I suppose it comes down to the question. Is not knowing a form of knowing? I say, yes. Because if someone asks you "do you know how to answer this problem?" and you say no, that obviously shows that you have the knowledge of what you do and do not know to solve the problem. You wouldn't just sit there with a blank stare. You know that your mental capacity at it's current state does not contain the proper information to answer the problem, you KNOW that. So yes, not knowing is a form of knowing in and of itself.
At the core of it we are all human beings. We mature to adulthood by factors like geography, environment, nutrition, upbringing and so forth. In the bhagvadgita ( holy scripture of hindus), it is mention that we are all ignorant fools until we learn to recite the Gita from a spiritual teacher. I say this because my teacher has a higher spirtual intellect than myself, who is more concern about earning a living than asking about the divine. Peace.
"I do not know."
I know, not to know.
Not knowing, is knowing.
It is obvious to know... That not knowing is not knowing of anything in particular.
But the concept of being able to define that one or the other does not know is the knowing itself.
Not knowing to know is knowing that one does not know, hence knowing.
"He that knows not,
and knows not that he knows not
is a fool.
He that knows not,
and knows that he knows not
is a pupil.
He that knows,
and knows not that he knows
He that knows,
and knows that he knows
is a teacher.
The phrase "I know that I know nothing" or "I know one thing: that I know nothing", sometimes called the Socratic paradox, is a well-known saying that is derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. The phrase is not one that Socrates himself is ever recorded as saying, and there is some disagreement about whether it accurately represents a Socratic view.
This saying is also connected or conflated with the answer to a question Socrates (Xenophon) or Chaerephon (Plato) is said to have posed to the Pythia, the oracle of Delphi, in which the Oracle stated something along the lines of Socrates is the wisest.
Chaerephon, a friend of Socrates asked Pythia (the oracle of Delphi): "Is anyone wiser than Socrates?" The answer was: "No human is wiser." Socrates, since he denied any knowledge, tried to find someone wiser than himself among politicians, poets, and craftsmen. It appeared that politicians claimed wisdom without knowledge; poets could touch people with their words, but did not know their meaning; and craftsmen could claim knowledge only in specific and narrow fields. The interpretation of the Oracle's answer might be Socrates' awareness of his own ignorance.
Here, Socrates aims at the change of Meno's opinion, who was a firm believer in his own opinion and whose claim to knowledge Socrates had disproved.
It is essentially the question that begins "post-Socratic" Western philosophy. Socrates begins all wisdom with wondering, thus one must begin with admitting one's ignorance. After all, Socrates' dialectic method of teaching was based on that he as a teacher knew nothing, so he would derive knowledge from his students by dialogue.
Again, closer to the quote, there's a passage in Plato's Apology, where Socrates says that after discussing with someone he started thinking that
I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.
Here are four degrees of ignorance:
1. I don't know whether we have any milk left in the refrigerator, but I can find out in a moment;
2. I don't know exactly how long I'll live with current medical technology, but I know it'll be between 51 and 130 years;
3. I don't know whether my one true love exists, and while I know how to look for her, I don't know how long it might take to find her, or whether I might have met her already and not realised;
4. You know my car has been stolen, but until you tell me, I have no idea.
Categories 1) and 2) are forms of ignorance where we know we don't know, and can find out.
But categories 3) and 4) are forms of ignorance where we either don't know how much we don't know, or even knowing how much we don't know doesn't help us.
For example KylePooley thinks that he knows that "not knowing is a form of knowing".
It is not. Since it is not a form of knowing and KylePooley does not believe that "not knowing is not a form of knowing" therefore KylePooley does not know that "not knowing is not a form of knowing" BUT in not knowing this it does not mean he knows anything. He especially does not know that he doesn't know, since he thinks that he does know the opposite when in fact what he thinks he knows is not correct.
Not knowing is NOT a form of knowing.
You can know or not know x.
To not know x is NOT knowing.
You can know or not know if you know or do not know x.
To not know if you know or do not know x is NOT knowing.
You can even know or not know if you know or do not know if you know or do not know x, theoretically.
But still, to not know if you know or do not know if you know or do not know x is NOT knowing.
Not eating is not a form of eating. Drinking nothing is not a form of drinking nothing. Typing nothing in the 'Supporting Argument' box is not a form of typing things in the 'Supporting Argument' box. Not exercising is not a form of exercising, although people who regularly break new year resolutions might think so. Therefore, not knowing is not a form of knowing. 'When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it - this is knowledge.' (Analects 2.17)
So many theists claim that because certain things are not known that it proves that their god exists. Example: They claim that because science does not have knowledge of what started the big bang, then the answer must be god. The idea that lack of knowledge is knowledge that god exists equates to "I don't know, therefore god."
The problem with that is "I don't know, therefore god." is an argument in favor or ignorance. Long ago, before the concept of farming came to be, mankind would have been hunter/gatherers. The idea that only god can create a plant would likely have existed because mankind would not have known how to grow plants himself. If mankind would have taken "I don't know, therefore god." as a final answer, knowledge of how to grow plants and raise animals would not have been gained. It is only when we seek for real answers outside the idea of a god that we can find them. To accept "I don't know, therefore god." as an answer is to condemn yourself to ignorance or lack of knowledge.
From pure logic, nothing cannot equal something. The nonexistence of something of a certain type is not the existence of something of a certain type. Easy to understand. Filler word time. One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. Seven. Eight. Nine. Ten. Eleven. Twelve. Thirteen. Fourteen. Fifteen. Sixteen. Eighteen. Nineteen. Twenty.