|
Post by Polaris on Jan 27, 2018 21:52:47 GMT
has there been a time when a man could literally know everything about everything?
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 5, 2018 21:01:18 GMT
what i expected to be raised is " what is knowing"? is it just to have some idea about something? is it to have a certain view or perspective of something? is to be able to recognize or to be able to produce information about the thing we claim we know?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 22:09:09 GMT
what i expected to be raised is " what is knowing"? is it just to have some idea about something? is it to have a certain view or perspective of something? is to be able to recognize or to be able to produce information about the thing we claim we know? Hegel said that it is possible. But it can be known in the symbolic level. Wittgenstein said that 'the borders of the World match the borders of the language of ours'. I think that difference between Wittgenstein's understaning and Hegel's was a content. Hegel thought that a notion capacites a content in itself, therefore the content of the World could be captured in the notion. As for me it sounds crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Feb 6, 2018 6:03:43 GMT
language itself shapes the way we conceptualize things. if Shakespeare had spoken chinese, his literary writings would have been different, and the ideas his writings could generate in the readers would have also been different. so knowing everything necessitates knowing all world languages even that of animals.
|
|