The problem here is the definition of the word "knowing", you have to keep in the context on this reality, and understand that it is not fixed state either, otherwise the term is meaningless. The saying is "I know enough to know I cannot know everything"...not "anything". That is silly and eliminates any functionality and wisdom.
And I'm sorry Patrick, but you are (miss)using the concept in order to refute/deny things you do not want to see or believe by convenience, and to dismiss that which is presented by others, it's as simple as that.
If this was 1930s Germany, I could certainly 'know' the human rights abuses that were occurring. Others would/did of course claim otherwise because it does not match their beliefs. This is the crux of the dispute, not some philosophical dead end concept to avoid seeking truth. Frankly your original post to deny all knowledge is exactly part of the well of indifference. So you may opine endlessly about how it's all an illusion, but within this framework, it is the literal embodiment of catalyst.
Not much else to say on this.
And I'm sorry Patrick, but you are (miss)using the concept in order to refute/deny things you do not want to see or believe by convenience, and to dismiss that which is presented by others, it's as simple as that.
If this was 1930s Germany, I could certainly 'know' the human rights abuses that were occurring. Others would/did of course claim otherwise because it does not match their beliefs. This is the crux of the dispute, not some philosophical dead end concept to avoid seeking truth. Frankly your original post to deny all knowledge is exactly part of the well of indifference. So you may opine endlessly about how it's all an illusion, but within this framework, it is the literal embodiment of catalyst.
Not much else to say on this.