# The quest for understanding begins with **URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-quest-for-understanding-begins-with/86284 **Category:** Philosophy **Created:** [September 25, 2026, 6:15pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-quest-for-understanding-begins-with/86284 "2026-09-25T18:15:14Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 6
### Author: ![anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/f05b48/32.png) [@anew1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anew1) #### Post date: [September 26, 2026, 11:53pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-quest-for-understanding-begins-with/86284/6 "2026-09-26T23:53:07Z")
> [@Peter\_Kropotkin](#): > > the environment, our political structure, our economic structure, > our ethics and morals, spiritual structure, our institutions, > our goals, and of course, our values… this is really a minimal > list of our human existence, experience and is by no way > complete or even halfway complete… but as we know that > in any system, ANY system, our ability to describe it will be > incomplete and incorrect because there is no way to be able > to FULLY explain any system in existence… bits and pieces > of a system will not be included in a full description of said system… > and it’s those bits and pieces that make a system work… 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. > [@Peter\_Kropotkin](#): > > So, there is no way on earth that we can completely describe > any system that includes all aspects of the necessary parts of the > system that allows it to make sense…in other words, no matter > how hard we try, we can never completely describe a system to > the point of describing all necessary aspects of that system… 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. > [@Peter\_Kropotkin](#): > > Every single system we describe will be incomplete, > missing important aspects that make that system work… > we cannot, no matter how hard we try, be able to completely > describe a system… that is a scientific fact… systems > cannot be completely and totally explained because some > aspects of our explanation will be incomplete and missing parts > of our system…there is no escaping that fact… 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. > [@Peter\_Kropotkin](#): > > So, that is the first thing, no matter how hard we try, we can never > completely explain a system to all its components… we will be missing > some aspect of every single system every created… And, what proof do you have for this belief and claim of yours “peter kropotkin”. > [@Peter\_Kropotkin](#): > > So, we know in advance that we are missing aspects of > any explanation of systems… that is the first thing… > we will have an incomplete explanation of any system we try > to describe/explain… 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. > [@Peter\_Kropotkin](#): > > That human beings are not now and not ever be able to explain > or describe what it means to be human because we can’t ever > be able to explain/describe all aspects of being human… > failure to understand this point means one will not even > understand what being human means… 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. > [@Peter\_Kropotkin](#): > > But we must, however inadequately, we must still > make an attempt to understand what it means to be human… > a partial answer is better than no answer… Why ‘must’ ‘we’? Since when has there been a ‘must’ that human beings must attempt to understand “themselves”? > [@Peter\_Kropotkin](#): > > but the question as always, begins with, where to start? > how do we begin to answer this question? > I think the best starting place begins with Nietzsche, > that we are on a journey from animal to becoming human… > a path, tightrope, a road from being animal to becoming human… > and with any destination, we must first understand our beginning > point… human beings were animals… now many say that we > are just/still only animal, but that is clearly not true… 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. > [@Peter\_Kropotkin](#): > > we know from evolution, that animals, including us on the path > to becoming, begin with instincts… and therein lies part of our answer… > the further we move from instincts, which is animal to overcoming our > instincts, the closer we are to becoming human… ‘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. > [@Peter\_Kropotkin](#): > > it is this overcoming > of instincts that bring us closer to becoming human… 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’. > [@Peter\_Kropotkin](#): > > and those people who > are isolated from groups, they suffer from both mental and emotional > pain…that is why the greatest torture we can give another > human being is solitary confinement… many people who suffer > in solitary confinement never really recover, either mentally or > emotionally… so, in understanding what it means to be human, > we begin with this idea/notion that we need other human beings… > if there is a bedrock upon which to name what it means to be > human, having other human beings in our lives is it… So, what is ‘your reason’ for wanting to ‘overcome’ what is ‘needed’ and is ‘our instinct’, exactly? > [@Peter\_Kropotkin](#): > > Human beings need other human beings… and that is both > a bodily and psychological need that is the basis of being human… > > so, we begin to build our human society/state with this idea > that we must have other human beings within it in order > to be/become human… > > that is one: > > Kropotkin So, supposedly, the quest for understanding begins with: 1. you will never understand anything fully. 2. 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? --- _[View the full topic](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-quest-for-understanding-begins-with/86284)._