/lit/ - Literature

If at a party the something is brought up and someone asks you to explain it to them you're able to produce a fluid and cogent explanation

>>21872702
So the correctitude of my knowledge is how fluid and cogent I can explain it?

>>21872693
How do you know when you don't know something?

>the accessibility of a rational mind to dismiss any idea of ownership of knowledge or reason or information is just a demonstration of that mind's reluctance to take responsibility of their actions while in ownership of said knowledge, reason, or information. If anon doesn't know anything anon can really be expected to do anything so anon should just post on the chanz

>>21872702
Reddit litmus test. You must also adhere to the code of conduct for explanations you elft that part out.

>>21872693
if you know that you don't know then you know
the fool who knows he is a fool is no fool...

>>21872762
No, but it is a very good indicator.

>>21872693
you just know it
I myself for example don't know shit about anything

>>21872902
>he can recite the transmarxist encyclopedia entry with a degree of tranny fluidity therefore he is wise

>>21872693
You need to find someone credible enough to discuss with and affirm whatever you claim to 'know'.

>>21872933
>he can bribe the troika to red rubber stamp his work therefore he is wise

>>21872821
the fool who knows he is a fool is just as much a fool as he has no choice but to remain in the confines of his foolishness. paralysed by the cruelty of his wardens face seen by turning his head too far he still has no choice but to submit, now facing his torturer - hubris

such is life and you cannot avoid masturbating to your pseud intellect as we all do, there is no way to avoid it, theres no winning as much as there is no losing

>>21872693
if you don't know, now you know, nigga.

live joyfully, anon

>>21872925
Well, I was referencing the knower's relationship to the knowledge, not the knowledge's relationship with truth.

>>21872693
How do you know if you DON'T know something?

>>21872693
Trust -> Continuous belief
or
Trust -> Test -> Continuous belief
or
Trust -> Test -> Removed belief
or
Trust -> Test -> Continuous belief -> Test -> Removed belief
or
Trust -> Removed belief -> Test -> Continuous belief

You know when you know something when you know that you know nothing.

>>21872794
All I know for sure is that I know this feel

>>21872693
All I know is that I know nothing.

>>21872693
Welcome to your epistemology phase

>>21872693
some knowledge comes in the form of skills (knowing how), some comes in the form of propositional knowledge.
i guess that you know whether or not you can play the violin.
for propositional knowledge, some conceptions of it are more narrow than others. the narrowest conception of knowledge which comes to my mind is that knowledge must be indubitable, true and immediately justified (a narrow foundationalist account of knowledge).
an example of it might be knowledge about your own conscious mental states.
if you have such knowledge, you should also know that you have that knowledge.
a more broad conception is not necessarily foundationalist (it is also compatible with coherentist accounts of justification) is that of not being completely retarded. Even the complete retard knows some things (i know this by first hand, in the manner which I just outlined) and the person who is not completely retarded knows even more, for example how to apply rules about logical inferences.

>>21872693
you cant. we can just do our best, anon