Here is another Clancy-caused blurblet. Please note the amateur 1st semester philosophy student mistakes. Enjoy!
2+2=4
I do not dream in numbers. I am a lover, a seeker, a dreamer, a believer, as well as a knower. I know I am these things, but can I be any more than I know? Am I a part of 2+2=4 or is that knowledge a part or me? Am I, or can I be, totally independent of mathematical truths? Are what we know and what we are different? Would I be willing to commit to this difference, if one did exist?
While I know I am composed of such things, do these definitions go beyond the limits of my knowledge? I dream, but what are the bases for my dreams? I love, but what is the extent of my love? I believe, but as I learn, those beliefs change. It seems that for each aspect of myself, there is a quantifiable measurement - and if something is quantifiable, then it is also measurable. With the equation, 2+2=4, is it a part of what I know, or does it encapsulate everything I know in its simplicity and sheer mathematical truth?
I once had to learn that equation, and its subsequent cliché, but at the same time it was still there, regardless of my awareness of its fact. That equation exists independent of my knowledge, or rather anyone's knowledge, but I do not exist because of that equation. Nor do I exist for that equation. I believe in its inherent truth, but I do not rely on that belief or its rooted knowledge in order to live, as I live to dream and do not dream in numbers.
While I may be working with a limited intellectual capacity to fully define the line between what I know and what I am, I am certain that line is there. What we know can get all wrapped up into pretty little packages that claim to define everything about the self. The problem does not lie in denying the existence of this knowledge, or its relationship of difference to the self. The problem is relying on this knowledge to define the self, and believing therein lies the truth.
Thus spake Megathustra
2+2=4
I do not dream in numbers. I am a lover, a seeker, a dreamer, a believer, as well as a knower. I know I am these things, but can I be any more than I know? Am I a part of 2+2=4 or is that knowledge a part or me? Am I, or can I be, totally independent of mathematical truths? Are what we know and what we are different? Would I be willing to commit to this difference, if one did exist?
While I know I am composed of such things, do these definitions go beyond the limits of my knowledge? I dream, but what are the bases for my dreams? I love, but what is the extent of my love? I believe, but as I learn, those beliefs change. It seems that for each aspect of myself, there is a quantifiable measurement - and if something is quantifiable, then it is also measurable. With the equation, 2+2=4, is it a part of what I know, or does it encapsulate everything I know in its simplicity and sheer mathematical truth?
I once had to learn that equation, and its subsequent cliché, but at the same time it was still there, regardless of my awareness of its fact. That equation exists independent of my knowledge, or rather anyone's knowledge, but I do not exist because of that equation. Nor do I exist for that equation. I believe in its inherent truth, but I do not rely on that belief or its rooted knowledge in order to live, as I live to dream and do not dream in numbers.
While I may be working with a limited intellectual capacity to fully define the line between what I know and what I am, I am certain that line is there. What we know can get all wrapped up into pretty little packages that claim to define everything about the self. The problem does not lie in denying the existence of this knowledge, or its relationship of difference to the self. The problem is relying on this knowledge to define the self, and believing therein lies the truth.
Thus spake Megathustra
No comments:
Post a Comment