The Foolish Heart of Agnosticism

[wuliheron]

Socrates said, "True wisdom is knowing you don't know" to which I would add accepting our ignorance is how we really come to know anything. Ironically, our ignorance appears to be the source of whatever creativity, free will, humor, knowledge, and authenticity we might possess, but only to the degree we are both aware and accepting of our ignorance. As far as Socrates was concerned this was just a simple fact of life. If you are neither aware nor accepting of the fact that you don't know how to swim, for example, you'll have limited wisdom and humor when it comes to water. This "ignorant wisdom", or love, humor, knowledge, and sagacity acquired by becoming more aware and accepting of our ignorance, is what I like to think of as the foolish heart of agnosticism. The ability to once again, foolishly laugh at ourselves like a child as if we didn't have a care in the world, and find humble contentment in our ignorance, somehow knowing without knowing how we know, wonder remains the beginning of all wisdom.

[phyllo]

The ability to once again, foolishly laugh at ourselves like a child as if we didn't have a care in the world, and find humble contentment in our ignorance, somehow knowing without knowing how we know, wonder remains the beginning of all wisdom.

If you find "humble contentment in ... ignorance" , then you have no motivation for change. Education and learning seem to be founded on discontent. And wisdom comes from education and learning. (Not necessarily formal schooling although that is part of it.)

Therefore, contentment in ignorance would appear to be anti-wisdom.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Socrates said, "True wisdom is knowing you don't know" to which I would add accepting our ignorance is how we really come to know anything. Ironically, our ignorance appears to be the source of whatever creativity, free will, humor, knowledge, and authenticity we might possess, but only to the degree we are both aware and accepting of our ignorance. As far as Socrates was concerned this was just a simple fact of life. If you are neither aware nor accepting of the fact that you don't know how to swim, for example, you'll have limited wisdom and humor when it comes to water. This "ignorant wisdom", or love, humor, knowledge, and sagacity acquired by becoming more aware and accepting of our ignorance, is what I like to think of as the foolish heart of agnosticism. The ability to once again, foolishly laugh at ourselves like a child as if we didn't have a care in the world, and find humble contentment in our ignorance, somehow knowing without knowing how we know, wonder remains the beginning of all wisdom.

There certainly could be carefree, I have no idea, agnosticism. But an agnostic need not have this personality type or have this heart - and in fact religious people can. An agnostic may very well have very specific ideas about epistemology, have concluded that there is no way to determine if there is a God, and be a real sourpuss (or happy go lucky sort) ta boot.

[wuliheron]

The ability to once again, foolishly laugh at ourselves like a child as if we didn't have a care in the world, and find humble contentment in our ignorance, somehow knowing without knowing how we know, wonder remains the beginning of all wisdom.

If you find "humble contentment in ... ignorance" , then you have no motivation for change. Education and learning seem to be founded on discontent. And wisdom comes from education and learning. (Not necessarily formal schooling although that is part of it.)

Therefore, contentment in ignorance would appear to be anti-wisdom.

Believe it or not, most people report being able to chew gum and walk at the same time, and having more than one feeling at a time.

[wuliheron]

There certainly could be carefree, I have no idea, agnosticism. But an agnostic need not have this personality type or have this heart - and in fact religious people can. An agnostic may very well have very specific ideas about epistemology, have concluded that there is no way to determine if there is a God, and be a real sourpuss (or happy go lucky sort) ta boot.

People can keep more than one feeling and thought at a time, which is one reason we have a subconscious mind.

[Karpel Tunnel]

There certainly could be carefree, I have no idea, agnosticism. But an agnostic need not have this personality type or have this heart - and in fact religious people can. An agnostic may very well have very specific ideas about epistemology, have concluded that there is no way to determine if there is a God, and be a real sourpuss (or happy go lucky sort) ta boot.

People can keep more than one feeling and thought at a time, which is one reason we have a subconscious mind.

Sure, that's possible also. Just pointing out that agnosticism and agnostics need not be carefree. In fact that's generally not my experience of them. They seem pretty much like other people on that scale.

[wuliheron]

People can keep more than one feeling and thought at a time, which is one reason we have a subconscious mind.
Sure, that's possible also. Just pointing out that agnosticism and agnostics need not be carefree. In fact that's generally not my experience of them. They seem pretty much like other people on that scale.

Agnostics are not carefree because they represent the excluded middle and the law of contention applies. In dualistic western logic anything considered "partially" true is treated as a lie, with agnostics often having to put up with militant atheists and fundamentalists insisting its impossible to be truly ignorant. The irony escapes them atheists and fundamentalists alike, but that does not mean agnostics don't value their own ignorance and lack of knowledge more than others in even more personal ways. Notably, Asians don't have the same issue with agnosticism. I can value my own ignorance as integral to my sense of humor and ability to socialize, without sacrificing my mind in the process.

