Why do you believe, absolutely, that a system, itself, could never ever fully explain itself. Obviously nothing else could know ‘a system’ better than ‘itself’, and if ‘a system’ can explain things, and knows itself fully, then it logically obviously could itself FULLY.
Here is another prime example of ‘the way’ “peter kropotkin” so-calls ‘argue’.
I believe something is true. I say what I believe is true. Therefore, what I believe and say is true, is true.
“peter kropotkin” seems to believe that because it claims something to be true is all that is needed of ‘it’ to be true.
For example, because “peter kropotkin” believes that there is no way on earth that it can completely describe absolutely any system in the whole of the Universe, therefore this means, absolutely, that human beings for the rest of eternity will never ever be able to describe absolutely any system at all FULLY.
As can be clearly seen here, absolutely nothing is proved as proof, and there is also nothing provided that supports the claim, besides, of course, “peter kropotkin’s” own preexisting belief only.
Here is a prime example of circular reasoning, with the bonus of adding in the, “this is a scientific fact” claim, to further trick and deceive some people into believing this made-up fabrication.
Even the system the Universe, Itself, can be explained. The Universe, Itself, is fundamentally made up of two things. These two things coexist together always, and it is because of these two things all things evolve in creation.
And, what proof do you have for this belief and claim of yours “peter kropotkin”.
you just keep repeating the same thing, just with different words, here in your circular reasoning. All you are essentially saying is because I believe we can never know a system fully this means that we will never know a system fully.
But discovering, or learning, and understanding and knowing who and what a human being is exactly, and how the ‘human being’ works fully was and is a very simple and easy process.
Why ‘must’ ‘we’?
Since when has there been a ‘must’ that human beings must attempt to understand “themselves”?
Human transferred from the human animal into the human being quite a while ago “peter kropotkin”. There is even a story about HOW it happened, exactly. It is called the story of “adam and eve”, in which it explains HOW the animal human evolved into the creation of the human being.
‘you’ might believe that ‘you know’ this, but for ‘us’ ‘we’ do NOT claim this at all.
Nothing can overcome ‘its instincts’, although and obviously adult human beings have ‘tried to’ ‘override’ instincts with their distorted and Wrong presumptions and beliefs.
So, the instinct of human beings is to love, care for, guide, and protect each other, but here “peter kropotkin” believes, absolutely, that to become so-called ‘closer to human’, (which is ‘the animal’), is to overcome these natural instincts within human beings.
Talk about taking things ‘backwards’.
So, what is ‘your reason’ for wanting to ‘overcome’ what is ‘needed’ and is ‘our instinct’, exactly?
So, supposedly, the quest for understanding begins with:
- you will never understand anything fully.
- you have to overcome your natural instinct of loving and caring for others to become ‘human’.
How can you write so many words but express and explain things so Wrong?