Boy, do I not want to ever read or write the word Being again. But, for the sake of further existential exploration, I shall endure it for a little longer. So, onto the examination.
The idea of an understanding of the overall Being by taking a look at the life of a single being within it was something that I strongly agreed with, and was excited by the idea of. I brought up during class that I considered the journey to understanding Being to be equated to doing a 1000 piece puzzle without looking at the box to see what it will look like. You need to take a look at each piece, and see how it interacts with every other piece in order to fully and completely understand what Being really is. The question then became, how does one do this? How can someone completely understand what Being is, if they cannot get a clear understanding of every being that exists within it?
The answer, at least to me, is that it cannot be done.
Well actually I should clarify. I can't be done in that exact way. However, I believe, that a mathematical idea could help us to understand how this works. Consider a set of data points that closely resembles a line graphed out on a chart. In order to find the slope of this graph, we use an approximation to understand what the graph is close to. In this way, we can understand something about the line without knowing everything about it. Another example is in Calculus, where we study the effects of infinity on equations without actually having a complete understanding of what infinity is. In the same way we understand infinity we might be able to understand Being. By extrapolating the data from what we can gather from testimonials, historical texts, eye witness accounts, and every other piece of historical true evidence on the planet, as well as as much info from the present as we can surmise, there must be enough data included within that to give us an approximation of what Being is. We may not have enough information to completely understand it, but we can get as close as humanly possible with what little we actually have.
I chuckled to myself when you mentioned how you never want to read or write the word "Being" ever again. I do agree that it was said quite excessively, to the point that it was humorous. I found your comparison of Being to the puzzle without the box to be on point. It is truly difficult to comprehend the idea of "Being". I personally dislike doing puzzles, so doing it without the box would be hell. I suppose the idea of Being can always be excruciating, but I hope it is more rewarding than a puzzle for me, at least. I'm not sure, however, if I agree with your method of finding out what Being is. I don't think it is really something that can be quantified through historical facts. In other words, I don't believe Being to be an objective thing. I think everyone's Being is different, and that we have to simply look at our own lives and experiences and figure out what Being means to us. As for Being being impossible to understand, I don't think that is the case. Also, on the same vein, I don't think what we have is relatively little. My entire argument may just be because I dislike Math, I don't know. But I have to believe that Being is subjective, not objective.
ReplyDelete