|
yeah, that has been a question sought after for centuries. Notably, there have been two prominent movements. Britain, had the Empiricists, and somewhere else in europe held more of whats called rationalist thinkers. Empiricists, like the name suggests is that we reason through and only through what we have all ready perceived. In other words, human reason is obtained through perception. Rationalists, say human reason is the prevalent way we obtain knowledge.
I forgot who...hmm well some guy haha, well they are all just some guy with a reputation behind them afterall, heh. So anyway, there is no reason to investigate further than human senses is what he said. Constantly reaching the intangible would seem for naught at its pure impossibility.
here's an example, put on a pair of blue colored lens sunglasses. Everything looks blue...but is everything blue? No, how do you know that? Because you have seen the other world full of many colors, hence you experienced it before, thats an empirist point of view. However, a rationlist would argue that human reason would be able to reveal that to oneself one day...but how would that be possible if all we have to work with is our glasses,...or senses. We can't take off the glasses of our senses, it's inconceivable to a human being to perceive beyond that...simply because we CAN'T see beyond that.
"Did someone just create it?" Well, knowing that we know nothing as confucious said is the mark of true knowledge. But i'm a little lost in teh questino...hmm do you mean that all we know is false? I would agree to a certain extent, if we go with linguistics, nothing is real, we created language and all labels towards everything doesn't exist, only the object themselves. But how can we not label and refer to things? Right, we can't. We have to label, and accepting labels as simply labels we are able make our own truths. I guess i don't understand what you mean by truth...1+1 = 2, yes, thats true, nothing will change that and though there really isn't a "1", the representation is real. Does that make sense? all right, i'll let off now.
__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.
"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell
Last edited by PsychoSnowman on 09-06-2002 at 10:07 AM
|
09-04-2002 02:00 AM
That and the existence of mine disproves yours, if you accept the one i outlined. But you can't accept the truth you named either for obvious contradictions you stated.
..... thas crazy mang....lol.... that i understood it.....
