I recently came across a few interesting arguments. 'Humankind was not congenitally-endowed with the ideal mental faculties for understanding the World, if mankind was in existence for millions of years, and have started to, say read and write, only recently.' Yes, it gels well with my proposal that man started to read and write in his efforts to find new ways and means to waste time.
'Also, for every truth, we are in fact coming up with many conclusions, which, even if are confusing and damaging, look grave enough for at least a few. Then, there will be quite a few to espouse each inference, however vague it turns out to be.' Would this happen, if people aren’t just dying for a new or different inference? Aren't they in search of new ways to engage oneself?
'We seem to be interested in knowing 'why things behave as they do’, but an answer as to 'how', puts and end to our quest. Whatever was brought out by the natural philosophers of ancient Greece, India, etc., seem to have quietened us.' Yes. We constantly come up with new answers to 'how'. In fact, we are laboriously rearranging the many answers to ‘how’, so that it falls in line with the original answer to ‘why’. Am I wrong, if I say, searching for the answers to ‘how’ keeps us engaged well. And we are scared. Will an answer to ‘why’, bring that good time to an immediate end?
