God and the threshold of Ignorance! part II
In our perspective we shall attempt to investigate into the nature of an object in order to see whether or not it has limits. We explore at the same time whether or not there are limits for our comprehension. It can be further argued whether or not an assumed state of mind limits as well as object limits to divulge its enigma that are subject to inaccessible knowledge labelled as ‘ultimate knowledge'.Only, we assume, by examining minutely an object and our consciousness of it we are able to establish such hypothetical limits.
The importance of such approach is to attempt to investigate such probability.
We are not pretending to establish the arguments of one school of thought or another (sceptic, doubtful, nihilism, religion, sophist, metaphysics, spiritualism, mysticism, Gnosticism, agnosticism. Whether knowledge can be attained or not serves, in our perspective, a very precise end, namely that unattainable knowledge has a succinct purpose. This unattainable knowledge leads us to probabilities and conjecture only. The precise purpose is to allow the individual person to choose between probabilities of causes, of which one probability claims a cause-creator or an external finality. Such a probability, for lack of evidence, is open to the free choice that the individual person has to make during his life.
Canalising philosophical thought
The mainstreams of philosophical thought focus is made on identifying an object, the uncertainty of knowing, metaphysical problems and linguistic communication of ideas, illusion and reality.
If philosophy inquires into the nature of things, their origin and their finalities, we try in our effort to give sense to these questions. This sense resides in man's choice between two options namely to believe or disbelieve in an external finality. We are assuming here that all knowledge and its criticism lead to a state of an obligatory choice. The very uncertainty of knowledge, lack of proof, leads in its turn to man's own choice dictated by his own convictions.
The very fact that things in their nature, origin and finality are inaccessible to ultimate knowledge opens the question to denote significance of this inaccessibility. We are assuming that the precise significance is to leave to man the freedom of making up his own mind.
Philosophers throughout the ages, endeavouring to give sense for things, their existence, their nature, their origin and finalities, did not, so far, uncover any solid reality for anything. They simply had to make a choice, reaching a dead end where the wall of ignorance imposes itself on their minds. Every and each one of the known philosophers and thinkers from Buddha to Confucianism, to Protegra, Aristotle and Plato, to St. Paul and St. Augustine, to Laplace, Leibniz and Descartes, to Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, to Heidegger, Sartre and Russell, all had to make a choice between belief and disbelief in an external finality, a God-cause.
In our perspective we shall attempt to investigate into the nature of an object in order to see whether or not it has limits. We explore at the same time whether or not there are limits for our comprehension. It can be further argued whether or not an assumed state of mind limits as well as object limits to divulge its enigma that are subject to inaccessible knowledge labelled as ‘ultimate knowledge'.Only, we assume, by examining minutely an object and our consciousness of it we are able to establish such hypothetical limits.
The importance of such approach is to attempt to investigate such probability.
We are not pretending to establish the arguments of one school of thought or another (sceptic, doubtful, nihilism, religion, sophist, metaphysics, spiritualism, mysticism, Gnosticism, agnosticism. Whether knowledge can be attained or not serves, in our perspective, a very precise end, namely that unattainable knowledge has a succinct purpose. This unattainable knowledge leads us to probabilities and conjecture only. The precise purpose is to allow the individual person to choose between probabilities of causes, of which one probability claims a cause-creator or an external finality. Such a probability, for lack of evidence, is open to the free choice that the individual person has to make during his life.
Canalising philosophical thought
The mainstreams of philosophical thought focus is made on identifying an object, the uncertainty of knowing, metaphysical problems and linguistic communication of ideas, illusion and reality.
If philosophy inquires into the nature of things, their origin and their finalities, we try in our effort to give sense to these questions. This sense resides in man's choice between two options namely to believe or disbelieve in an external finality. We are assuming here that all knowledge and its criticism lead to a state of an obligatory choice. The very uncertainty of knowledge, lack of proof, leads in its turn to man's own choice dictated by his own convictions.
The very fact that things in their nature, origin and finality are inaccessible to ultimate knowledge opens the question to denote significance of this inaccessibility. We are assuming that the precise significance is to leave to man the freedom of making up his own mind.
Philosophers throughout the ages, endeavouring to give sense for things, their existence, their nature, their origin and finalities, did not, so far, uncover any solid reality for anything. They simply had to make a choice, reaching a dead end where the wall of ignorance imposes itself on their minds. Every and each one of the known philosophers and thinkers from Buddha to Confucianism, to Protegra, Aristotle and Plato, to St. Paul and St. Augustine, to Laplace, Leibniz and Descartes, to Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, to Heidegger, Sartre and Russell, all had to make a choice between belief and disbelief in an external finality, a God-cause.
