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.
There is a unique thought about why children cry. It posits the effect of the actions you take to stop them from crying. A child is crying. You never walk away. No sooner would it turn challenging when you physically interact with them. Some people will talk to them out of pity. Others pick them up, thinking that stopping them from crying is the priority anyway. Either way, the child will eventually halt crying. What's more interesting is that even if the cause of the crying is unknown, there is always some form of interaction between you (the other one) and the child in the process. In essence, it stands to reason that for humans, the chance to stop crying through interaction with others is far greater than crying alone. Once the assumption that a child crying and the interaction with others are ‘connected’ is established, the child will then cry to seek that ‘connection’ with others, regardless of the cause of the crying. There is no reason, yet the interact...
Comments
Post a Comment