Tani

what do people think about this problem (which sounds to me more like an predicament, actually)?

the general form:

if you know about it, then you don't need to enquire about it.
if you don't know about it, then you wouldn't even know to enquire it.
so enquiry is either pointless or impossible.

i have heard that people say this paradox only applies to enquiry, but you can still "learn." yet that doesn't make sense to me. and of course, it's absolutely strange that i'd post something like this... i mean what am i looking for? an answer? well, if i see a post that holds a contrary position, then how would i proceed to change my mind regarding it? it has to make sense to me in the first place, and if it make sense, then it must follow some assumptions and rules that i agree to already. if it doesn't adhere to those assumptions and rules, then would i doubt the assumptions and rules or do i doubt the post in question? that is, if i can change my mind at all to something completely contradictory to my original position, then i couldn't have been rational to begin with, then how am i to say that this transition of position is rational at all? or how can i be be ration to irrationally chose to be rational? i am aware that it might be a self-referencing issue, but wouldn't that then be saying rationality is actually a meaningless notion?

tk

The paradox can be resolved by noticing the ambiguity in the phrase "know about".

Infinity Lover

I agree. I think it's rather a matter of knowing something for certain or not. And most answers raise questions.

Mr. Sammi

Perhaps some form of desire for independent corroboration has been stuck into us by nature.

The way the senses work in concert, with touch qualifying distance percieved by light OR by sound OR by smell with taste following a close behind if one is brave enough.

Light although a primary source of information is not adequate to pinpoint proximity under certain conditions. One has to reach out and touch. This is obvious when refractive indicies play their part in alluding to changes in perceptive distances. Lots more can probably be said about the need for these types of independent corroborations.

What may be postulated is the idea that the mind is being constantly appealed to to corroborate itz information. This would mean if you know, to the degree which you know, your sense of being is still being appealed to, to constantly clarify and perhaps have some sort of ideal corroboration!


We can see the full extension of knowing, to the extent to which one knows, leads to a doubting, a doubting of what one knows, in order to satisify the desire for corroboration. Descartes showed us that constant doubt of what one knows, is reassurement that one only thinks one knows, as such the doubt is a classic internal brainy mechanism of self-adjustment AND self-awareness.

Doubt, can be seen as an intellectual mechanism for independent corroboration of what one thinks one knows. It is this latter clause which has probably driven you to explore this topic further. It may be the same sort of doubt which may never allow you to rest the subject, even though you may think you know it all


Sammi Na Boodie (do you doubt what you think i have written)

ieyeasu

As the other's pointed out, "Know about" and "not know about" sets up a false dichotomy. Wouldn't most agree that there are many degrees of knowing?

Andrew

Not Plato, I don't think.

Psycho Economist

Ah for the richness of english. In Spanish, indeed many languages, there's little overlap in ways to say "know" as in fact, and "be aware of" more generally.

It doesn't look like a paradox at all in el Español. (Hope I got that subjunctive right, been seven semesters since I took a Spanish class.)

Andrew

Obviously there is such overlap in Greek as well, though, because otherwise there would not be such a conundrum.

ieyeasu

How about a more real translation? Less exact, more ideal?

JP2

The trouble is, it uses the concept of "knowledge" in two different ways.

If you have knowledge of something, it can either mean that you are familiar with it, you understand it, or some fusion of the two. The paradox plays upon these differing definitions, but ends up suggesting that being aware of the existence of something is the equivelent of understanding it. We cannot study a star, for instance, before we know it exists, but knowledge of its existence is only the beginning of the "enquiry" as we set about attaining knowledge about the star (in the form of understanding), rather than just of it.

Knowledge about anything is never complete, so there are always grounds for enquiry, even if we already possess some knowledge about this given "thing".