Profile


Me

I'm a practical dreamer.
(this is not as contradictory as it seems)


I like the crisp smell of freshly printed paper (and the corresponding sound of pen scratching ink on paper),cold temperatures when the sun is out, long and invigorating discourse, shopping at quaint, old-world boutiques, playing with poker cards at any kind of game (excluding Solitaire,while I honestly prefer all the variants of Bridge), and walking, just sauntering aimlessly (but contentedly); indulging in the sights and sounds around me, encasing them in the multi-faceted tapestry of sheer sensation-

Audentes Fortuna Iuvat.
-Virgil, The Aeneid

therefore I am vulnerable no more
Sunday, January 15, 2012

Found this while studying:

"Man is a reasonable being; and as such, receives from science his proper food and nourishment: But so narrow are the bounds of human understanding, that little satisfaction can be hoped for in this particular, either from the extent of security or his acquisitions. Man is a sociable, no less than a reasonable being: But neither can he always enjoy company agreeable and amusing, or preserve the proper relish for them.

Man is also an active being; and from that disposition, as well as from the various necessities of human life, must submit to business and occupation: But the mind requires some relaxation, and cannot always support its bent to care and industry."

- David Hume


So what then, is the perfect mathematical balance between "business and occupation" and "relaxation"? 50-50? 70-30? 40-60? There are so many quantifications!

Is the right answer simply to pursue true happiness? :/
What then, about the social restrictions of human life?

Science measures, and is supposedly, the ultimate quantifier, being founded on logic, and the rationality of the human mind. But if Science is a quantifier, why can't Science create a fixed mathematical equation, a+ b+c+....z=h, where, a, b, c.. , z are the isolated variables of human society- ranging from interpersonal/intrapersonal relationships, to the temporal pleasure afforded by physical substances, a.k.a alcohol, or food, to sex, etc etc;

and h= true, eternal (lifelong) happiness ?

Of course, we can always follow the argument that each human is created differently. As such- every human possesses differing mental faculties for enjoying different types of pleasure (which is picked up from one's phenomenal senses).

Yet- surely Science, being admittedly all-encompassing, can overlook these differences of perspectives, and come up with a fixed equation!

Otherwise, how can science grant man proper food and nourishment?

Unless Hume refers to Science endowing man with the proper tools for achieving such- with food and nourishment coming from an external source unrelated to Science.

Is human understanding still not comprehensible completely (as so far it is possible) in scientific terms?

I assume food and nourishment are literal and metaphorical in Hume's statement- meaning Soul-food (such as emotional nourishment) as well as literal food, (e.g fried food)


/ponders


Conclusion: Science is never enough, because Man isn't necessarily always a reasonable being
7:59 PM
History.is.bunk

December 2011 January 2012 February 2012


Outgoing

I'm far too lazy, alas!



Layout by GY