What do know of our nature and good laws? — Athena

One of the problems with modern thinking is that to 'know' usually means abstract, intellectual knowledge as if that is the only kind of knowledge. Spiritually, our knowledge is largely through experience and intuition. Our intellect tries to formulate this understanding in abstract terms, but not very well. So I don't "know" what we know, but it doesn't matter.

So I don't "know" what we know, but it doesn't matter. — EnPassant

An ode to blissful ignorance?

An ode to blissful ignorance? — 180 Proof

There are different kinds of knowing. In one way I don't know but in another, I believe I do.

There are different kinds of knowing. — EnPassant

Such as??? :chin:

(Please, no equivocating uses of "knowing". Thanks)

I do not consider myself informed enough to be considered a philosopher — Athena

I do not know what that means. Being "informed" about history would not make you an historian, being informed about science would not make you a scientist and so on. I suspect that no amount of information would make one a philosopher.

At bottom, philosophy strikes me as an ongoing discussion over the nature of reality. Either one participates in the discussion in a meaningful way or one does not.

And for people who do, their views are likely to be significantly different near the end of the discussion than they were near the beginning.

Such as??? :chin:

(Please, no equivocating uses of "knowing". Thanks) — 180 Proof

Doesn't "different kinds of knowing" imply different senses of "knowing"? Therefore equivocating uses would be a requirement. So what sense does your question make, if you deny the possibility of answering it with your stipulated conditions?

Non sequiturs. Wait till the dialogue plays out some more for more context.

Such as??? :chin:

(Please, no equivocating uses of "knowing". Thanks) — 180 Proof

There is abstract, intellectual knowledge. There is carnal knowledge. Eat an apple; you know what an apple tastes like. There is consciousness, there is art, music...many ways of knowing and many facets of reality to know.

Eat an apple; you know what an apple tastes like. — EnPassant

In this sentence "you know", it seems to me, only does the work of "you experience".

... many ways of knowing

I prefer to be less ambiguous, or colloquial, here: there are ways of knowing, believing, experiencing, remembering, imagining as well as ways of interpreting those ways. Only that which is '(in principle) publicly demonstrable – irrational to deny – by everyone' denotes knowing something as used in epistemology to distinguish from not-knowing something.

and many facets of reality to know.

And this expresses what you know? believe? experience? remember? imagine? ... interpret?

Still spending more time on style over substance but what do I know.

Knowing is a tricky word if you make it out to be

Still spending more time on style over substance but what do I know. — invicta

Res ipsa loquitur. :roll:

Translate please. If you think incorrectly using Latin makes you intelligent you’re sorely mistaken.

Please enlighten the non-Latin speakers in the house what you mean by that, rhetorician

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS — on a sign in the Agora

We have some semblance of transparency at last as to what you meant.

But you know nothing and Socrates would be proud.

Knowing is a very close relationship to knowledge although it’s a verb and applies to the present way of seeing things.

Now do you agree with that ?

philosophy strikes me as an ongoing discussion over the nature of reality. — Arne

:up:

We might want to add a normative dimension to this, such as what separates philosophy from less organized and serious discussions of what is.

The difference is merely semantic. Experience is knowledge.