St. Paul, too, recognizing an opportunity: "Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you." The Greek myth is answered by revelation, but the myth was helpful. Law is the same way; helpful but not enough.
Because there are kinds of agnostics, there are different kinds of responses. I recall Bouilhet once saying in a post, "To me, the best one can say is, 'That which I do not know exists, may exist.'" At the time he wrote that, Bouilhet's response was something like Wittgenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Silence won't do for a young heart.
Bouilhet also mentions William Blake's response, which is also expressed in the Robert Redford film, A River Runs Through It: even though we cannot understand another person perfectly, we can love them perfectly. If that's true, there is at least some understanding to begin with. (Where to begin? asks Calvin in the Institutes.) Knowing in part is also part of Aristotle's ethics. Aristotle resorts to a provisional (or practical) human ethic. Are people happy after they die? They might be, he says. Hard to tell, he says, and then goes on. In this way, Aristotle is one of the Greeks who gave to Western Civilization a humanism that is not secular, exactly the opposite of what is nowadays meant by humanism: an "enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him." And while Solzhenitsyn notes that out of this autonomy man is made "the touchstone in judging and evaluating everything on earth" we see another kind of response They taught such an ethic because they understood the need in themselves for a ground and the origin of truth for the self outside themselves. So even betty boop at one time said, "It seems that both Plato and Aristotle had a Source from which they were able to draw their most profound insights into the nature of man, the structure of consciousness, etc. This does have the quality of revelation, for they recognized this." Honesty is helpful. Someone like the post general_re is probably still stuck: "Look, even if I accept the existence of revelation, upon what basis do I evaluate the truth of that which is revealed to me?
What general_re does accept is insufficient, according to Solzhenitsyn.
In contrast to genera_re, there is Socrates. It came from Socrates' admitted ignorance. After exhausting the capabilities of rational/mathematicl/logical thinking, he realized he was ignorant of what he wanted to know. Did the shoemakers know what man is? No. Did the horsetrainers? No. Did the politicians? No. Did the poets? No. It was an open question, without stability. The answer to what human nature was appeared relative to anyone who could offer an opinion. Three options were left to him after that: either to ignore that the knowledge of our human nature is insignificant (that required schizophrenia) or, to create a substitute (that required arrogance). He settled on the third option, which is called Socratic piety, awaiting an answer from those who did know.