Nothing do I know

Earth is but a drop in the vast ocean of millions, even billions, of stars. The elements of this drop include hundreds, even thousands, of objects. We, with our limited cognitive abilities and boundless emotional expanse, are but one of them. Yet, we often succumb to conclusions that are either flawed or downright ridiculous. Just picturing the sky-earth differences between us and what lies beyond should be enough to shatter in us the illusion of all-knowingness.

This is the first argument: it’s simply not humanly possible to know everything. Claiming omniscience is, therefore, nonsense.

Grab abstract knowledge of things, and you reinforce the awareness of your own ignorance. Stretching beyond boundaries in the quest to know more leads down an intellectual cul-de-sac. ‘Try to understand what someone is actually doing, and you lose yourself in angles, degrees, assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, conjectures, and facts; many of which are outright illusions.’ You sift through objective truths and subjective biases. Clear wheat from the chaff. Yet, the possibility to know what actually ‘is’ appears to be elusive. Like a fish slipping from bare hands.

Knowing something and knowing nothing are the same as having a fish in our hands and out of them, thereof, in a matter of seconds. Both unproductive and ultimately a waste. A government official may try to convince others, and himself, to believe in the ‘something’ of his output, yet the underlying panorama always reflects stark disparities. No examples needed. The cracks underneath the surface are visible to only those who encounter them. This part of the story stays hidden. Speak out, and you’re ignored like a stray dog barking in the dark.

Wearing this deceptive, utopian visage (borne of self-defense or self-interest), they bring this all-knowing self down to the lowest standards. Beyond any point of meaning. To the threshold of utter nonsense. Somewhere where knowledge itself grinds its teeth at the public and makes them cynical and scared.

Political (and sometimes purely personal), (un)knowingness of such a type is too dangerous to be admitted into the ambit of knowledge itself.

The same, with variations, holds true in personal relationships. We become the judges of others and the lawyers for ourselves. The judgement we pronounce arises not from factoring in possibilities but from quickly summarizing priors and posts and throwing the verdict in the face of the recipient. With the certainty of that of an impending earthquake.

Not only does it make us appear to be like risible clevers, but also bad case of knowledge-gainers. ‘Take his agency into consideration, but leave out his primal, animalistic self. Focus on his seemingly ugly grand appearance, but fail to notice his insecurities beneath. Have the conceit to know his preferences, but bother not to flutter eyes at what he detests.’ One factor given an edge over others. Taking in the ‘ninety-nine percent’ of his overall personality, but discarding the ‘one percent’ holding everything together.

Even if we could know everything about a subject, the layers of grey shades of that ‘chink’ blur everything. We realize the swathes yet to unfold and assimilate into the overall make-up. They irritate and bother us. Continue to nudge us. Remind us of our limitations. And the vastness of everything we have no idea of.

What all such little gaps do is show how vast what we don’t know (the unknown) is. If we know anything at all.