Is Sunyata (Emptiness) = Reductionism?
I have a very basic understanding of Buddhist thought and although I haven't talked to experts most people I have met are unable to explain the concept of Sunyata/emptiness of Buddhism.
What I understand is Sunyata is the crux of Buddhist philosophy. It's supposed to be a middle path between Nihilism (there's nothing) and Eternalism (there's something).
One piece of the puzzle is the doctrine of inter-dependence. As an example it claims that when wood, metal and artisan come together we get a chair. The chair is just a convergence of other more ''primary'' stuff and so can't have an independent existence. Similarly, the self/I also arises from inter-dependence - flesh, bones, blood, for instance, give rise to consciousness and the self/I. Therefore, there is no real I. Not-self is what I hear people saying.
Isn't this reductionism? I'm inclined to think it is and also that it's a good argument.
What do you think?
What I understand is Sunyata is the crux of Buddhist philosophy. It's supposed to be a middle path between Nihilism (there's nothing) and Eternalism (there's something).
One piece of the puzzle is the doctrine of inter-dependence. As an example it claims that when wood, metal and artisan come together we get a chair. The chair is just a convergence of other more ''primary'' stuff and so can't have an independent existence. Similarly, the self/I also arises from inter-dependence - flesh, bones, blood, for instance, give rise to consciousness and the self/I. Therefore, there is no real I. Not-self is what I hear people saying.
Isn't this reductionism? I'm inclined to think it is and also that it's a good argument.
What do you think?
Comments (59)
What comes to my mind is that all metaphysics is reductionism. We reduce the complexity of experience to useful generalities.
Quoting TheMadFool
I've heard/read a similar idea. What a chair is involves all of human history and the universe ultimately. I can't exhaustively describe a chair (if even then) without describing/explaining everything. How have chairs evolved? What are the words for chair and how are the connected to chairs? What are chair made of and why do these materials work? And so on.
Quoting TheMadFool
I see that we can break people down as a system of sub-things. There is also the social existence of individuals and the way we are differentiated from one another and understand ourselves and others in terms of these differences. I am male because there are females. I have personality trait X only because such a trait is conspicuous against the possibility of its absence. We might say that an individual self is a kind of foreground which is dependent on its background. The background is lots of other selves.
As I said, Sunyata has a good argument behind it and materialism backs it up.
I see. I suppose I draw the distinction elsewhere. There are people who think in terms of materialism and idealism (who take grand abstractions and words for [s]existence[/s] especially seriously) and those who experience all those abstractions lumped together as the same kind of thing. I find myself to have moved from the first to the second position. There are 'isms' I could paste to this move, but that pasting would muddy my point.
I do think that we can pick something, anything for that matter, and take it apart into simpler components. However, I also think that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Yes, we can take metal, plastic, rubber and glass to make a car but a car isn't simply an additive result of its parts. A car acquires an identity of its own, for instance it can become part of a family's journey through life or be the cause of a death etc. So, a car exists, let's say, in a different plane of existence. Of course this is not as much as I'm hoping for.
The truth is I'm struggling with the notion of a soul, specifically its survival of death. As with a car, as opposed to Buddhist not-self, I'm of the opinion that a soul is like a car, its components necessary, but it's more than just a physical sum of its parts. A soul is a different level of existence.
As you may notice, I still can't show you why a soul should escape death.
There is no one understanding of Sunyata as each Buddhist sect approaches the idea differently, and it is not central to Buddhist thought. Only the Four Noble Truths and Eight Fold Path can be considered Central.
With that said, despite the thousands of different interpretations of Sunyata, I have never heard of any interpretation anywhere that would be materialistic in nature. It is more diametrically opposite.
It all depends on whether one is convinced by mereological nihilism, and the project of reductionism in the sciences. I tend to think that objects can consist of parts, systems can consist of individual behaviors, and the self can exist as certain brain activity with a cultural context.
I don't think I have to say that only subatomic particles or fields exist. One can argue for that, but I'm not sold on it. I also tend to think that social structures like companies and governments exist. It's about the emergent complexity of various systems that result in objects, selves, social arrangements.
If you just look at an individual ant, it's behavior is pretty dumb and mindless. But an ant colony engages in impressive endeavors, which consist entirely of dumb ant behaviors interacting with one another. Do we understand ants as only the individuals? Is an ant colony not a thing in the world? If so, we're going to run into huge difficulties explaining how ants survive.
