Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away... — Banno

That's a really accurate way of putting it, cheers!

I draw an analogy between Kants noumena and the Dao too. I think Philosophers have many different ways of articulating the unknown, and it's implicitly the central problem in many.

It's a good point. The only problem is that we can't say that all there is is human cognition. What does it even mean to say that all there is is human cognition? — Harry Hindu

I know that Scientific realism is the common sensical position, and I have a lot of time for it.
I guess I'm considering a view of idealism and realism at the same time. For example, I say that physical nature exists independantly of human cognition, which is a realist statement, but then I realise that such a statement, that nature exists independantly of human cognition, is borne of human cognition, and wouldn't be possible without it. Then I get stuck in a double bind.

Thank you for that answer. My mind draws a blank too, but isn't this blank necasserily something? I must be getting confused in the language.
As for the second part of your answer, that seems to be similar to Kants idea that the 'thing in itself', that which lies beyond appearances, is recognised indirectly through appearances.
Should I just be satisfied with the unknown being these blanks, and leave it at that?

How so?

Thanks for your answer :).

Hahaha I appreciate i've been rather vague, I'm a Philosophy undergrad and was considering taking my PHD abroad, or furthermore, lecturing once I (hopefully) have said PHD. I'm sceptical as to the extent to which I can receive help on the subject but i'm open to input.

Hahahah

Also, I was incorrect in my statement that I always regret what I say. It's more typical in social situations where thoughts are more externally pressured and answers are quicker, that I regret most things, as opposed to being on my own, writing online for example.

Thanks for this answer and your opinion :)

Also I regret saying things normally instantaneously after saying them, sometimes while I am saying it, but I am too invested to stop. I think the bottom line is me being afraid of people thinking I am unintelligent. It sounds shallow but I'll be honest. We all have an image of ourselves we try to chase, money for most.

Thanks for your answers everyone. I've heard of a theory which suggests the nature of your thoughts change to accommodate those who you are interacting with? Makes sense in terms of social success. Perhaps it's the subjectivity of most things I say, for example, I could say I hate tennis - I can't empirically prove if I truly do or don't - but I can go back and forth in my mind in persuit of this answer. I don't know.

that's a good point regarding denialists/conspiracy theorists. I find it funny how many look down upon the general public and judge them to be naive and ignorant due to their inability to believe the conspiracys, but ironically it is them who become ignorant as they become incapable of believing anything accept conspiracy.

thank you for your reply again. That was what I was suggesting, that those who are ignorant through no fault of there own are perhaps more blissful. It seems to me like being in a bubble. However, what is the difference between choosing to be ignorant and being inherently ignorant (innocent savages as you described). Both times we choose to carry out actions deemed to be ignorant, believing them to be right and not ignorant to our knowledge. Are you suggesting that someone of maybe a high IQ who chooses to be ignorant is more at fault than someone of a lower IQ?

true but ignoring the unsatisfactory nature of life is ignorant. An ignorance of what is often the truth. I'm not saying it's bad to be ignorant, infact it's often good. In that it may be argued that ignorance may be seen as bliss.

Thanks for your interesting answers