What do you think of ‘Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.’ (Schopenhauer)?

sounds like the basis of the common argument from ignorance
i consider it largely true

Welcome to Fluther.

Ehh, Shopenhauer, what’d he know? That’s an ironic way of agreeing with him.

I hadn’t heard the statement before, but it seems appropriate. “We know what we know and consign the rest to ‘unknown’.”

I see this statement as a person only having one field of vision, not a person with common sense. Based on his restricted vision, he can only exploit what is in it and nothing else.

To me, a good example would be dental surgeon. His vision or field of focus, is strictly dental surgery and nothing else. To go outside his field of vision, would void his license.

I agree with it.

I don’t really think it’s true. I can conceive of things bigger than I am even though they are not my focus. I am aware of the largeness of the world and human knowledge.

It might once have been true, but it is no more.

This is how I look into things and how I approach finding new answers and lifes questions.

1. There are things that We Know that We Know.
2. There are things that We Know that We Don’t Know.
3. There are things that We Don’t Know that We Don’t Know.

If you want knowledge, understanding and answers you will find them in #3 and a whole world of possibilities will open for you. And yes we limit ourselves because of our views of life and past history.

I think Who is this Schopenhauer guy?

a non-american author. so someone that does not interest you

And the women, too.

Nah, there are exceptions. Some people realise that reality extends beyond what they can personally imagine.
In fact, I’d have to frown at mister Schopenhauer if he was aware of this mistake and didn’t try to avoid making it himself.

yeah but most quotes when stated the word “man” is more commonly used :)

The limited perspective of an individual is too small to judge the world.

Or something . . .

Solipsism

The “every,” of course, is a purposeful exaggeration for rhetorical force. Understanding that, it does seem to be a common cognitive bias. People are dogmatic, they don’t seek out new evidence, they fail to challenge their own beliefs, and refuse to rise to the challenges others present for their beliefs. This is because “I haven’t seen it” gets translated into “it doesn’t exist,” instead of the more respectable (but more complicated) “I have no reason to accept it, but I’m open to changing my mind.” It’s no wonder argumentum ad ignorantiam is such a popular fallacy.

Our world is very limited because we as the beings we are is very limited.

The aphoristic style that this statement is couched in, is rhetorical and authoritarian, the statement itself is a truism, an observation worthy of serious respect but it shouldn’t be treated as holy writ even if it is made to sound like it is delivered from on high.

homework?

The quote is difficult to interpret out of context. Schopenhauer’s philosophy is fairly involved.

@LostInParadise : Maybe the quote reads better in German, although I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.