http://www.courtauld.ac.uk/gallery/exhibitions/2007/cranach/adam-eve5.jpgI made a perhaps rather exaggerated stretch from Ernest von Glasersfeld's problem of unconceptualized apples to the story/theory of Adam and Eve. Now, because relating philosophy and religion is almost inevitable, given that philosophy strives to discover or unveil the forces behind the workings of the universe and its creatures, it's difficult to argue a strictly philosophical
case when contemplating the beginning of the universe and reality as we know it. I will attempt to adequately form and word one possible theory as to why mankind will never know the true nature of an apple (or any object, for that matter) with the assistance of the Bible's recordings of the first humans and their sins.
If we put aside religious beliefs and assume the following story to be at least somewhat reliable, we are given a possible explanation as to why there are certain things-the nature of an apple, for a common example- that we'll never know.
It is plausible that the tree of knowledge was not a tree bearing fruit, but rather a concept held by a force-call it whatever you want: God, gods, nature, science, intelligent design, fate, luck, creation, discovery... Perhaps a creator or force has a reason for withholding such knowledge as nature beyond perception from us. Or maybe we are withholding it from ourselves. If Adam and Eve symbolize the human race, the tree of knowledge symbolizes those things that cannot be conceived, the serpent represents temptations and limitations of the mind/consciousness, and God symbolizes whatever reason exists for the denial of such knowledge, then whether or not we can discover an apple's true properties, or a universal truth is beyond our control.
But maybe we can create it, instead.
2 comments:
Whenever we deny ourselves knowledge, we must do so on the basis of some condition that obtains limiting our capacity to know; and when we state such conditions, we are claiming to know the ways things (at least partially) are. So von G's rejection of our capacity to know the "real apple" paradoxically purports to identify at least some aspects of that which he claims we cannot know.
(Please turn off word verification!)
I agree. Von G's theory is contradicting, yet surprisingly accurate. Once we understand and accept that it's impossible to know all aspects of an object, we have obtained the knowledge that the capacity for knowledge is infinite and we will therefore never reach a point where we know the real apple, although we could come extremely close.
Post a Comment