ken wrote: I am here to learn how to express better.
A worthwhile aim, so long as what counts as "better" is accompanied by good will.
In My view it only could accompanied by good will, and good will to Me could only be for everyone, equally.
...obvious is the fact that something can be known to one individual and not known to another individual. This some people might argue is an unknown known.
Indeed, some may argue that. However, in doing so they would be conflating two different people's thought/belief systems. I've already explained how that is and would be the case with those types of arguments. It does not follow from the fact that 'X' is known to me and unknown to you that 'X' is unknown to me or known to you. With regard to my knowledge base, 'X' is known(not unknown). With regard to yours, 'X' is unknown(not known).
But, to some people, they would call the 'X', which is known to you, an "unknown known", because from their perspective it is. I am not saying what 'X' is, or is not, I am just saying what some people would do.
An "Unknown known" or a "known unknown" is just a term given to something that may or may not exist. Some argue that it exists, others argue that it does not exist. This is similar to what happens when discussing God. People will argue for what that they believe
. Whether 'it' exists or not will depend solely on the agreed definition of 'it', and whether a sound, valid argument is then made or not. Only a universal agreement and accepted definition and a sound, valid argument, which obviously could not be disputed, will provide the answer.
By the way, you wrote, "It does not follow from the fact that 'X' is known to me and unknown to you that 'X' is unknown to me or known to you", why do you continue to think I was writing anything that would lead to that outcome? Does it say anything like that in my writings? I certainly hope not.
creativesoul wrote:Sure, it is trivially true that we all know something that other folks do not. What you're doing with that line of thought is changing targets. It is to change the focus from that which is unknown to everybody(as best as we can tell) to that which is unknown to someone or other.
But I was never changing the focus, thus nor changing targets. I was just showing another way of looking at this. If that way was not the same as your focus nor the same as your target, then that was the actual purpose I was showing/expressing it.
creativesoul wrote: There is nothing unknown that is known by anyone.
By 'unknown' here do you mean unknown to everyone? If so, then do you mean here that there is nothing unknown by every person that is known by any one person?
If so, then that is obvious. That is why I said previously I understand what you are saying.
Only things that are known are the kinds of things that can be sensibly said to be known by one but not another.
Again obviously. If we are going to look at this, and anything else here in this forum absolutely literally, then that is great. I also dislike sloppy and/or misleading ways of talking/writing, especially, and probably only, in philosophical discussions, but if you want to argue for there being no unknown knowns and no known unknowns, then you will have to stipulate that more preciously then just saying there is none. I think there has been at least three examples given to you by different people of how they can exist.
creativesoul wrote:The caveat here is that this sheds a bit of light upon the notion of calling something "unknown" simply because it is not known to someone or another. Unknown to one does not necessarily mean unknown to anyone.
Not really. What do you mean by 'anyone' here? Do you mean 'everyone'?
I think you have come to realize that I have been questioning you about whether you could understand that what is unknown to some person/people can be known to others, but now I am thinking you are saying here that that is not what you were arguing for nor arguing about. What you were/are saying is that the term 'unknown' is in reference to absolutely every person. Am I following you now?
What I want to express and will argue, one day, is that the knowledge of right and wrong (morally), although unknown in "today's terms", is a commonly shared knowledge base that actually is already unconsciously known, instinctively, by everyone. This now unconsciously known knowledge can be realized, and how that actually occurs is part of what I am wanting to express better. The people's of "today" may say that that knowledge is unknown and/or unknowable by anyone, but I will argue that it may well be known by one person, at the moment.
I think this knowledge, which was consciously unknown by everyone, and thus was unconsciously known by everyone, will be(come) consciously known by everyone, when one becomes aware of it, and then learns how to express this idea and knowledge better.
Obviously what is unknown to, and by, everyone then that is unknown, which I think you would totally agree with. But what is unknown knowledge by most, and which is known to some or may be just one, could be known as an unknown known to some, but which I think you would never agree to call it that. Although you could agree that some people do call what is unknown to some but known to another an unknown known, am I right?
However, to say "We can not know an unknown" is not correct in that if 'we' means human beings, then we CAN discover and/learn an unknown, thus, to say, We can know an unknown" is (more) correct. Remember it was you who was looking at sloppy and misleading ways to talk.
Indeed. Guilty as charged. I abhor unnecessarily confused ways to talk.
We can sometimes come to know what was once unknown. That is a less confusing explanation than "we can know an unknown". Once it becomes known, it is no longer unknown.
The last sentence is obvious. But, if we are talking about sloppy writing, then the word 'sometimes' in the first sentence could be challenged and questioned.
Further to this, if one person speaks for them self and says that they can not know an unknown, then I would inform them that that is only for certain time period. Therefore, to make it an unsloppy and non-misleading way to talk, a time frame is necessary and thus needs to be stipulated. For example one person might say, "I can not fly a helicopter", to which I would reply, " Yes you CAN, once you learn and know how to (and that is depended upon if you really want to learn how to)."
creativesoul wrote:Well, I cannot fly a helicopter. That statement is about the time it is said. You'd be wrong to answer like that, for I wasn't talking about the possibility of learning to fly one later, and you do not have justification for telling another person that they can learn to fly a helicopter if they really wanted to.
I think I would have less of a justification to say that they can not. If you were not talking about the possibility to fly a helicopter, then I think you would need to stipulate that, especially if we are looking at sloppy and/or misleading ways of talking, and especially more so if you wanted Me to know that.
Also, if a person really wanted to do something, then who am I to say that they can not?
creativesoul wrote:There are any number of reasons that one may not ever be able to learn to fly one.
Will you provide some of those reasons?
creativesoul wrote: The main point here is that the speaker is talking about the present situation. What they say about the present situation is true(assuming sincerity in speech), and yet you contradict that true statement.
How do I contradict that "true" statement? There has not, until just now, been any talk about 'present situation'. In fact it was you who previously said, "There is no time frame necessary." regarding this very same issue when I pointed it out to you before. You do realize that the present situation is fleeting so to say "we can not do something" only holds true for a very short period of time.
If I said to you, "We can not fly and land a person on mars", is that a true or untrue statement?
In other words how long does a 'present situation' last for when discussing what we can and can not do?
Are you saying that there is not a shared knowledge base amongst people?
How on earth did you arrive at that?
I arrived at that because you wrote, "That is to conflate two different people's knowledge bases and talk about them as if they were one." I was just asking you if two or more people's knowledge bases could be combined together to make one common-shared knowledge base, which actually held more truth, that was all.