The context we can't escape
When there's nothing to lean on, let that nothing be your foundation.
In some of my earlier posts, I tried to explain different kinds of limits that shape how we understand things. In this article, I want to bring those ideas together into a simple framework - something that can serve as a foundation, a justification, or maybe even just an excuse for any imperfections in my future thoughts.
In "The Limits of Shared Experience" I talked about how unreliable our senses can be. I didn't say it outright, but I started with this idea because I believe emotions are more important than logic. Logic exists to serve emotions, not the other way around. That might be a controversial claim, but even if you don't agree, it's still true that our experiences are imperfect. And if we can't even share the same reality properly, all our intellectual discussions might not mean much at all.
In "The Human-Centric Nature of Science" I pointed out that science, like any other system of human knowledge, isn't absolute. I might not have used those exact words, but the main idea is that science isn't perfect - it has errors, limitations, and is shaped by human choices. Even though it works well in practice, the basic assumptions we build it on are still just that -assumptions. That makes science more of a choice than an ultimate truth, something we believe in rather than something that exists independently. In a way, it's a kind of intellectual trap that our rational minds fall into.
"The Boundaries of Accessible Knowledge" is about the physical limits of what we can understand. Everything we know is flawed in some way, but beyond that, we just don't have any other options. We can't magically absorb alien technology or mystical wisdom. Our imagination might dream about it, but in reality, we are stuck with the limits of our own bodies and minds.
This way of looking at things might seem obvious - you could sum it up as "We're only human, after all." But I think it's important to really understand this, to use it as a foundation. Everything we say or think only makes sense within a certain context, and I believe this idea of human limitation should be at the highest level of that context.
You might say this whole approach is too vague, and I wouldn't argue with that. I'd love to make it more precise, with clear definitions and maybe even mathematical formulas (I can imagine how many conflicts would emerge). But right now, I don't have the resources to do that, and honestly, I'm just happy to have put these thoughts together in some form.