“Can human beings know anything, and if so, what and how? This question is really the most essentially philosophical of all questions.” – Bertrand Russell
Not being offensive to Bertrand Russell’s logic I’d like to mark his question as illogical.
Such question should not be uttered if it puts in doubt the ability to know, assuming that we don’t know and we will never know [any answer].
It is also illogical to utter it if we assume that we have knowledge to the extent of having this question.
“I know” is a wrong statement in absolute sense.
“I create knowledge” is the right statement.
As long as we observe we will create knowledge.
All things are already known to us.
We can not observe something out of our five senses; therefore we can not create knowledge out of “the five”. In this Universe there is nothing unknown to us. The details are unimportant because they come from our knowledge.
We know what knowledge are we missing, only if we already have the knowledge about the subject? Not knowing what knowledge are we missing, is an ignorance.
The above said may sound “non sense” if one does not know the meaning of “knowledge”.
Have Bertrand Russell really explained what is “knowledge”?
The self-awareness does not use words and meanings for itself. (How can you explain you, being you?)
Meanings and concepts are created and put in words after the self-awareness observes something different than its own self.
“Motion, object, something different than myself.”
We have just created knowledge by creating the concept of something which is not “me”. The same way we create all possible knowledge.
We may combine meanings and concepts and create knowledge, which doesn’t particularly refer to an observation, but all concepts used in the created knowledge are possible only because of our previous observations and knowledge based on them. The very fact that we talk about knowledge comes from the existence of something which is not me.
“Existence” itself is knowledge.
We use “I exist” as explanation for self-awareness, but that is not true explanation since “exist” came as knowledge when the self-awareness observed the first thing which was “not-me”.
The self-awareness is not existence. It is I.
The mind lives in sentences.
All logic is hidden in the first observation which broke “me” in pieces and brought out “existence”.
Once the “knowledge” meaning is created we substitute “lack of observation” with “lack of knowledge”.
The same way we use “lack of knowledge” for our impotence to connect meanings and concepts for explaining behaviors and results.
“Knowledge” can not be put out of us and set as goal to achieve.
We are the creators of “knowledge” and it all depends on the ability to connect meanings and concepts.
There is no such thing as “member of itself”.
All things are “members” of our knowledge.
The Universe is empty of paradoxes and Bertrand Russell should know it.
All paradoxes are improper wording, conscious delusions arouse in improper sentence, falsely connected meanings and concepts.
“Paradox” itself is a meaning for self-contradiction, but there is no such thing as “self-contradiction”. The mind sets contradictions between the member and its properties, creating member with impossible properties.
The paradox is the easiest mind creation.
Create a member and assign properties, which are contradictory to the nature of the member assigned in the name, and you will have paradox.
Out if itself the mind can not create “members”. It can only create knowledge about “members”.
No “members” exist out of our observation and since the mind (the observer) cannot observe itself, it cannot set the Self as member [of itself].
Substituting meanings does not change the nature of a “member”.
There is hierarchy in the meanings and the lower serves the higher.
(Mathematics could not be associated with logic, if “logic” did not exist beforehand as a concept.
Therefore mathematics is not a logic, but only a tool to prove logic.)
“Existence” as a concept is awareness for presence in our observation.
(But what is “presence” would ask some of you.
Since the mind never applies presence to its own self, “presence” is something that is “not-me”.)
The mind falsely applies “existence” to the object.
“Existence” is a concept, not a property, and it sets the awareness to the understanding for something different than its own self.
The awareness never deals with “reality”, since it always deals with past.
There is no present moment in the life since there is time needed to deliver the observed information to the awareness.
If we can set present moment, that would be the awareness itself.
In that “present moment” the existence disappear even as a concept.
There is Nothing in the present moment. Nothing!
What is the use of the existence as a member of the “reality” if it is not member of the awareness?
Is the Universe existent if it doesn’t take place in the awareness?
Now, knowing that existence is impossible without observation we can easily conclude that awareness is needed before the “existence” arrives.
Then we can ask the question; if awareness is not matter, space and time what is the “existence”, which appears in the awareness?
How can awareness “observes” something different than its own nature, because not being space, matter and time the awareness can not be in space, matter and time in order to “observe” them?