I am looking for responses and rebuttals to this statement.?

Question

Enlightenment is knowing that enlightenment is an illusion. Similar to "The first step in knowing everything is knowing that you never will" - similar but with different condentations.

One of the reasons I ask this questions is to highlight the circles that intellectual and philisopical debate, discussions can go in. Furthermore shouldn't those who are truly enlightened realize that enlightenment is different for every person and is not necessary to enjoy, experience and understand life as a whole.

Answer 1

I've read your additional comments, and unfortunately they add nothing of value to the discussion. Please understand, if you want to engage in a serious philosophical discussion (and I think you do) you must wield language like a surgeon wields a scalpal. If you re-read your original post, you'll see that my original comments are correct. The statement is a contradiction. Unfortunately you compound this contradiction be stating that enlightenment should mean different things to different people. But can't you see that this is contradicted by your opening sentence, "enlightenment is an illusion?"

Either it exists or it doesn't. You have catagorically stated that it does not exist. Therefore, any further discussion of what it means to you, me, or anyone else is intellectually useless.

It's all about a controlled use of language. State exactly what you mean, and mean exactly what you state. An example of your need to tighten your language and thought processes is found in your use of the non-word, "condentation."

If you want to talk about "enlightenment" in a religious sense, then by all means, be as contradictory as you wish (which is why I compared your statement to a Zen koan). But if you seriously want to discuss philosophy you've got to get your act together. Okay?


===============================================

Your statement is a contradiction. If enlightenment is illusory, it naturally follows that there is no meaningful definition as offered in your first clause. Furthermore, the same problem exists in your second clause. Once again, if you know you will never learn everything (and you won't -- that's correct) then there is no "first step" to knowing everything.

It seems that what you are doing is writting a Zen koan.

Answer 2

Enlightenment is not knowing enlightenment is an illusion. Enlightenment is being very good at what you are specialized in or what you are interested in. It is obvious not all fields of knowleadge can be fully covered by any person, even Marx or Weber were experts in philosophy, economics, and law, but they were not especially interested in producing good beds, to give a dumb example. Thus, enlightenment is having all the tools you need to carry out a successfull discussion in what you know the best, but being humble about it at the same time. Enlightenment is also the search for truth no matter what.

Answer 3

You answered your own question in the "Additional Details" section.

The other sincere answers suggest the same type of enlightenment for everybody. Your idea is better, though I'm certain you'll find those who would argue that proposing no "standard of enlightenment" is itself the proposition of a standard - i.e. the standard of no standards.

It's a rephrasing of Russell's Paradox, as some of your allusions to circular reasoning are.. There's no simple solution, but you can go here to learn more about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox

Answer 4

Of course that statement is true, unless of course you define "everything" as "everything you can know," in which case the argument becomes entirely subjective and you don't really have anything to argue because nothing in that would be measureable.

However, since a person has to experience something to know something (or at least experience an account of something. If I tell you 2 + 2 = 4, you know that only because I have related to you that 2 + 2 = 4...and that is your experience). Since people are finite by one of the most fundamental standards of what it is to be human, one person cannot experience everything. Therefore, if one person cannot experience everything, or even accounts of everything, a person cannot possibly know everything.

Moreover, even if a person were to experience everything, deduction would tell us that two experiences of the exact same event can also be different. THAT means that the person who knew everything would have to not only have an experience of everything, but also have EVERY experience of everything.

Since that is flat out not possible, because experience is of course subjective to start with, it is impossible, by human finite terms, for a person to know everything.

Answer 5

I agree that neither enlightment nor knowing everything is possible. But people use too often these kind of sentences to deny the reality and usefulness of knowledge and higher education. In particular they can't stand that there are people who have more knowledge than them. Kind of people who believe in innate knowledge. They would also say: «You got it or you don't» and «Do you know everything about nothing or nothing about everything».

Answer 6

Condentations? Do you mean Connotations? Sorry. It's like saying, "I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired." It's rather redundant, but makes sense.

Answer 7

After reading your question several times, I was sure that I understood what you were talking about. However, I am now not sure if I do or not, or in fact no matter how many times I read it, if I ever will. I feel happier now that I have admitted defeat. I fully accept that I never will understand it and feel totally relieved about that fact..................... In fact, I know I never will........

Answer 8

I disagree with the former, and agree with the latter.
Education is the discovery of how very little you actually know.

Answer 9

You make your own reality...... that everything is an Illusion and nothing is real. Good or bad baby...we can change it everyway....we can change it.......Enlightenment...don't know what it is.

Answer 10

Yes, I can agree with that to some extent - it's like saying 'The more you know, the more you know you don't know'!