We have determined the basic nature of proper knowledge and how it's different from most of the facts we take for granted. The next step is to see what those that believe in the possibility or the impossibility of knowledge have to say, what they should actually believe in and how they actually act in reality.
Agnostics:
~Core belief: To Know is impossible
This core belief was manifested in the famous quote by Socrates - This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I - equally ignorant - do not believe [that I know anything]. Or its shorter version "I know that I know nothing".
This approach to reality allows you to say that nothing is sure and from there that existence of anyone, anything cannot be proved nor can it be disproved. This path of thought led me down to the idea that faith is what keeps the world together. Not the faith in a higher being, for me that idea is unacceptable, but the faith, the belief that I am here now, that this is at least one section of reality, that you, my dear reader are also real.
~ What an agnostic should believe in: Everything except himself
Why is this so. In the previous post from this series we determined that existence of conscious self can be known and that other things may or may not be real in a sense that out consciousness is real. This is why an agnostic should leave all his options open and believe, not know that everything around him is real or unreal and act accordingly.
~How they actually act: Falsely to how they represent and see them self
When talking to most people that proclaim them self as Agnostics, you need to work hard to remind that what that actually means and that they cannot tell you that they know a bunch of stuff that you are clueless about using that self proclaimed title as a posh moral high ground.
If you got something to add, please do via comments!
Gnostics will be published soon.
13 comments:
I've come across several individuals who do just that; use "I'm agnostic *explains everything*" as a tool to make themselves seem more elevated than the person they are speaking with. When in reality, they know nothing.
Good fleshing out of agnosticism. Followed!
seems like i turn agnostic right before writing an exam.
good round up
nice article, i always like reading info on agnostics
nice post. I have liked most of the posts you have put up.
Wasn't sure what it meant, never bothered to look it up.
I think the problem is that anyone can say they're 'agnostic', but not many people can back it up.
I myself am polytheistic; the belief of multiple deities also usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own mythologies and rituals. But not the kind of deity that's 'up in heaven'. The kind of deity that ruled the earth and other planets before us. You know, sort of like the universe doesn't belong to any one being or beings, like it gets shared through the ages?
So I like to think that when I talk about religion --beliefs I think is more appropriate-- I don't like to take it to the level of a knowledge debate. It just doesn't seem right to me.
My oh my, did that even make any sense at all?
Got any proof of that Alexis? Well said, enjoyed the read.
Long, good read.
interesting read.
i myself am agnostic, but to think i would use it to elevate myself and make my point more valid? I prefer to do it with facts.
what you didn't mention is that for most *true* agnostics, agnosticism is their objective view of the world and, of course, they have a subjective view too!
so there are atheistic agnostics and theistic agnostics, depending on what they lean to.
I myself am an atheistic agnostic, but that's just me :D
@ Weird Dog - You are an agnostic [to know anything is impossible - stance] that prefers facts?
What facts when you cannot know anything [other then that your consciousness exists]...?
As for mixing theist and gnosticism, that is a popular misconception ;)
That is why I separated those two into different post series.
Post a Comment