Empathic

[Lorikeet]

]

Why do you, with an iq, presume any of 'it' was?

All truths refer to probability.

Once again what 'we' can see here is another one who cannot back up and support their beliefs and claims here.

What claims have I made?

you 'choose' because you cannot.

Cannot waste my time...correct.

There is absolutely no way you could explain what the actual difference is, exactly. And, this is the very reason why you 'choose' not to.

We don't need to be omniscient to know.
Humans know many things....we are not omniscient.

Knowledge is about establishing what is most probably true.

Our actions and the consequences they produce determine how accurate our knowledge is.

Yes, this is what you have claimed, as can be clearly seen and proved above here, in your very own words.

I've claimed that we can "never" know ourselves?
Or have I stated that we can never know ourselves completely.
Completion is not necessary for knowledge to be useful.

All knowledge, or what we refer to as truth, is about probabilities.
The speaker uses 'truth' to express a certainty, or his certainty....unable to find a reasonable doubt in what he believes.


Know Thyself, is a process that need not be completed to be useful, in the same way I need not be omniscient to know enough to make my knowledge useful - effective.

[Lorikeet]

just in case this low IQ individual failed to see...

We can never know ourselves COMPLETELY.....finally, with certainty, wholly,...
Mostly because the cosmos is in flux ....all is changing, including us, but also because we can never be objective about ourselves - we always over- under-estimate ourselves - mostly the latter.

So, all knowledge, including our self is about probabilities....who knows the truth to a greater degree of accuracy.

[Age]

]

Why do you, with an iq, presume any of 'it' was?

All truths refer to probability.

But 'this' was nothing I was talking about and referring to.

Why are you somewhat confused here now?

Once again what 'we' can see here is another one who cannot back up and support their beliefs and claims here.

What claims have I made?

you claimed that you are an absolutist, among others.

you 'choose' because you cannot.

Cannot waste my time...correct.

If this is what you want to believe, and claim is true to others, then okay. But, people who cannot do things usually tend to use excuses, exactly like the one/s you are using here.

There is absolutely no way you could explain what the actual difference is, exactly. And, this is the very reason why you 'choose' not to.

We don't need to be omniscient to know.

So, you human beings can 'know' things. But, you, individually, claim that you can never ever 'know' 'thy Self', and that neither could absolutely anyone else ever come to know thy 'Self'.

Why do 'you' like to believe and claim that you 'know' what "others" can and cannot ever 'know'.

Humans know many things....we are not omniscient.

No one ever said that you human beings were omniscient, did they?

Knowledge is about establishing what is most probably true.

Are you speaking for 'you' alone here, for 'some', or for absolutely 'everyone' here?

Our actions and the consequences they produce determine how accurate our knowledge is.

So, how accurate your knowledge of the Universe, Itself, is, for what you, individually, had for breakfast, and for if two plus two equals four, for example, is solely dependent upon 'your actions and the consequences your actions produce', right?

Yes, this is what you have claimed, as can be clearly seen and proved above here, in your very own words.

I've claimed that we can "never" know ourselves?
Or have I stated that we can never know ourselves completely.
Completion is not necessary for knowledge to be useful.

What is the difference between you 'claiming' something, and, you 'stating' something?

And, how can 'I' know, always, which one you are actually doing?

Also, you are, again, making statements, or claims, and then adding a question mark at the end. Which, if you do not yet know, can come across as you are somewhat confused here.

By the way what you have actually 'written' here is; Know Thyself is never completed, which, literally, means that you could never ever know thy 'Self' because if you do not 'completely' know thy 'Self' what ever you think you know could be Wrong. Thus, you are only ever thinking you know thy 'Self'. you are never actually 'knowing' thy 'Self'.

Unless, of course, you believe that you do already know thy 'Self', which if you do, then you could inform 'us' of who and what thy 'Self' is, exactly.

Oh, that only is; if you have 'the time to' and do not want to 'waste your time', and/or do not want to use any other 'excuse' to not inform 'us' here.

All knowledge, or what we refer to as truth, is about probabilities.

Is 'truth' and 'knowledge' the exact same thing, to you?

The speaker uses 'truth' to express a certainty, or his certainty....unable to find a reasonable doubt in what he believes.

Is this 'your truth'?

And, can 'your truth' ever be Wrong?

Know Thyself, is a process that need not be completed to be useful, in the same way I need not be omniscient to know enough to make my knowledge useful - effective.

'Effective' in relation to 'what', exactly?

And, who ever 'stated' or 'claimed' that the process of 'knowing thy Self' was a process that needed to be completed by you, individual human beings, in any particular 'time period'?

you, obviously, are living proof of one who has not yet come to know thy 'Self'.

Also, let 'us' not forget that you have 'claimed', or 'stated' that everything that you say could be wrong'.

Which is just another one of the other things that you have 'claimed', or 'stated', here in this forum.

[Age]

just in case this low IQ individual failed to see...

We can never know ourselves COMPLETELY.....finally, with certainty, wholly,...

Remember this is only a 'belief' that you, individually, have and are very desperately trying to hold onto here.

Or, do you, really, believe that you 'know', absolutely, what the absolute Truth is here?

Once again, 'we' can clearly see how this one is contradicting "itself" here, and if it keeps trying to insist what it is here, then it is being absolutely hypocritical.

Mostly because the cosmos is in flux ....all is changing, including us, but also because we can never be objective about ourselves - we always over- under-estimate ourselves - mostly the latter.

LOL Saying, writing, claiming, or stating, ' 'we' can never be objective about ourselves ', is further proof of this one being an "absolutist" while at the same time trying to claim that there are no absolute truths.

So, all knowledge, including our self is about probabilities....who knows the truth to a greater degree of accuracy.

you are coming across here as though it is 'you' who believes that it 'knows the truth'. at the highest degree of accuracy.

Writing things like, 'we can never be objective about ourselves', is not just you claiming to 'know the truth' in the highest degree of accuracy, but you also claiming that you 'know' things about absolutely every human being from the beginning of their existence and forever more as long as human beings live.

Which is, obviously, an even more absurd thing to try to claim considering the fact that you are also, at the same time, claiming that 'you' human beings cannot even know thy 'Self', completely.