The most common form of reductionism asserts the existence of fundamental particles, each of which exists independently, and says everything is made of them.
Sunyata is like the opposite of that, saying that nothing, not even subatomic particles, exists independently, because everything depends on everything else. Sunyata would thus say that we cannot understand a chair just by looking at the atoms it's made of, or at the wood, metal and artisan. It would say that to fully understand the chair we have to understand the entire universe.
Your reasoning isn’t clear to me here but this reminds me of a frequently referenced portion of the Heart Sutra which claims that form = emptiness. It doesn’t stop there however, it goes on to claim that emptiness = form. You might say the latter is redundant, unless you appreciate what it attempts to signify, which is essentially non-duality. That’s why the concept of emptiness is difficult to grasp.
Can non-duality be reductionist?
Hey, @Wayfarer, get your ass over here and splain this.
He may be too mortified by the claim to participate.
In my experience, Wayfarer is always happy to respond to sincere questions when he can.
Everything is a unity. There are no parts. In does not reflect the philosophy to say something arises from something else or is the product of some parts. It is all intertwined and entangled. A holographic universe would be a closer analogy.
Quoting praxis
Non-duality as opposed to....??? Duality can't be escaped. Even nirvana itself is the opposite of being unenlightened.
What I think is duality is an intrinsic feature of our reality. To be aware of this ''fact'' is essential to be in touch with reality. Like yin and yang, opposites, together, form the whole. If I were to oppose duality as a truth in our world I would only go so far as to say that between black and white there are many shades of grey. What do you think?
I suppose I think of people as wholes greater than the sum of their parts. I'd like to believe in a good afterlife, but I just can't. I can make peace with this to some degree by reflecting that the young replace the old. They have similar passions, similar ideas. We pass on our discoveries through various media. I can blast guitar solos from the 60s and feel as if they came from my own soul, as if the musician tapped in to something that doesn't die with the individual.
I've also been writing about my youth lately. I don't think the incidents themselves are important. My hope is that my reader will be reminded of similar incidents in their own youth --or really of the feelings involved in those incidents. Spiderwebs in nature come to mind. They are always a bit irregular, but a kind of perfect or ideal spiderweb is implied. That ideal spiderweb is what I can imagine in terms of escaping death and having an immortal soul. If humans become extinct, this web goes too. Because this is far enough in the future, it 'irrationally' doesn't bother me much. I suppose plugging into the ideal spider web or guitar solo and so on offers a pleasure that makes us forget death and the futility it threatens. I also just a got a cute dog, and petting that little bitch is a delight. It plugs me in to some ancient and individual-trascending mammalian nurturing energy.
Duality is an idea. A way of looking at things. It's human. It's mental. It's not a physical fact. It can't be proven or even observed. Show me a picture of some duality. An x-ray. A meter reading.
An idea can be escaped just by stopping thinking of things that way. Which makes it sound easier than it usually is.
It is necessary to pivot one's way of thinking to begin to understand different way of viewing life and nature. You are trying to translate using what you are reading. You have to DO in order to begin to effect change. If you try to translate a philosophy based upon unity into one that rests on materiality, you get materiality. That is why you always ended up where you started.
It is generally thought that anything which can be said to exist must have some kind of form, even if it is only a form of activity (as with the different kinds of fundamental particles that populate contemporary physical theory). This requirement would apply as equally to the "more primary stuff" as it does to chairs and cars, trees and dogs, houses and horses.
So if Sunyata is reductionism the question as to what everything with a form, according to this doctrine of emptiness or formlessness, has been reduced to remains.
Relating this to materialism the question then becomes 'Can matter, contrary to what is generally thought, exist without form. This relates to some of my recent reading regarding John Duns Scotus (the Subtle Doctor). The following is an excerpt From the SEP entry entitled 'John Duns Scotus':
First, Scotus argues that there is matter that is entirely devoid of form, or what is known as “prime matter” (Quaestiones in Metaphysicam 7, q. 5; Lectura 2, d. 12, q. un.). Scholars debate now (just as they debated in Scotus's day) whether Aristotle himself really believed that there is prime matter or merely introduced it as a theoretical substratum for substantial change, believing instead that in actual fact matter always has at least some minimal form (the form of the elements being the most minimal of all). Aquinas denied both that Aristotle intended to posit it and that it could exist on its own. For something totally devoid of form would be utterly featureless; it would be pure potentiality, but not actually anything. Scotus, by contrast, argues that prime matter not only can but does exist as such: “it is one and the same stuff that underlies every substantial change” (King [2002]).
