Tema

Please send me some sort of message, when i'm deleted account. I have thought and the first basis of science is that: we are system called psyche, which has individual conciousness and all we study is not facts, but network of psyches that want to understand the world. Ontologically we can't understand the sciense. We as cultural beings have evolved to stage where causal knowledge has become the basis of our psyche. Instead of truth, we speak philosophy, the science that verbalises the absence of ontological understanding. The first postulat would be: We can have engineering, but not fundamental final answer. and the second: religion give the stage of conciousness that moves nevereendingly to the ontological truth. Religion can understand and answer. But as an independent field and with out conected unity of the same field called the science. The proof: scientithic mystics, the edge of evolution, say that religion with out the dogmas, is the other field next to science. And please, give me a note, when you want to ban me.

It is hard to follow so complex dialogue. What is t he endthesis of this problem? And can from Carboneum conclude what is life? If not, what is the contrathesis and syllogism? And best theory answer?

Hi! I didn't read the topic, it was really long. I wish to hit the problem, that ethic is not logically understood. Ethics are only intuitivemotional thoughts. Can this be true? Like science can study that cell in brain correlates to certain thing. But being loving as the goal of life, is intuitivemotionalthought and can't be studied methological way. I think arts are also like that. You can say that we have hermeneutical epochs, but cant logially study why tragedy is overally humane in painting. Please, argue against. I wish to know modern philosphy.