Quote:
Quote by: rez  Well it either does or does not work. What would be the point in trying to explain something if the goal was NOT to explain something? |
The point is you might not see the value of one system over your but that is only because you believe it. Our beliefs create our standpoint to the world but our standpoint creates our beliefs. I cannot look at the world as if I were you because I am me. If you say it only makes sense to judge to explanations by their usefulness then that means that the set of you beliefs creates that viewpoint of the world. And further, that viewpoint makes it so you cannot understand any beliefs that do not fit it.
For me all I can do is trust that that is how you perceive the value of the world. That there is one good answer to number 4. I see many good answers to number 4 and yours is just one among many. All you can do is trust that I see the world from a different standpoint. Which of these standpoints is more valid is unanswerable because it requires a standpoint to judge a standpoint. However, once you have a standpoint your is always best.
Quote:
"I think so" is not an action. There must be thought as well as action. That is the kicker. What good is thought without action.
If you think something, and you think that something is legit, then go and make it happen. Go and discover it, and show everybody.
|
What good is that thought? It depends on what you want from an answer. If you want a definition and I say a kick is defined as that then that is a good answer. To say that thought is useless without action presupposes that the person thinks that a propositions usefulness is the utility is provides. I can say the best knowledge is the knowledge that serves no art (as Aristotle did in Metaphysics. I believe it is in part on if you want to check).
So there are different ways to look at the world. Different perspectives and aspects of the world. All of these perspective might well lead to an identity but that identity might very well depend on how you order you beliefs.