To feel, believe and think vs to know.
Lately I've been made aware of a theory differentiating thinking and knowing, where thinking basically involves what you feel and believe, even without sufficient evidence to prove you right, and knowing being instances where discovered truths assure your beliefs. With this in mind, I was forced to ponder whether one could choose to think, instead of knowing. The answer might be an obvious yes to many, but I doubt they'd so easily manage to view the world as full of possibilities rather than facts. We all know that a punch to the face hurts, but the mind is a powerful tool, and with it one can alter this know reality. I have personally experienced a punch to the face, both as hurtful and as revitalizing. The latter one would be in a context where I expect a certain degree of physical contact, such as in sports, and I almost crave it, as I believe it proves my dedication and effort towards the sport at hand; not everyone can take a blow and continue, but I'm sure as hell gonna.
If I choose to know that the punch hurts, I will get hurt, but if I choose to believe it gives me an energy boost and invigorates me, it most likely will. The less you know it will hurt, the less it does. Just stop knowing it.
Approaching facts and knowledge as truths, possibilities or limitations of reality.
As with all other, there are several sides to this theory as well. One of the main arguments against choosing to think rather than to know is the decreased certainty and familiarity you surround yourself with. We all have our little bubble, one of which we are afraid to burst. We don't want to deal with all the possibilities that might exist outside our world's parameters, because we're quite content with our world just as it is. We chose to neglect the possibility of things being less grand than as we see them, and thus also the ability to see and thereafter strive for improvement beyond our boundaries.
Another side to it is to view the facts and knowledge as mere possibilities. That they may or may not be true, and so, you will be open to expanded truths as well as evidence to the contrary. One who possesses this view is in one way a far more flexible and versatile person than any other, as he or she neither denies the facts nor the possibilities. On the other hand, it's a very unsettled approach to the matter, as one would think a fact to be true, yet incomplete. It's hard to be at peace with defining something, and at the same time believing it to possess further feats or meaning.
"To define is to limit" - Oscar Wilde
The third angle is the most radical one, inspired by Oscar Wilde and borderline allergic to limitations of the truth, also known as definitions. Personally I see the potential this view holds towards exploring the world as it truly is, with all the different people out there with their unique experiences and views as well as n
ature's own diversity throughout the world.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." - Albert Einstein
"Until the 20th century, reality was everything humans could touch, smell, see and hear. Since the initial publication of the charged electromagnetic spectrum, humans learned that what they can touch, smell, see and hear is less than one millionth of reality" - Incubus
I agree with the quotes, but must object that reality for most people, still is, not only what they can touch, smell, see and hear, but what they want to touch, smell, see and hear. We do limit ourselves and our view of that around us, though mostly to protect our own interests.
That, however, does not mean that we limit our imagination to the same degree, but no matter how dignifying it is to view everything and everyone as bearers of unlimited meaning and potential, I personally prefer the second viewpoint, as I can't help but admit that some of today's well known facts are too well researched to be inaccurate, yet quite likely incompletely defined.
I do believe that to define is to limit. But sometimes limits are good for you. You can reach for the sky as long and hard as you'd like, but you won't be able to touch it.
Religion vs Science
One of the biggest conflicts in the history of man is between believers and knowers. A lot of what I've already argued can quite directly be transferred to religious beliefs and scientific truths.
I'm not a religious man, but I can see how it would be useful being one. Even with sufficient evidence to the contrary, millions, or even billions of people still believe in their religious teachings. They might not believe all of it, but they believe that which is of benefit to believe. One cannot prove there is no life after death, so why not believe there is? Why not believe that good deeds will be rewarded and bad punished, if not in life, then at least in the afterlife? A god-fearing man is one who respects other men as his holy book instructs him to, one who acts as it reads he should. It is as I've mentioned before, if you truly believe it, it will affect your perception of reality, and ultimately your actions.
The scientific reply to this is naturally that the will you find, and the actions you perform, all have roots in your own mind. You as a person have the power to change your own beliefs and actions, and thus you are in no need of some god to instruct you. You simply chose to believe an imaginary figure to know better than you, and so you submit to his will and let yourself be guided, unaware that you're truly guiding yourself.
The problem might lie in most people not understanding that they themselves have this power. Or that they in their belief of not being able to do this on their own, actually construct a mental barrier, hindering them, until they get external guidance. My point, however, is that you never truly are guided by anything or anyone external; you let them influence you, but in the end it's you yourself who makes the decision and does the guiding.
This is why I respect people for having their religious beliefs and views, but I do wish they'd all understand that they are able to guide themselves.
Impulsive and challenging vs Organized and awaiting
I have, for most of my life, been a bit awaiting, delaying and somewhat skeptical to new ideas and suggestions, but I've been pushing myself in the opposite direction, towards the less conservative me, a me who is impulsive and challenging.
I find this new me to be intertwined with the view I now hold of the world. It would be mean to categorize, but I'm gonna do it anyway, suggesting that most conservatives are both organized, awaiting, possibly religious and certainly confident in our world's facts and knowledge.
Refusal to accept definitions of any kind and to view everything as an unending fountain of opportunity and possibility would thus be the contradiction, resulting in a person being both very impulsive and challenging as well as inventive and curious.
I would rather be the latter than the former, but I will most likely, to my best interest as well, land somewhere in the middle. Where would you place yourself?
