Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
I told you before but you don't listen: "understanding" entails "knowledge" and "truth". To understand A we have to know something about A and whatever we understand of A has to be true of something in A.That's putting 'truth' on trial isn't it. I mean if we can't know what is true and we can't reach a conclusion that we don't know to be true we are forced to compromise if we are to make a decision - I'll call it 'make progress' - if we are to increase understanding.
See the problem? We are increasing our understanding but we can't know truth.
Further, this only applies to the material world. It doesn't apply to subjective experience.
That's what people do anyway. We live in a time where there has never been so many scientists, engineers, technicians and even professional philosophers (all coming out of production lines, so in a sense scientists are machines, yes). And they all do what you suggest here. But that's also true (Oops) of the seven or so billion people scavenging the planet today. And that was already true before and always (Oops again). Remember? It's our nature that determines what we do.Humans don't function under a truth regime in a known world.
Humans function under makes sense in a what we understand human world.
So rather than put truth on trial why don't we just operate with what we understand
EB