The Eternal life of the Dog with his Bitch?
??nyat? is one of those quintessentially Buddhist terms that doesn't have a direct equivalent in English. It is often translated as 'emptiness' but that in turn is misunderstood to be saying that 'nothing really exists', which is nihilism - and which is not what ??nyat? means.
I think the best way to understand it is to start from what is called 'the principle of dependent origination'. The short version of that is that 'everything arises due to causes and conditions' - similar to what the OP says. But then the OP draws on a kind of Aristotelian depiction in terms of formal and final causation. The Buddhist analysis is very different to the Aristotelian, and is given in terms of the 'twelve nidanas (links) of interdependent causation' (see here.)
Bear in mind, Buddhist principles such as these are aimed at getting insight into the way emotions, feelings, reactions, likes and dislikes, and so on, propagate themselves more or less unconsciously or automatically through a series of conditioned and semi-autonomic processes. So through this analysis, the student is being trained to focus on those processes through meditative awareness which is what gives rise to 'cessation' (nirodha) of these otherwise automatic or conditioned responses.
Contemplation of 'dependent origination' leads to the understanding of 'emptiness' is because it undermines the solidity that persons habitually attribute to the objects of experience:
Emptiness, Thanissaro Bikkhu.
Thanissaro is a Theravadin monk, and whilst it's true that ??nyat? is more associated with Mahayana Buddhism (such as found in Tibetan and East Asian schools), the principle is still understood and taught in Theravada cultures (such as in Thai Buddhism.)
Quoting TheMadFool
I think caution is warranted on this point. There is actually a very short and succinct sutta (saying) on this point, as follows:
In this dialogue, the Blessed One, is the Buddha; Vacchagotta is a wandering ascetic; and Ananda is the Buddha's attendant. Notice that the key point is that the Buddha declines to answer whether there is 'a self' or not: to answer 'there is', is to fall into the error of the eternally-existing soul (eternalism); to answer 'there is not' is to fall into the error of nihilism (basically, denies karmic consequences). The answer is the 'noble silence' of the Buddha. And that is what gives rise to the dialectical nature of the understanding of ??nyat?.
Whereas, I think a great number of people, and even many Buddhists, simply interpret Buddhism to outright deny that there is a self - however, that's not quite right, and furthermore, as this passage illustrates, such an answer does tend towards nihilism (and indeed from the Buddhist p.o.v. nihilism is certainly one of the common maladies of the modern outlook.)
I think one point of comparison in the Platonic dialogues, is that of aporia - questions for which no satisfactory answer can be arrived at. So the teaching of ??nyat? can be said to be 'aporetic'. It doesn't declare that something is or is not the case: instead it invites reflection on the very nature of experience itself.
I really love this response. I have a file where I copy posts that I want to keep so I can reread them later. I copied it there.
You are talking about things that I've experienced out of the corner of my eye, in my metaphorical peripheral vision. I've thought about it a lot but haven't been able to put into words. I feel it most when I find myself "acting without acting." Cutting out the middle man. The self is real, but it's like a jacket. I can (theoretically at least) take it off when I don't need it.
Thanks.
Thank you for not telling me my interpretation is completely wrong.
Interesting. So inter-dependence isn't vertical (simple to complex) but rather horizontal (everything in relation to something else)? I find this hard to conceive. Before I was born, the universe existed as evidenced through the experience and memory of others. After I die, I'm absolutely sure that the universe will continue to exist. How then does the universe depend on me? I think only vertical inter-dependence makes sense.
Thanks for the post. So, the truth lies somewhere between nihilism and eternalism. What I gather from your post is the Buddha, in his explanation to Ananda, makes a distinction between a soul and consciousness. The Buddha denies a soul but affirms consciousness. What then is the difference between a soul and consciousness? I have pasted the relevant quote below:
So, what is the difference between a soul and consciousness?
Why not? Sunyata, the way I understand it, denies independent indivisible existence. Everything is a composite of, scientifically speaking, matter and energy. The self is also such an entity and so lacks an eternal existence (nihilism) but, strangely, Sunyata also negates Nihilism. So, what do you think this place is - Sunyata between Nihilism and Eternalism?
