Total knowledge of science is the hell

Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is - like in Sartre - a fundamental way of existence apart from science. This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?

Is this a solution in need of a problem?

Nobody has “total knowledge” of science. Most people have very little knowledge of it. (school science that is.)

But one could say that people have a lot of common science knowledge … friction, fluid mechanics, the motion of objects, effects of heat … stuff you learn by bouncing a ball, playing with buckets of water, cooking, etc.

Is there a hard separation between science and non-science?

i agree. being a genius it makes it hard to emotionally connect with people. though it was already hard for me to emotionally connect with people to begin with.

Does affectance mean that the individual has a personal perspective on what is organized in Society as science?

There is such a way of existence apart from science, yes, of course.

The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science.

Is this fundamental way the one Heidegger described?

Yes. I think that Brando has meant Heidegger’s fundamental ontology as a component of his existence philosophy.