My life flows between confines, but knowledge has no confines. If we use the confined to follow after the unconfined, there is danger that the flow will cease; and when it ceases, to exercise knowledge is purest danger. (tran. Graham 2001:62) - Zhuangzi
Friday, September 2, 2011
I find myself constantly chanting Sartre’s (oh Sartre!) doctrine in which one should always refuse the compromise of certainty. How can one be certain what the right way is? more so, what is right? It was suggested to me that one must choose who they think to be more right than the other, even if you think both or none right in the same instance. Does this mean in acting so we are going against certainty with the attempt to portray it? I then start to question Sartre’s ontology and i find it problematic due to its confining nature; If I always refuse certainty am i not compromising in the very act of always refusing? I feel i am only too aware of how far my very own mind is from comprehending the definition of ‘right’ - surely that in itself is certain.
It seems the mysteries of nature will always triumph over our attempts to comprehend them.
sartre, oh sartre