Apr 26 22
The world is neither theistic nor scientific; the tense energy between science and religion is really phantasmagoric, a meretricious friction between feuding simian aporias — bombastic, polysemous bricolage born of perfect insecurity and veiled ignorance. (It is as false for science to say that bees are a separate entity from flowers as it is for religion to say that either are made by a god.) The “world” (of course a word of ridiculously insane truncation) is simply beyond our comprehension.
But what is the point in admitting that ultimately one (or a group, or a society) doesn’t know?
Most would likely think that confessing to a lack of knowledge is an end — a defeat. But acknowledging transcendental cognitive shortcomings is really the only basis — a sole certainty.
A practical application/example, the death penalty. Since all first-degree murders can’t be proven with actual omniscience, a governing body should never penalize with death. This would be a dignified application of a lack of knowledge.
Another specific, anti-hubristic notion that we oft like to consider (and have mentioned before) is: if you were someone else, you would be them. That is, consider a person you loathe — if you had their exact DNA, their exact subsequent body, their exact parents, the exact context of their youth, etc. etc. — you would be them, with zero alteration. We agree that this notion of ultimate involuntary causality is a hard pill to swallow or a difficult knot to untie — but it is nevertheless true and really the only dignified way to contemplate or observe oneself and The Other.
But what is the point in admitting that ultimately one (or a group, or a society) doesn’t know?
Most would likely think that confessing to a lack of knowledge is an end — a defeat. But acknowledging transcendental cognitive shortcomings is really the only basis — a sole certainty.
A practical application/example, the death penalty. Since all first-degree murders can’t be proven with actual omniscience, a governing body should never penalize with death. This would be a dignified application of a lack of knowledge.
Another specific, anti-hubristic notion that we oft like to consider (and have mentioned before) is: if you were someone else, you would be them. That is, consider a person you loathe — if you had their exact DNA, their exact subsequent body, their exact parents, the exact context of their youth, etc. etc. — you would be them, with zero alteration. We agree that this notion of ultimate involuntary causality is a hard pill to swallow or a difficult knot to untie — but it is nevertheless true and really the only dignified way to contemplate or observe oneself and The Other.