[phyllo]

Believe it or not, most people report being able to chew gum and walk at the same time, and having more than one feeling at a time.

Well that explains that.

[wuliheron]

Believe it or not, most people report being able to chew gum and walk at the same time, and having more than one feeling at a time.

Well that explains that.

Occasionally people can't stop laughing or hiccupping for years, sort of like an engine dieseling, but its pretty rare.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Agnostics are not carefree because they represent the excluded middle and the law of contention applies.

I can only assume you are using excluded middle in a metaphorical sense, since most agnostics are not arguing that God exists and doesn't or boht at the same time. They are saying they do not know.

In dualistic western logic anything considered "partially" true is treated as a lie, with agnostics often having to put up with militant atheists and fundamentalists insisting its impossible to be truly ignorant.

And here it seems like you were not using it metaphorically, though still idiosyncratically. Most agnostics do not think it is partially true that God exists. Or partially true that God does not exist.

The irony escapes them atheists and fundamentalists alike, but that does not mean agnostics don't value their own ignorance and lack of knowledge more than others in even more personal ways.

Notably, Asians don't have the same issue with agnosticism. I can value my own ignorance as integral to my sense of humor and ability to socialize, without sacrificing my mind in the process.

Again you may react to your agnosticism this way and you may couch it in these terms but it is not the rule. In fact I think it is pretty uncommon for them to view it this way. Which is fine, but you keep responding as if what you say supports the generalization, but it doesn't.

[wuliheron]

And here it seems like you were not using it metaphorically, though still idiosyncratically. Most agnostics do not think it is partially true that God exists. Or partially true that God does not exist.

No, I mean agnostics fall into the category of people to be excluded, as a threat to both sides of any argument.

Again you may react to your agnosticism this way and you may couch it in these terms but it is not the rule. In fact I think it is pretty uncommon for them to view it this way. Which is fine, but you keep responding as if what you say supports the generalization, but it doesn't.

I think it might help if you re-read everything I've written, because you obvious don't comprehend what I'm saying.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I think it might help if you re-read everything I've written, because you obvious don't comprehend what I'm saying.

Yeah, it still seems like a false generalization. The fact that one can have several feelings at once and what you personally experience notwithstanding. I am not contesting what you personally experience. I get now what you meant by excluded middle.

[wuliheron]

Yeah, it still seems like a false generalization. The fact that one can have several feelings at once and what you personally experience notwithstanding. I am not contesting what you personally experience. I get now what you meant by excluded middle.

It means we have two ways of thinking, and we can leverage them both instead of relying on classical logic alone. Being able to accept my ignorance and my knowledge is what life requires. Without faith in your own memories, dreams, awareness, and personal journey you cannot have any of these.

[Karpel Tunnel]

It means we have two ways of thinking, and we can leverage them both instead of relying on classical logic alone. Being able to accept my ignorance and my knowledge is what life requires. Without faith in your own memories, dreams, awareness, and personal journey you cannot have any of these.

I think we may have more than two. But, sure, I have faith in those things. Though this is the oddest description of agnosticism I've encountered. It seems like you are saying you are both an agnosticist and not an agnosticist, which would be in the excluded middle - not that I have a problem with that.

[wuliheron]

It means we have two ways of thinking, and we can leverage them both instead of relying on classical logic alone. Being able to accept my ignorance and my knowledge is what life requires. Without faith in your own memories, dreams, awareness, and personal journey you cannot have any of these.

I think we may have more than two. But, sure, I have faith in those things. Though this is the oddest description of agnosticism I've encountered. It seems like you are saying you are both an agnosticist and not an agnosticist, which would be in the excluded middle - not that I have a problem with that.

Agnosticism is not a belief system, it is faith in accepting your own ignorance as the only way to make any knowledge more meaningful, and the recognition that you don't know if there is a God or not.

[Arcturus Descending]

Agnosticism is not a belief system, it is faith in accepting your own ignorance as the only way to make any knowledge more meaningful, and the recognition that you don't know if there is a God or not.

I wouldn't call it *faith* but rather a conscious choice made based on awareness of how limited my human mind is, that I cannot know either way, whether there is a God. Leaving a question mark is more meaningful and important than simply filling in a blank to fill in that *unknowable* blank.

[wuliheron]

Agnosticism is not a belief system, it is faith in accepting your own ignorance as the only way to make any knowledge more meaningful, and the recognition that you don't know if there is a God or not.

