Re: Reality can be known?
- From: Douglas McAdam <douglasmcadam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:10:16 -0500
Hi Kent-
I think this is an impossible question to answer except to say the Writings tell us we can know reality but we cannot know the essence of things. So we can use our mind and come up with factors, or aspects of a thing we can know and call the sum total the reality of a thing and that has already been done and simply forget talking about essences since they cannot be known anyway.
doug
On Feb 5, 2008, at 6:03 AM, Kent Johnson wrote:
What is the difference between the reality of a thing and its essence?
--Kent
"Douglas McAdam" <douglasmcadam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:v9SdnV1CAqbf3zXanZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Because the Writings say we can know the reality of things and so
regardless that we cannot know the essences of things we can know their
reality, in a limited sense of course because everything in this world
that we know is relative to the absolute which includes the essences.
That is my take on it.
We must independently investigate reality and we can know and deal
intelligently with reality as far as we can on this plane of existence.
And reality consists of material and spiritual aspects and we have the
perceptual powers to see both.
regards,
doug
On Feb 4, 2008, at 8:43 AM, Kent Johnson wrote:
Hi Doug:
I could not know the essence of things but that I could know their
reality.
I don't know the difference between the reality of a thing and its
essence.
--Kent
.
- References:
- Re: Reality can be known?
- From: Kent Johnson
- Re: Reality can be known?
- Prev by Date: Re: Reality can be known?
- Next by Date: Re: Reality can be known?
- Previous by thread: Re: Reality can be known?
- Next by thread: Re: Reality can be known?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|