The beginning of enlightenment is to understand that you know nothing, has this statement has any truth in it?

Question

Ther are some good answers so far, I am finding them interesting to read.

I feel we have to know something, to even turn this question around and look at it, and then search for the truth.

Answer 1

There is truth in this statement but not by within the definitions of common intellectual knowledge. Ordinarily, when we say that, I know noting about this person, or about that matter, we speak entirely relatively and referentially, meaning that I do not know about this particular person or matter, however, I know others things of similar type, and that my ignorance here is in fact based upon my sound knowledge of the similar or contrastingly similar instances. Within the domains of rational intellectual inquiries or thoughts we can never say that, I do not know anything, or that I know nothing, for we always know one thing or the other; and if we really had known absolutely nothing then we would not have known our own ignorance either.

When one claims that one knows nothing, one in fact transcends the bounds of normal intellectual inquiries - that are rational but completely referential – as we would not have noticed any colour at all if there were only one colour in existence. When we mentally transcend comparative means of acquisition of knowledge, we enter into a world of previously unknown realities, world of unrealistic or super realistic possibilities. A tree, for example, can be envisaged in countless different metaphysical shapes and forms through contemplation into its abstract reality. And just like a tree, all the things in this world find their peculiar identifiable through other things that are not like them and yet are there.

If I for example see an apple my previous experience tells me what it is, but if I try to know all about an apple than I would soon realise that it is impossible, for it would require the entire universe as reference if I try to completely explain away what an apple is; if so then I can say that I know as about the universe as I know about an ordinary apple, or on the other hand I know as much about an apple as I know about the entire universe.

Answer 2

To give a slightly more practical answer - I have known a few people who have been reasonably good at some skill or hobby or job.

Some of them have remained at about the same level, never really improving. These people tend to be the know-it-alls who can't or won't take advice because they are confident that no-one can teach them how to do whatever it is any better than they are doing it now.

I recently met a truly superb competition swimmer who was telling me he had just joined a new training club and had received some good constructive criticism and stoke improvement advice and was really keen to put it into practise and improve his times.

This may not sound anything like a philosophy discussion but I find that those who are aware that they do not know everything are more open to new ideas (like my swimmer) whereas those who think they know everything do not progress.

This, I believe, is true whether the subject is something practical like swimming, driving, playing tennis or something more academic and cerebral. Many great thinkers and artists have known that life is too short to learn all there is to know in their particular field.

Yes! I do think that until you realise how truly ignorant you are you do not search for further knowledge and that the search for greater knowledge is the beginning of enlightenment.

Answer 3

The statement simply tells you that you must make your mind clear and clean before you make and judgement and this is true. It means you must have an open and clear mind.

I would offer you another consideration.

The only true freedom is anarchy.

We might not like it very much but again, it is true - the emphasis being on 'freedom'. If we have law and order, we do not have freedom, we have restrictions. I we have anarchy then we have freedom - but then, so does everyone else!

Clear your mind of all the clutter.

I (and I assume that your are, too) a computer user. When I get new software and can't find something, I usually get my husband, who is not generally a computer user, to have a bit of a look around for the information that I am looking for. I, with my 'knowledge' am set in my ways. He, in his ignorance, will look as things in a different way.

If you know nothing then you need to look for enlightenment. If you think that you know it all, then you do not look any further and simply think that you know that you are right.

Answer 4

Yes, i would say this is very true.

And i don't think you have to know something in order to turn to this question, you have be educated to a degree that you know your subject well, but you know in the grand scheme of things you know barely anything.

This is a thought that has troubled me since i have started university, some of the people on my creative writing course think that hey are profound, and that they are essentially the next Gospel, but i know that every thing i think, do or write has been thought before, and anything i read and interpret has been mulled over before i did it.

Also my subject area is English, i know very little about the other subject areas in life that allow for a modern society, for example science.

So yes an individual knows relatively nothing, but the hope is that if you put these individuals into a society they will begin to understand something.

Answer 5

The point of the question is not to make out you are dumb or lacking in any way, it is just to make you think.
I am an engineer and as much as I know about one subject, I still get taught things by my peers and that's just one subject!
If you now take every ounce of what you know and weight it against all the knowledge there is, you really, relatively speaking you do know nothing. however don.t feel bad as that just means there is so much more to learn. this includes everyone, even Stephen Hawking, who may be good at physics, but i doubt has a good recipe for fairy cakes.
hope this helps.

Answer 6

Clinically it is wrong but relatively it is exactly correct. With all that is possible to learn and experience, relatively we know nothing. If there was a pie chart of all possible knowledge, what the most dogged sponge of a scholar would amass would not even register on this chart. Ours is to realise this and not ever be content with only the knowledge we have but to strive to learn and experience as much as we can. Not to ever be afraid to learn something new or change our ideas about anything because life, practices, knowledge ideas about everything, all are evolving and changing constantly so even were it possible to know everything, in another little while it would all change again.. Thats life.. Learn.. Absorb.. Change your mind.. dont become static.. right til the end you are learning something new and exciting..
Thank you

Answer 7

No.

The only true knowledge that anyone has is that they know that they exist. They cannot guarantee that anyone or anything else exists. Whether the interactions that they have with other things are true or not cannot be proven, as proof of other existences cannot be made unless the person exists within that object or that object is within them. Either way they can rely on the fact that they exist, and that is true knowledge. Therefore enlightenment has already begun, and is not in a state of beginning.

I have read Plato and Bertrand Russel, so I am probably talking out of my ar*e!

Answer 8

Yes and no. ''I know that I know nothing'' was Socrates mantra, and it served as the basis for a history of questioning, which became known in the west as ''philosophy'' for the next 2,000 or so years.

The trouble is, Socrates was playing a game with us. The gadfly was being playfully ironic, and was actually just another very wily sophist - i.e. the very group of people that he ostensibly set himself up in opposition to.

Socrates/Plato (for they are inseperable and for textual pruposes synonymous) was a crafty old devil, and the fact that his thoughts (as written down by Plato), continue to be debated to this day would have caused him much mirth.

Socrates/Plato started the history of philosophy and the path to enlightenment with a nod and a wink and a little chuckle to himself. We failed to see it for the joke it was until, that is, Nietzsche came along at the end of the 19th Century and showed how we'd 'been had' and the Socratic 'teachings' had been a little language game and joke that had been on us all along..

Answer 9

To understand that you know nothing, is to know something.

Therefore one cannot know nothing.

If you are asking if that the individual Psyche must understand that even the question does not exist. Then I cannot agree, you asked it.

To know nothing, is knowing. Upon knowing; the individual will always strive to add to that knowledge by questioning everything.

Therefore perhaps questioning everything is the beginning of enlightenment.

''I think, therefore I am''.

That is an additional knowledge.

Perhaps you should have the patience to ask a stone the same question.

Answer 10

This statement has a certain element of truth to it. In order to learn anything, you have to admit that you do not know it. The best scientists understand this, and to so degree actually celebrate when a long held thery is proved false. This is because their view is that they must have attained a higher level of knowledge of their disciplne, to be able to disprove the "best minds in the field". This view must be taken in philosphy too. The understanding of ourselves is a never ending journey, which cannot continue if we believe ourselves to be complete.

" When I was a child, I spoke as child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away my childish things." (1 Corinthians 13:11)