Who ever really understands anything?

Someone asked me this

"Who ever really understands anything, even themselves??? maybe a person named Confusion could.. I don't know

the absence is the appearance, when you understand this you will have learned all i can teach"

dont teach, lead by example

i think the concept of science is a trustworthy one we can all rest upon, and it helps to explain most significant things (or at least the mundane things) to then build understanding upon. we do that anyways.

in terms of the self, yeah you're on your own haha the mind is a mysterious thing.

Originally Posted by paperairplane

the absence is the appearance, when you understand this you will have learned all i can teach"

can you elaborate?

Originally Posted by boguskyle

i think the concept of science is a trustworthy one we can all rest upon, and it helps to explain most significant things (or at least the mundane things) to then build understanding upon. we do that anyways.

Science can only prove or disprove that which is scientific. It cannot prove or disprove that which is religious or philosophic.

Likewise religion cannot prove or disprove that which is scientific or philosophic.

That being said, how trustworthy can science really be? It certainly does not explain most significant things. Science can only explain some nature. The natural world is only a percentage what really is, what is really there.

Originally Posted by boguskyle

can you elaborate?

I think they mean that form is defined by negative space.

Philosophy can be a useful tool to science and the successes of science can inform our philosophy. Religion finds no use for either one. In place of philosophy, the love of truth, we get mandate. Mandate in turn is not successful in establishing anything but hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by lunarverse

Science can only prove or disprove that which is scientific. It cannot prove that which is religious or philosophic.

Likewise religion cannot prove or disprove that which is scientific or philosophic.

That being said, how trustworthy can science really be? It certainly does not explain most significant things. Science can only explain some nature. The natural world is only a percentage what really is, what is really there.

nature is everything, and there are different levels of it alongside the different levels of science. why would anyone not trust science? there's no legit reason; its only provided humans progress and arguably enlightenment in the form of delivering us answers.
what is not proven, comes down to a matter of opinion, showing that its either arbitrary or pointless. so what is not nature/science?

I think the success of science can and certainly has influenced philosophy. Philosophy also has a place among metaphysics. But the two never really "prove" anything together. If they did, would it be scientific or philosophic? Science can only be proven using it's own tools. Philosophy can't prove anything, not that it needs to.

I should have used the word 'spiritual' instead of 'religion'. The latter is simply a man made thing. Science and philosophy can't and likely won't ever prove or disprove anything of a spiritual nature. Just as science can't employ philosophy to prove things that are scientific.

Originally Posted by boguskyle

nature is everything

There is a natural world and there are worlds that are not "natural". Not of matter or flesh. There are things in this world that are not of a "natural" origin.

Originally Posted by boguskyle

and there are different levels of it alongside the different levels of science. why would anyone not trust science? there's no legit reason; its only provided humans progress and arguably enlightenment in the form of delivering us answers.

Perhaps there's no reason not to trust science, but I certainly would not trust a scientific answer to a spiritual or philosophical question. Do people try to answer things of a spiritual nature by employing science? I believe they do. Does that not seem presumptuous, perhaps untrustworthy? Would you expect to have someone answer a scientific question with a spiritual answer? People do this as well.

There is more to existence than the natural world. Science can only interact with the natural world. There are things of this world and worlds beyond that are not necessarily natural. To employ science in these areas would create untrustworthy results.

Originally Posted by boguskyle

what is not proven, comes down to a matter of opinion, showing that its either arbitrary or pointless. so what is not nature?

What cannot be proven is arbitrary and pointless? That creates such a small scope to see the world through.

What is not nature? As I said, anything that is not born of the flesh or born of material.

nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.

Things that are not born and do not die are not "natural". They are something else.

Originally Posted by lunarverse

I think the success of science can and certainly has influenced philosophy. Philosophy also has a place among metaphysics. But the two never really "prove" anything together. If they did, would it be scientific or philosophic? Science can only be proven using it's own tools. Philosophy can't prove anything, not that it needs to.

I should have used the word 'spiritual' instead of 'religion'. The latter is simply a man made thing. Science and philosophy can't and likely won't ever prove or disprove anything of a spiritual nature. Just as science can't employ philosophy to prove things that are scientific.

There is certainly a philosophy of science.