Listening to a Philosophy Talk podcast on "Has Science Replaced Philosophy?" while exercising today, I heard a discussion of how science seeks empirical knowledge while philosophy is after logical knowledge.
Or something like that. I've got the basic notion correct, if not the precise philosophy talk language.
Anyway, it's an interesting idea. Often religious people disparage science, and scientists, arguing that the mysteries of the universe can't be fully understood by reason and logic.
True enough.
However, science isn't always reasonable or logical. Quantum theory, for example. At the quantum level of reality (which some say is all of reality), reason and logic are of a very different variety from what is found in everyday life and non-mathematical minds.
Yet quantum theory is highly effective. It has been proven to be empirically true, though the philosophical underpinnings of quantum mechanics continue to be debated.
Which assumes there are such underpinnings (Copenhagen interpretation, many worlds, etc. are candidates). It might be that at some level of understanding, the cosmos simply isn't understandable. Not by humans. Not by porpoises. Not even by space aliens with a vastly greater capacity of consciousness.
Also, not by mystics, yogis, prophets, sages, wizards, channelers, or anyone else who claims to have penetrated the ultimate truths of reality.
To me, this is a highly likely possibility: that "terra incognita" always is going to mark what lies beyond the furthest bounds of human knowledge. Not because our understanding hasn't evolved enough to be able to enter that territory.
Because what lies there (if there even is a valid word for it) can't be encompassed within any way of knowing. Existence just is what it is.
And even saying that isn't saying much. Or, anything.
Comments