So I am sure some if not most of you have heard of Soren Kierkegaard. The man was a Danish philosopher, and is even believed to have been the first existentialist philosopher too! Many years ago I came across and interesting quote by him and it just popped in my head again. He once argued:
"It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand, and what those things are. Human understanding has vulgarly occupied itself with nothing but understanding, but if it would only take the trouble to understand itself at the same time it would simply posit the paradox"
It is an interesting paradox he has provided us with, but true nonetheless? Are we really better off not knowing certain things? Better yet, are some things really better off unanswered?
My understanding (yes ironic isnt it) is that for our buddy Kierkegaard, once an answer is found to certain questions, it is the death of philosophy so to speak. Why is that? Well, cuz more often that not once a concept is indefinitely defined, understood and answered it is no longer a philosophy but more of a science.
Another way to look at this is in terms of limitations. Just as we are limited spatio-termporally, in much the same way one can argue that we are limited mentally too. So what on God's green earth does that mean? The human brain's ability to make sense of things is based on how you and I perceive said things. Now our perception is directly related to observation; since perceptions are created from observing our surrounding environment. There are a good number of things and concepts out there which we cannot observe and therefore cannot perceive to its fullest form. Ergo, we cannot understand and can only philosophize about it i guess.
I have rambled on long enough and 'tis time to bring it to and end spare you any more of my random insanity :p
"It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand, and what those things are. Human understanding has vulgarly occupied itself with nothing but understanding, but if it would only take the trouble to understand itself at the same time it would simply posit the paradox"
It is an interesting paradox he has provided us with, but true nonetheless? Are we really better off not knowing certain things? Better yet, are some things really better off unanswered?
My understanding (yes ironic isnt it) is that for our buddy Kierkegaard, once an answer is found to certain questions, it is the death of philosophy so to speak. Why is that? Well, cuz more often that not once a concept is indefinitely defined, understood and answered it is no longer a philosophy but more of a science.
Another way to look at this is in terms of limitations. Just as we are limited spatio-termporally, in much the same way one can argue that we are limited mentally too. So what on God's green earth does that mean? The human brain's ability to make sense of things is based on how you and I perceive said things. Now our perception is directly related to observation; since perceptions are created from observing our surrounding environment. There are a good number of things and concepts out there which we cannot observe and therefore cannot perceive to its fullest form. Ergo, we cannot understand and can only philosophize about it i guess.
I have rambled on long enough and 'tis time to bring it to and end spare you any more of my random insanity :p
No comments:
Post a Comment