Oh,I'm sure that's not true. What I see or don't see is of no importance at all to you, or should not be. It is what you see that should matter to you.
The bottom line is this. There are two abstract views of knowledge regarding what is significant and what is not. My view may very simply be stated:
What cannot be known cannot matter.
Now notice, I did not say what is not known, but what cannot be known.
Most people really believe the opposite. It is always interesting to have people who disagree with my view attempt to provide examples of what cannot be known which are, nevertheless, important. Of course, if something cannot be known, it certainly cannot be provided as an example, because it would not be known.
Hank
OK Hank, how can one determine what cannot be known? Seems to me we've done pretty well expanding the sphere of the known in the face of the naysayers over recent centuries. As to philosophy, there is no basis for the statement. What cannot be known may matter greatly, as a function of course of what "to matter" means (no, I am not a Bill Clinton wannabe -- where are the lawyers when we need them?).
How do you know what cannot be known? Do you mean to suggest that what you feel you "cannot know" is ultimately, truly unknowable on principle?