I discuss a matter of which someone would call me an expert on paper with another 'expert', and we throw at each other dozens of sheets of paper and links to sustain our points. Each link has been reviewed and found worthy by another 10 experts, because of a general consensus based on a sheet of paper by yet another expert.
I ponder modern history on the basis of some story i read in my older history books, filled with notions of happenings i never saw with my eyes having to trust someone that himself has read it from yet another source (and so on).
Then we visit an old structure and it's just like it is written in our history book; therefore, not that we needed it, it's all confirmed and real.
And yet this is all a story that was put in my head by other people writings, mostly. A cathedral could have had another rationale, with perhaps a public decoy-like reason that was popularized and made it to history; some stuff may never be happened, etc.
How much can we really say that 'we know' in the utmost sense of 'knowing'? I guess it has to be estimated on a range to not get mad.
We can say 'for sure' there is a conflict in ukraine now, but we can see in real time the reasons may well be totally different by what is portrayed, etc.
Going back, what can we 'know' to be sure of? history, science, how to assess what's real independently?
It's a bit of a rambling, i know, but i wanted to highlight the neuroticity of the 'mental world' everyone ends up living in.
An objective reality but beyond the problems of 'trust' and 'belief'.
As in, there are very few things relatively i can pin down to empirical and personal knowledge, like the effect of fire on my skin and so on.
All the rest is 'speculation' therefore belief, or consent to another's suggestion therefore trust.
To expand one's authentic knowledge is a huge task but also the only real path to 'knowing'
There's a compounding problem that I neglected to mention. Yes, it's a huge task that few accept as their duty, but the reason most people don't do it is not because of laziness of neglect. Rather, it's because it is simply not the way their minds work.
Many people assume that other people's minds work like theirs, maybe better or worse or in a slightly different style or with different biases. Upon careful study, you will find this is not true. Most people's thought processes generally work in reverse, beginning with conclusions and ending with "facts".
I mention this because it's a crucial factor to integrate into any coherent worldview. Otherwise, you'll spend a lot of time banging your head against a wall trying to incorporate "what a lot of other people think". To really prepare to find the truth, you have to be ready to break with what everyone else "knows".