I Like Philosophy

We so often try to understand things by breaking them down into constituent parts and pieces that we quickly lose sight of what it is we're even trying to understand. We do this at the behest of logic and reason; that by deconstructing a behaviour to its simplest components we can then extrapolate a cause and effect which adequately explains all the how's and why's of the behaviour. This is pretty much the extent of our methodologies. It's not entirely inaccurate, though it is extremely limiting in its scope. It can never yield to us deeper, more unified answers...

Observing brain activity to try and explain why we feel love, for instance, contains little to no explanatory value at all, because what we're *actually* trying to analyse and assess are not the neural fibres or the neurotransmitters, but the actual thing itself - love. The thing itself is subjectively experienced not as parts and pieces but as an already whole, already complete phenomena that flows seamlessly in our experience. The minute we start breaking it down into neural fibres, we invariably lose the essence of what we're trying to evaluate. Does this reflect a limitation of our methods, or a limitation of what we can reasonably know?

K10vvn · 31-35, M

We can break things down to the point where we r no longer talking about the thing in itself anymore, but the complex structure that it is.

We have to be careful embarking on those journeys though; because as u pointed out, we can loose site of what the thing in itself is.

Once we move to far away from the thing in itself, we find ourselves lost in the void.

So much of our thinking goes to the point of talking about nothing, or talking about points that have no persuation but are only unagreuable facts.

That level of simplicity yield little to no understanding of the complex structures.

Avoid sending the thing in itself to the void to understand it. There is no wisdom to be gained from the void... only insanity.