can justify doing anything. It's the second sentence in the option that I agree with.

What's your position, then, on whether there is or isn't an objective moral code - however basic?

 

[Midnight shadow]

What's your position, then, on whether there is or isn't an objective moral code - however basic?

I believe there is a moral code but it is more fluid than the laws we have to reflect it. It is very much subjective and it's up to the individual to decide what is right or wrong for the given situation.

 

[Orx of Twinleaf]

And in the end, that is in practice equivalent to there being no moral code because it hinges solely upon context.

The dangerous part about that viewpoint is that context, like so many things, is unique to the individual. When passing judgement on others we can only understand some of the context they made their choices in; we can never know all of it because we can never be them. What ends up happening though is that any act is justified to the actor, which is all that ends up mattering in the moral sense, even if it is overridden in the practical sense by what is justified to the audience of the action.

Morality is generally not practical. It is often easier to be a nasty person, but we all go to the extra effort of not being a douchebag to everyone. Well, most of us do, anyway.