A conundrum

It's an interesting conundrum.

Is it true that by refuting an argument (defeating it) you have more knowledge than the person making the argument in the first place. Or is it fact that neither of you know anything more than the other. 

Is knowledge nothing more than a game of supposition since knowledge is merely hypothesis until it is overturned by a new hypothesis.

Can we say we know anything at all, or like Socrates deny having any knowledge of any subject and proceed through argument to prove the surety of the other person is false.

Wisdom comes therefore in acknowledging how little we know, not how much.
Of course you will declare that there are many things I know. I am sure of the knowledge which I am intricately bound up with like, how to find my way home, but of the knowledge regarding the ethical contemplation of home and the support it has for our lives, this is not a surety and the knowledge you have regarding the matter is yours and personal and can in no way be presumed as knowledge when applied to others.

We walk in an oasis of our own making with arrangements in our mind that we process as knowledge  when in actual fact we are alone in the wasteland of our our own mental fantasy.

If our "presumption" that others, anyone, has the foggiest idea of where we are mentally  or what we specifically believe in, is wrong, then the equally tricky presumption that "anyone" understands "anyone" else is flawed. 

If no one is in tune with anyone else other than perhaps emotionally for a moment then we should re-jig our assumptions about so much of what we take for granted. 

Reality is that we are individuals with no firm connections. Our insecurity leads us to form alliances but these alliances are only secure so long as we need them and remember they are a two way street, either can be broken at any time.

The whole edifice of society and our place in it is based on a notion, a conjecture, that we are not alone and that other people really care. With very few exceptions the healthy mind rushes to new pastures as soon as it believes it has obtained a sense of its own security, that the ground is safe to proceed to forming new connections, which we have argued is in themselves false since no connections can be possible, given the desperate convoluted individuality in each of us.