If you have a problem with all four of them, are you then suggesting that it is invalid to suggest a limited set of alternatives when there is always the possibility that other options exist ... even ones we do not yet know about?
Yes I guess I do have a problem with all four of them - but not in an everyday sense. In the everyday social world I would pick one, or be happy with all of them.
But when I look deeply I am fundamentally unhappy with all of them.
And I think that you've put your finger on it, there are always other options that we don't know about (in addition to the obvious guesses we can make that aren't listed, as per the workers discontent at working the whole day for the same pay as a fellow who had only worked one hour for example).
I think this is why I am drawn to mathematics (or "math" as I believe some of you colonials refer to it as). Mathematics (and chess too) is based on a set of rules (axioms) and within those axioms you can be sure that it's X or Y. But the "real world" isn't like this, it is grey, not black and white.
And I don't just mean that in a "the world is complex" sense, I mean that in the "we have measured it to be fuzzy" sense. Humans cannot pin down reality.
By a circuitous route we have come straight back to superposition of states, where two seemingly conflicting things can both be true simultaneously -- and by induction we arrive once more at the struggle of how to define truth.
I am not sure what this means but it's interesting!
But this is thinking. And thinking can get one into trouble.
Bertrand Russell alledgedly said
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
Would that match your knowledge of the Gospels?
No comments:
Post a Comment