If human being were to be faced off daringly against god, science and literature both represent dual body of human propensity criteria: one must see outward and the other inward, whilst god can see both. Since science is a cooperation of human, it is social, organizing work of academia; Inevitably, it should be based on probability and falsifiability before the collective validation. A big difference of literature lies against this criterion. Literature is, contrary, a result of human collection. It is only followed by probability and falsifiability in case people "like or feel like " validating. A work by a man is not by itself called literature but it is found and touched to call literature. This is how science goes inward, and literature goes outward as a crossing point of human body and mind: i.e., their cognition, emotion, and action. To see human history, one will see that it has been proceeding in this way; Science whirls and literature diffuses it. These are constitutive per se of human life history.
Mother was not allowed to go to high school when she was young. Subsequently, she allowed me and Key, my sister, to read the world collected works of literature for children. Despite the early days of Japanese tempting mangas and animation films (mostly for TV, somehow under the influence of American pop culture), we deeply owed much to her grittiness to get opportunities for world great pieces. Without many experiences about romance or love, with what little subjective idea of friendship and persistence, those thoughtful and sophisticated fictions have surely expanded our world dramatically, and they turn over time, more and more, appropriate . I learned years later that Stendhal (1783-1842) had addressed the issue of life and love in France shortly after the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte. Stendhal said that, I believe it now too, women are braver than the bravest men, which is followed by this below: Only they [women] must have a man to be in ...
Comments
Post a Comment