I don't have the sense of a break between my mind and my body. It's more like a spectrum. What I might call my soul is the 'higher' end of a simultaneously social and bodily self. I can't make sense of it coming loose and functioning independently. Also I see with these eyes, work with these fingers. What I love most about this world is certain other people. I love them too as social-bodily complexes. The 'I' that I know is a visceral creature with an intellectual aspect.
I do know what it's like to live ecstatically in the mind for stretches at a time (to not care about food and only want the inspired thinking to continue uninterrupted.) I associate that with the idea of Heaven. Everyone is playing harps on clouds. It would be nice if that kind of high could be maintained indefinitely. We could be locked into a feeling of love, and it would be our endless pleasure to praise reality with music. Our nature would have to change. There'd be no marriage in Heaven. No life cycle. We'd have an endless sublimated musical orgasm on fluffy clouds that would never give our soulskin bedsores.
If Sunyata is be a dialectical synthesis of the polemic 'eternalism/nihilism' then it must be rationally explicable.
I think it is more a case of the notion of Sunyata relying on a slippery equivocation of the terms 'nothing' and 'eternal'. There may be some quietistic meat, but I would say there is no discursive meat, on its bones.
In other words I think there is no coherent middle position between eternalism and nihilism.
That's the problem. I wonder what @Wayfarer has to say about this.
Dreams have got to figure in, I think. We can see dead people in our dreams. We can even have illuminating conversations with them. Then we might dream of Heaven for ourselves and Hell for others in a fit of rage. Have you seen the new season of Black Mirror? It's interesting to see technological versions of Heaven and Hell. They aren't called that in the show, but it's the same idea.
For what it's worth, I would indeed look to hope and fear --and also to love and hate. For the most part it hurts to be critically minded all the time. It's hard work. The natural tendency is to daydream. About half way through the day I like to just lay down and let my mind drift. I call it 'alpha wave time,' though I don't know if alpha is the right wave. It's a break from directed realistic-critical thinking (which is mature thinking, I suppose.) What fascinates me is that mature thinking helps us survive, but immature thinking involves the kind of stuff that makes it fun to survive. At the moment, the tension between these kinds of thinking seems central to philosophy to me.
(Y)
Perhaps my cateogries aren't well-formed. Thanks.
Indeed. And there's also the way of a man with a maid. The good stuff is the same old stuff. In my experience, the high feelings come with a sense of being universal or ancient.
In those times, the orthodoxy was the Vedic religions - those traditions derived from the Hindu Vedas and also the Upanisads, which were philosophical addenda to the Vedas. And their teaching centred on the Atman (which etymologically is the first-person participle of 'I Am'). Atman was conceived of as being like the principle of immortality, so to attain immortality was to achieve complete identification with or absorption in the Atman. This kind of teaching is found in the Upanisads.
The Buddha denied that any such eternal or unchangeable self could be found. So the keynote of his entire teaching was that everything (all phenomena, sensations, etc) had 'three marks', those being dukkha (roughly, unsatisfactory or stressful), anicca (impermanent) and anatta (not self. Early Buddhist texts spell 'atman' as 'atta', due to the difference between Sanskrit and Pali, and 'an-' is the negative particle, so 'an-atta' is 'not self'). Whereas, the 'eternalists' were those who believed there was an eternal self that transmigrated from life to life and could be reborn in perpetuity - hence the name 'eternalism'.
So in none of this is the word 'soul' mentioned. However many people will assume that 'atman' and 'soul' amount to the same thing, but I personally am dubious about that. The term 'soul' is derived from a completely different domain of discourse, and it has layers of meaning which are quite distinct from the Hindu 'atman'. But suffice to say, the Buddha denies that there is any permanent entity or 'substance' in the Aristotelian sense. So not only no soul, but also no God, and no atoms - nothing which exists separately, which is unchangeable. To those who challenged him, he would basically say: if you say there is something that never changes, then show it to me! Needless to say, nobody could.
As regards the nature of consciousness - the description varies depending on the school of Buddhism. In the early Buddhist texts, 'mind' was 'manas' which is treated as a kind of sensory organ, but one that grasps ideas rather than perceptual objects. However, there is also a term 'citta', which in modern Buddhist philosophy, is translated both as 'mind' and 'heart', and even as 'heart-mind', which I think is nearer in meaning to English word 'being'. But the notion of mind-body dualism of a Cartesian variety is generally alien to Buddhism.
