4 Answers

  1. I only know that I don't know anything (C) Socrates

    Each person has a certain set of knowledge. Some of them he received empirically – through experience, others he learned from books, others – from teachers and mentors. If you believe in esotericism, then there is also a single information space, connecting to which you can get information within your own level of development. Therefore, it is not correct to say that a person does not know anything at all. Even in the above statement of the ancient Greek philosopher, there is a nuance: he knows at least 1 “thing” – that he knows nothing.

    Of course, if I personally am asked to simulate the process of nuclear fusion, or describe the therapy for treating a certain disease, I will not be able to do this, because I do not know these things. If I am asked to answer a question on communication psychology, I will be able to do it from the point of view of my own experience, if I have had a similar situation in my life, but I will not be able to answer as a professional, based on what I do not know (I do not have an education in social psychology)

    PS: Personally, I don't quite understand what result the questioner wanted to achieve, especially under the tag philosophy. I just said my vision of the situation, without claiming to be philosophical reflections 🙂

  2. And what if it is, really at least someone is ready to admit it?)) Or has no one ever pretended to be perfectly well versed in a question about which they are hearing for the first time or “heard it once a long time ago from an unverified source”? Put your ego under attack and admit that you don't understand what it's about, or pretend to be an expert in all aspects of life and “wash the interlocutor”? I think a lot of people will prefer the second option)) And in general, according to my observations, the less a person really knows, the more know-it-all they want to appear.

  3. I will not go into philosophy, but will tell you about my friend. My friend is a very interesting person, but he is ready to argue on any topic and defend the opposite position as the original true position of the opponent. And even in those things that he does not know about, but to talk about it as if he knows everything about them. For example, I bought myself a graphic tablet (I'm an artist), but it didn't fit me – it was completely inconvenient to draw. My friend doesn't draw. I told him that now I would have to sell the tablet, because it didn't suit me, and he began to convince me that I was wrong, that this tablet has the same normal screen as my old one (although there are even different technologies), that it feels pressure in the same way and I just wasn't used to it. Although the technical characteristics of the tablet were different. Despite the fact that he never even drew on my two tablets.

  4. We don't pretend that we know anything, we sincerely believe in it 🙂

    In modern times, many philosophers from Berkeley to Kant have spoken in one form or another about the relativity of knowledge. And Husserl in the 20th century proposed the method of phenomenological reduction in order, roughly speaking, to move from the glitches of our consciousness, which we consider knowledge about the world, to seeing things as they really are (phenomenology, by the way, had a powerful influence on private humanities and social sciences).�

    But as a research method, it is certainly good, but no one really knows what it is “really” anyway 🙂

Leave a Reply