>In some sense our surest knowledge of what is absolute is contained in relations, mathematical
and logical. <
That's the way it works practically. Yes. But theoretically/philosophically, there is to me something lastingly not pretty about being trying to frame the cosmos from the inside out. By constructing relations outward from the most robust axioms available. But they are still axioms. A is A. Now where did that really measurably get us? "Whaddyou mean us, Paleface?"
I kick the rock, and my toe does hurt. Ok fine. But because that's real enough for government work, is it real? Really <cough>?
"No distortions of sense and measurement" That's it to a "t".
As far as Berkeley goes, without sensory input, what am I? Granted there's a circular trap here, but I have trouble conceiving of a form of human thought which is not totally framed by the sensory. Even our beautiful abstract mathematics (geometry!) are understood by the brain's capacity for visual auditory analogy. I dig geometry because in my mind's eye I can see it. Or enough of it to say "OK" to the premises and build from there into the not-so-visualizable.
But for me, at this place in my intellectual career, I'm stuck on a disconnect between the Sensible and the Real.
Where DID that rabbit come from, anyway? |