So I suppose the natural question is, then, what is it that is reborn? The rather subtle answer is that karma propagates future existences - that persons are actually bundles or 'heaps' (skandha) of interconnected dharmas (moments of experience) and that these propagate between lives as well as within individual lives. Perhaps needless to say, the theory behind this kind of thinking developed into a highly complex metaphysic in its own right, which was explicated by the later Mah?y?na Buddhist school known as Yog?c?ra or Vijñ?nav?da. The texts on those theories are large, elaborate and extremely detailed. But the basic idea is that beings are reborn in one of the six realms indefinitely, until such time as winning liberation from Sa?s?ra by being fortunate enough to have been born in an age when the Buddha's teachings are known, and by putting them into practice. That is the theory.
In the Vijñ?nav?da school I mentioned, this was given the name citta-sant?na which is generally translated as 'mind-stream'. So that allows for the sense of continuity which clearly manifests in Buddhist cultures, such as for example in Tibetan Buddhism where there is the tradition of the 'reincarnate lama'. Between you and me, I think that this citta-sant?na idea almost amounts to the same as 'a soul' but the politics are such that you're never allowed to suggest such a thing to Buddhists!
Sounds very much like Western thought on personal identity.
I wonder at the universal nature of the concept of a soul. The idea seems to have arisen at different places with no historical evidence of interaction. Does that mean something?
Personally, I want to have a soul AND, ironically, I have a soft spot for Buddhism. Any advice?
If you had not lived, the universe would have been different both before and after you were born.
Different, yes but not non-existent as inter-dependence implies.
Buddhist political correctness! Who'da thought?
What would you say the differences are between the idea of atman on the one hand and the "almost identical" ideas of citta-sant?na and soul on the other?
Hindus and Buddhists debated each other for millenia and each influenced the other. From the outside, so to speak, they seem to have much in common, but from a perspective within those traditions, there are great differences. But it takes quite a bit of work to get any kind of internal perspective. I suppose one way to approach would be to compare the writings of Advaita Vedanta to those of Mah?y?na Buddhism but again it would be a book, I think.
But, here’s a pragmatic example. There’s an account in a bio of Krishnamurti of his meeting with the young Dalai Lama, in the late 50’s when the latter had not long escaped the CCP. His Holiness compared Krishnamurti to N?g?rjuna - and was also said to have remarked that he was a ‘great soul’!
There must be some fundamental difference(s) that you can pinpoint and articulate if indeed there is any coherent discursive difference at all.
You did well on your New Year resolution, by the way. >:)
The feeling of self, identity, soul, ego, and similar aspects of ourselves is a common human experience. It makes sense that there would be a word for it. Actually, there are many - identity, self, soul, mind, ego, heart, self-awareness, consciousness, self-consciousness, spirit, me, myself, I, will, being, psyche, character, personality, essence, brain, mentality. Once they've experienced it, many have a hard time imagining it could stop existing. It must go somewhere after you die because it's clearly not still here.
Could it be that such conceptual entities are just a "convenient" way of discourse rather than being substantive? It could be that there is no self or ego or identity and that these simply makes for easier conversation or thinking. This then, over time, becomes an ingrained habit; so ingrained that we think that they actually exist.
In what way is this "ingrained habit" any different from the experience we call the self or the soul. Now I can add that to my list. I'm being serious. I'll also paraphrase one of your statements with an important change - Could it be that all conceptual entities are just a "convenient" way of discourse rather than being substantive? Again, serious.
Are you saying that all internal experiences are not substantive? Some definitely believe that. I don't.
I watched, pretty disturbing.
No less disturbing was the Metalhead episode. How much of a leap is it to go from the SpotMini:
to this:
There's currently an AI arms race going on.
Back to the topic!
What I'm saying is that communication or language requires the distinction self-other. Look at animals. They don't possess language, at least not as well-developed as human language, and they lack, as evidenced by many experiments(?), a sense of the self-other distinction. This suggests that the concept of self/ego/I is just a convenience of language. It makes for easier discourse rather than there being meat in it.
There is some evidence that some animals have a sense of self, obviously without language. Crows, octopi for God's sake, toucans. Certainly not conclusive evidence.
I don't see how you're "convenience of language" as applied to self or soul differs from any concept. I'm pretty sure the connection between language and consciousness is an established understanding.
Interesting point. But what occurs to me is that substantive/non-substantive is the same kind of convenience of language.
