Question by the Boss: Is it possible that we are not aware of the box we are in when we think?
Specifically, I’m thinking of a scientific framework people tend to be in when thinking philosophically. It seems to me like when people ask about the nature of the universe, so often the way of thinking is cosmological – and metaphysical or ontological ways of thinking are dismissed as non sensical, as if physical science is superior to any other way of looking at existence in a philosophical context.
I’m just curious if anyone else senses something like this or if you have any other observations.
Best answer:
Answer by dlja@sbcglobal.net
An unthinking life, is not one worthy living.
What was it that Albert Einstein is quoted to having said about fine art with respect in particular to that of music: ” He who does not appreciate the music of J.S. Bach, is the same as being dead”?
For anyone to let themselves be hedged in, one way or the other from a dogmatic mindset, to me is as good as dead.
A Shakespearean quote(from Hamlet I think): “There are more things in the world than dreamt of in your philosophy”, or something to that effect.
My perspective is, that science is great and I’m grateful for its existence; but that it should be held up as the only method employed to explain any and all phenomenon, is utterly ridiculous; absurd. I feel a great pity for anyone who subscribes to such a hypothesis.
Wotan
Add your own answer in the comments!
Dear The Boss
Whatever this problem is, this is because of a psychological problem whereby all the sciences and arts, after 19th century all disciplines suffered from a “Sciencemania”.
Some people have identified this mania and have issued a warning to the humanity. For example I quote a few lines from http://www.lightinlife.com where in an article similar things were mentioned. Please have a glance over it:
“One thing that surfaces here is that the languages are only for serving the routine purposes. When used to describe the existence or non-existence of the God they start giving problems. So whenever someone is to tell something about the existence, the world or the God or the essence or the Absolute, all details cannot be verbally communicated. Any communication with verbal expressions is bound to create contradictions. To be free from contradiction it must be consisting of some non verbal component of communication.
The problem with this non verbal component of communication is with its communicability. How one would communicate that non verbal component of communication to others. Probably it cannot be. So the recipient would have to be subjective to that extent. He has to develop his own methodology to understand what was infact communicated through that non verbal component of communication. It is quite possible that the transmitter is transmitting something different from what is being received by the recipient.
This non verbal component of communication would always form the basis of the knowledge (if this word may be used for the knowledge) of the absolute or the God or the existence and it will be subjective only. Therefore any absolute knowledge will have an essential subjective component. Without this subjective component a knowledge cannot be complete; it would not be able to comprehend the contradictions involved and also the probabilities of existence.”