It cannot be that I both need to know in order to learn, and that I am able to learn without knowing at all. Either I may affirm that I must know things in order to learn new things, but that I cannot learn anything without already knowing something; or I may perceive it possible for me to learn new things without having knowledge, yet in turn that I don’t need to know anything in order to gain knowledge. If I affirm that knowledge is needed for me to learn new things, but that I cannot learn without already knowing something, then either I proclaim that whatever I know is supported by an infinite chain of knowledge I alone possess, or I assert that I do not truly know anything. If it is my impression that I in fact do not know anything, then I must ask how I truly know that. If I assert to know something, and an infinite chain of further knowledge must back up what I know, then I must believe myself infiniscient. Yet if I perceive it possible to learn new things without any pre-awareness, meaning a mind empty of any fact can achieve a truth within it, then I both assert that knowledge can be spontaneous (making the birth of knowledge self-contradictory to its state of existence,) and that there is no such concept as absurdity, in that whatever information I learn by any uncertain means (or by any fact that does not have infinite support) still qualifies as true knowledge.
by LayZBum55 March 26, 2007