What do we mean when we say there is really or not really a self? As we move away from the objects and actions of non-theoretical life, it appears that we converse in a kind of endless fog. I know what it means for it to be 15 degree outside. But do I know what it is to know? I reach for a certain coat in the closet when it's time to walk the dog. In my view, the philosophers have fussed over this stuff for centuries and made very little progress. The ones that have impressed me have tended to dispel the fog in one sense by acknowledging it in another. We cut the knot rather than untangle it every time we go out in the world and use words like 'self' and 'truth' and 'certain' without anxiety --and successfully.
I'm not saying 'don't think.' But I am saying that the problem is artificial and part-time in an important sense. Whatever the self is (if anything or if the issue is confused or undecidable), the abstract issue seems to have little bearing on how 'it' functions and is experienced.
But I feel kind of bad for writing this. I feel like a party pooper. The sense of doing armchair science is enjoyable. I sometimes miss it. But I also miss the sense of this kind of negative critique being itself a kind of important armchair science. 'If only philosophers would be worldly, etc.' Nah. If it's a vice, it's a fairly innocent vice that keeps the brain lit up.
Remember the first episode of season 2? The woman who is devoured by social media ratings systems? That episode nailed something true and terrible. I suppose we were always products in capitalism on some level, but the electronic village quantifying popularity like that takes it all to hellish extremes. It forecasts a possible perfection and omnipresence of They, the death of privacy, of complex thought that doesn't fit into neat little ideological fashions.
Only in the sense of a flickering light; not as full-fledged like the human sense of self. I'm guessing here but in babies the sense of self develops after language acquisition. I don't remember me as me before I could speak. Do you?
Quoting dog
You're right. Ouroboros. Do you see a way out of the vicious cycle?
Quoting dog
You're right but don't you think, even in the fog, that we may be able to discern a form and make sense of the matter?
How do you know this? Is there evidence or just your intuition. It is my understanding Octopi, tucans, and some other animals can recognize themselves in mirrors and pass other consciousness tests. There is a significant amount of literature about this. Do you have information that conflicts with this?
What is the significance of whether or not I can remember things before I can speak? That's not evidence at all. I don't really remember much until I was in kindergarten.
Google. Children speak their first words around 6 months of age. A complete sense of self is formed at around 2 years of age.
From the link:
When I said that octopi, crows, and tucans have shown signs of consciousness, that was hypothesized, by others, based on use of the mirror test. It is my understanding the results are not widely accepted yet.
No. We can't get behind our getting behind, as far as I can see. Someone might say something revolutionary and clever and change my mind, I guess. But it's not something I'd expect, and it couldn't be the same old dictionary math.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think we can focus here and there and see this or that more clearly/effectively. Indeed, I think we do it all the time. And I'm arguably trying to do the same thing with the points I offered. I'm trying to economize my effort, pick my battles, get behind my getting behind as much as possible. But I still hold that we don't question the questioning as we question. A moment afterward it becomes material for further reflection, but there seems to be a cutting edge of faithful creative know-how. (For instance, I didn't know how I would finish that sentence. I just had a vague intention. The fog condensed. Then it occurred to me to use it as an example.)
I call this the self-referential problem. There's something wrong with it but I can't seem to pin it down. A lot of "useful" knowledge is abandoned on account of this. Take statements like "everything is relative" or "all Cretans are liars". These are all actually useful observations but are attacked on the point that they're self-contradictory.
Quoting dog
Perhaps the fog is the truth and there isn't any further clarity to be had.
I've thought about this too. In my opinion, the statements are just taken too literally. If someone says 'everything is relative,' they are sharing an attitude. There's the classic philosophical vice of assuming that everyone is playing the philosophical game. I'd call it a lack of social-emotional intelligence. Of course sometimes those who assert 'all is relative' really are playing the philosophical game, and then the usual objections are valid.
Quoting TheMadFool
I can relate to that. We use or live in the fog for the most part. Here and there we get more clarity. With science we get something like falsifiable statements, at least ideally. That still depends on non-controversial inexplicit know-how (the common sense metalanguage in which uncertain statements have meaning enough to be falsified), but it clearly works. The technology gives us what we want. With poetry and philosophy, there's a limit to explaining why something is good. Or rather we can keep coming up with reasons for a basic positive feeling or action-generating trust. Of course this is just my perspective, as I've dug it up on the fly.