All pigs eat cheese.
Old Snaggle is a pig.
If Snaggle is sick and refuses to eat, try cheese (64).
A deductively valid argument, or is it? Do all pigs truly eat cheese, or is this just another example of a deductive fallacy?
Ah, the games we as humans play, the philosophy we think we know. But do we know, or do we only think we know?
We theorize what we do not know, we come to conclusions that make logical sense to us, but maybe there are some things we are just never supposed to know. Maybe not everything can be boiled down to "crackpot theories" of science. Are we, in the words of the dragon from Grendel, "insane" to think that we can know everything?
I think not, I think the dragon is correct in saying that we rush to what we do not know and in all actuality, are not supposed to know. Sometimes, we may get lucky. Sometimes, we might grasp aspects of the much sought after knowledge. But, the majority of the time, humans will only come to "insane" conclusions.
Hell, this might very well be a crackpot theory in and of itself.
1 comment:
"Insane?" I wouldn't use that word to describe humanity.
(But from an isolated animal's perspective, I can see where that word choice is appropriate.)
This dragon's philosophy can tie into the themes of 'illusion, truth, and humanity' Cynthia posted about earlier. We humans are able to mold and create and accept these answers for ourselves, whether purely on a whim, backed up by facts or opinions, whatever. We are capable of creating images and ideas that sound the best according to us or what we'd like to see the world as.
Grendel, an disturbingly isolated soul, views life as violent, pointless, brutish, and short. He doesn't possess this capability of human philosophy, which encompasses countless emotions and joys in the world - the exact opposite.
Post a Comment