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.

can you elaborate?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

There is certainly a philosophy of science.

 

maybe i just think the use or point of spirituality very closely involves physical reality. when spirituality is taken outside a use or point, it is arbitrary and pointless and only is existent in one's mind, but one can't prove that that even exists, besides maybe physical reactions within the brain, which in turns brings it back to science.

 

Some philosophy also has a scientific method. Logic and reason seem scientific, they are systematic.

 

@lunar, i still don't know what you'd consider not natural, but the word "nature" can encompass much more than 'of flesh and material'. and thats a great word to use "systematic."

imo, natural = systematic. applying the scientific method to anything is the only trustworthy and worthwhile thing to do. in this sense, philosophy is nature made within ourselves, and with the use of science, we can come to conclusions.

 

Spirituality is beyond intellect and tangibility. When is spirituality taken outside a point? Do you mean in say a scientific conversation? Again, the same could be said of science. What purpose does science serve in a spiritual conversation? It would seem pointless in that context.

Spirituality goes beyond the physical world and that's why it is beyond intellect and science. Both intellect and science can only be employed on "natural" subjects.

Whether or not spirituality only exists in one's mind, we'll never know. We'll also never know the origin of man or the origin of the universe. Science, spirituality and philosophy all have their flaws.

 

You may have missed my post on the other page;

 

From wikipedia

Epistemology is a key research topic in the philosophy of science. In practical application, epistemology defines the burden of proof, often set in relation to statistical confidence intervals used within the framework of the scientific method. For example, the second largest area of public science funding in the U.S. is health research. Most of this large body of research is geared towards that elusive holy grail of philosophy and science: causality. Practitioners of the scientific method seek to locate effects (i.e. the descriptive statistic of an illness rate) strongly associated to causes (i.e. the descriptive statistic of pathogens or carcinogens). This process of using a combination of means and variances to measure and analyze natural phenomena is inference. Correlation and regression are two common techniques used to try to link causes with effects.

 

i'm not using the word natural in the sense a plant is natural as opposed to an ipod. i'm using it in the sense of the word systematic, like the explanation of how things are, in which if there was a small animal on this planet specifically formed to play music and media for humans, it would resemble an ipod device. or how we can build better submarines by studying fish and whales. and by this, im saying lil to nothing is by artificial sources
all comes down to cause and effect eventually, in which philosophy does not answer questions, it proposes them. the scientific method is the process of answering the questions. we can ask any arbitrary questions that anyone could possibly think of, but there are facts that act as actuality in every scenario.

it kinda bends into the thought of fate which i dont necessarily agree with, but for explanation purposes, nature is the basis of all systematically-made fate.

this can also stem into the argument of "human nature". society greatly affects how we behave, but abstract concepts found to affect people aren't technically natural by those given definitions you gave me. thats an example of how nature isnt just by those definitions, its the sequences of happening and why.

so i think some of the absence described in the op can eventually be deciphered by scientific method. philosophies themselves change with science because systematic occurrences. there are lots of insignificant philisophical things one can go on, but only the future and science will change what we philosophize about and if we even do. philosophy hasn't brought too much use, because most philisophical questions are empty and rhetoric.

 

Me! I understand everything! Its questions I have trouble with.

 

presumably the tao might. if it chooses to exist and chooses to do so.
presumably it chooses to exist. nothing else about can be confidently assumed.

 

not enough thinking.