Quote:
Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six I have long been interested in the "essence" of things . . . and we've talked a great deal about this. I've mentioned before "The Veil of Appearance" (which I can never remember if it was Locke or Hume) which is a philosophical reasoning that as much knowledge as we can uncover about any said "thing," there's always something hidden. As is best and easily explained with humans. We, being sentient creatures with complexities far and beyond any "thing" in this world, have the ability to communicate with one another and understand one another through all sorts of methods. However, there is always at least one aspect no one will ever know . . . what it truly means to be you.
We might know this and that about a stone . . . but what really is a stone? Will we ever know what it truly means to be a stone?
And on another note . . . what is knowledge really? Is it already within us (prior [or at] birth) to have a certain quality of knowedge? Is all knowledge a direct and indirect result of the senses? How much knowledge is a posteriori and a priori? Is learning itself, knowledge? |
great questions Six I have always thought of learning, invention theories ect as discoveries. Simplely put we finanly figured out how to express in language somthing we all already know. Thats not to discredit these discoveries, I am just saying no "man" has truely created anything.
humans project all aspects of themselves into everything they try to understand. The instant example are Animals. We observe what this animal does and then decide it did because of a, b, c we can not truely know why that animal does anything
the last bit is the best though, the new caste system, how good is my brain how good is yours, or your eye sight my hearing ect ect what if Einstein had a really good sense of smell would that have changed anything?