Tell me:

How is it that you are certain of anything?

Perfect imperfection, imperfections of our understanding, or…

If pi, 3.14…, is the ratio reached when dividing the circumference of a circle by its diameter, how then is the result of this quotient an irrational number and not a quotient? The main quality of an irrational number I’m addressing here is that the left side of the decimal results in an infinite non-repeating sequence of numbers. Rational numbers, which all quotients of integers are, have either terminating or repeating decimals.

The problem is that if you take the circumference and straighten it out into a line, and then compare that length to the length of the diameter, the two lengths remain incommensurable. They can share no common measure. Meaning no matter how small you make a unit of measure, that measure will never produce a whole number value for both lines. This means one length must begin as an irrational number, which seems unnatural or inconsistent with how one initially thinks of “number” to be represented in the world.

This is not a problem unique to circles. Any geometric shape, either initially or when subdivided as a composition of other geometric shapes, will result in an incommensurable ratio between two or more sides. Although, pi does take things one step further, in that it is a transcendental number, but one thing at a time. What I’m currently contemplating, what does this suggest?

What do politicians do, in situations like this current crisis, when presented with questions such as how to proceed?

Politicians realize that it is both extremely difficult to accurately predict what to do, and potentially detrimental to their carriers should they act incorrectly. So, the first thing you have to understand is partisan politics. There are ideologies coming at you from the left and the right. These ideologies are interpretations of the actual situation with the proper spin applied to influence public opinion to one side or the other. Now, everything has limits, and you don’t know when you’ve reached or overstretched those limits without perspective. When I say everything, it means everything in my understanding including my understanding. So you have to step outside of your comfort zone. Now, if I don’t understand something as monotonous as lawn maintenance (why is my grass yellow?) or something as empirically observable as the cuttlefish (which is really a mollusk), how could I concede there could be nothing completely beyond my understanding? I’m not talking about advanced physics or even proper sentence structure (yes writing resource people, I don’t know what an adjective is or why its curtail to a sentence, but tell me again so I can promptly forget it). I’m talking about things beyond the natural world. God is a perfectly good example. You can’t explain such an unlimited concept with our limited concepts. Explain to someone, using the seemingly unlimited concept of omnipotence, that God is all powerful. That sly individual will then cleverly ask “Well can he create a bolder so heavy that he couldn’t lift it?” So now you’re trapped into negatively defining the concept of God, with something like He is not conceivable, not changeable, indestructible, and without beginning or end. Oh, but now by golly, he is unknowable, without faith by any means, and still beyond complete understanding so how should one come to know Him? And that, my friend, is what those politicians do.

Why not post something

Why study philosophy? It appears to be the pursuit of answers to unanswerable questions. The futile nature of such an art demands an understanding, at least by those who would continue its practice, as to why bother to continue its practice. Essentially every major question that philosophers have asked since the beginning of time remains in debate, to some degree or another. What good has come, how many lives wasted?

However, every modern science has its origins in philosophy. When a science becomes able to stand on its own is when it departs, to form its own school of thought. From philosophy came history and the understanding of why it is important. Mathematics, beyond simple counting, is in its debt. The study of science, Physiology, Sociology, and more were spawned as ideas resulting from a way to find truth beyond what was currently thought at the time each was developed. If you look closely, you will see an underlying assumption in everything thought to be known that is without certainty. This is where the subject separated from philosophy.

To generalize all the schools of science, knowledge comes from experience or observation, and absolute knowledge is in a disprovable form. To generalize every religion, knowledge is attainable without conformation through faith or by the grace of God, Gods, or some other greater unknown. Absolute knowledge of such beings and/or the commandments of any religion remain provable only through each specific faith. As for mathematics, have you ever been for a stroll and encountered something to claim “look, there is the square root of 7.” Of course not, but to suggest its nonexistence would be to invite much laughter at your foolishness.

I got back on here and wanted to write something, and there it is. Full of careless thought, but now it can be subject to the scrutiny of all.

n the Pursuit of “Truth”

As per Zeke's request I will entertain you with a brief explanation of my own philosophical views in general. Firstly I am a cynic when it comes to mans ability to know anything. I would go so far as to say we cannot know anything with certainty if that statement didn’t contradict itself by asserting we can know we know nothing.

It is clear then that we must first assume something before we can claim we know anything. Others assume there religion is True, or that the laws of science are a more correct explanation of things, or etc. etc. I assume we can know nothing. While this seems bleak, on the contrary it allows me to freely seek out any and all knowledge. This freedom allows me to see the faults or potential gaps within other theories or beliefs.

Why should I still see a need to pursue knowledge in pursuit of the Truth? Because if I assume we can know nothing, I assume that same belief is also potentially false. I think we can still benefit from assumed facts, I just don’t feel the need to believe there are no other possibilities or that any one possibility is superior to all others.

A mathematical example may help to explain my thoughts. If we are going to ascertain the meaning of life, we could start by looking at all the current innumerous explanations, then fathom that there will be many more as our existence continues. If we assume we continue to exit infinitely, we can assume an infinite number of choices. If we do not, the number is still high enough to serve in this example. Take one explanation out of the potentially infinite possibilities, now how can we presume this one example is true? Mathematically the odds of being wrong are so staggering that it would be rather pompous for someone to presume he could accomplish such a feet.

Just some of my thoughts, which could very well be wrong.

Part 3: The problem

Poor training is poor training, and no amount of it will yield a much better soldier. If I am likely to die through my hesitation when engaging multiple moving targets while maneuvering with my team/squad/platoon, no amount of ultra controlled solitary prone or foxhole shooting is likely to alleviate that. Additionally, no one will ever know about my inability to conduct myself in such a situation and therefore not aid me to overcome this detriment to our unit in time to avoid the repercussions of these poor fighting skills.

How am I to know how to act in, or better prepare myself for, a situation I have never been in? How does one go from rarely touching a weapon outside of a strictly controlled situation to carrying it locked and loaded constantly through an actual combat zone?

Also know that this concerns me only moderately, but it is all I feel comfortable getting into right now.

Part 2: Possible Reasons

Long ago the Army, which the National Guard is a part of, used to train hard. There were far less regulations and safety concerns which likened training more closely to actual combat. As a result, people died more often in peace, or training, as today. This was, of course, seen as a bad thing and more controls were implemented.

However, now it is rare to even move with a loaded weapon in training. This does not represent combat, and as a result a greater potential for death awaits each soldier in combat. This is also bad, especially in the super-critical arena of politics today. The only answer? Increase the time for training.

It is by this, or similar, logic that the soldiers ever-family-absent fate has been sealed.