I wouldn't call it *faith* but rather a conscious choice made based on awareness of how limited my human mind is, that I cannot know either way, whether there is a God. Leaving a question mark is more meaningful and important than simply filling in a blank to fill in that *unknowable* blank.

Our mortal fallibility requires we have faith in ourselves, whether anyone likes to use that word or not.

[Meno_]

Faith in ourselves again frames our inquiry into an excluded middle, between how we think ourselves should be, and/or how it really is, usually as perceived by others.

So that self appears reductive, where that appearance is more likely be reified existentially. That particular existence disregarded, on basis of a hidden intention , now that 'Real' 'isms' have ceased to be a solution.

The pack on a probability scale , held long enough , appear to counter- produce a false ideal.

Therefore , the reactive agnostic can't help but reject an impositive view of himself, and in rare cases , assert his inclusion, as being an effective religious force , unto other faiths.

Agnostics and the religious are ontologically related as defined existentially , as between being and nothingness, existence and being.

The essence of this argument is all encompassing, and can never really be reversed , or changed.

The arguments against essentialism make no sense, in light of arguing against it metaphorically, since it has not been constructed with a view to be anything else then a tenet of faith. The myth itself , eclipses that of the -self-, as, as am independent construction, making 'ignorance' -of- IT, only a displacement , to annihilate the original presumed construction.

It was never never constructed because IT always had being
It can not become transcendent , because IT's .eternal imminance. (All evils originate from that simple misunderstanding, the pure agnostic is beginning to see that illusion, in reality, but only metaphores and myths can actually begin to describe it, if at all.)



What's foolish about it?

The below reference is merely a loose, but essentially related argument, to enhance the credibility of conceptual / existential links.©~¤

re: Wanda Torres Gregory's' Heidegger's Path to Language'
To clarify the relationship between language and semantics: with Dasein characterized first by linguistic use, then by structural syntax, finally by synthetic application of both.

Wherein, syntax occupies the central position of a dynamic middle, however this arrangement is not 'fixed' in its traditional arrangement, but fluctuates.

Now arguing backwards wooly, since it has become not only trendish, but categorically necessary, in ligjt of ruffled feather, fuzzy and inferentially loosely connected ideas.

And I suppose, it is built in the way arguments can evolve at all, and not a matter of a wise or a foolish heart. Irs just information, whether it be fake, or real. Nothi wrong with explorong the possible or the potentially possible, or even feasible.

This is why certain -thinkers of the deep: Socrates, Nietzsche, Christ, ended up the way they did, that singularity is very daunting, and once entered. well you enter the realms of hell from which deliverance is only through adherence to the Self.

[wuliheron]

Having faith in yourself is having faith in your own humanity. It is a social act as much as it is a personal one. Without faith in our ignorance we cannot have faith in the greater unfolding context of our lives, our personal journey and what it means to be a social species. Whether you are a believer, agnostic, or atheist there is no avoiding the reality of our mortal fallibility and social nature.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Agnosticism is not a belief system, it is faith in accepting your own ignorance as the only way to make any knowledge more meaningful,

Sure, and we will all have different sets of what we consider we know and do not know. If we focus on the belief in God, it may seem like someone, the agnostic, say, has a greater sense of their (or, often, everyone's) ignorance. But this is one belief. Agnosticism is often - certainly in philosophical contexts - based on a great number of beliefs about epistemology, say, about other minds, about what is possible to know and why that conclusion makes sense and so on. IOW it rests and is a part of a belief system. This is especially true for agnostics that believe one cannot know, rather than simply that they, themselves, do not know.

And any agnostic may wish they did know, find it frustrating, etc.

The OP is making the claim that knowledge and humor, for examples depend on agnosticism and doubt.

What seems like an honoring of doubt and acceptance of ignorance- the opening post - actually contains a lot of unfounded beliefs.
f
Are agnostics really funnier than atheists and theists?

A real doubter would not use an appeal to authority, here Plato, as justification for knowledge

[Arcturus Descending]

wuliheron

Our mortal fallibility requires we have faith in ourselves, whether anyone likes to use that word or not.

This is true. It is a good thing for us to have faith and confidence in ourselves.
I personally would still not use the word *faith* with reference to *realizing* or *understanding* that we cannot know either way about a God's existence due to our limitations.

Faith is holding to belief in something based on what is seen despite what is not seen.

it is faith in accepting your own ignorance as the only way to make any knowledge more meaningful,

This to me sounds a lot more like theism or deism ~~ belief in a personal or impersonal God ~~ because of what is seen or appears to be seen, despite what cannot be seen or proven. Faith requires that we say yes to crawling out on that limb. Agnosticism sees how shaky that limb is and chooses to live with the questions and doubts.