er Tsel, i really hope that science would not ever be able to answer to the questions of origin of life (and not genesis of life) and origin of process of thought because that day it would say that science would be the unique possible manner of thinking and the most global speech. But i'm rather confident. I think the impossibility to ask these questions is structural and not historic, because those questions are no scientific objects. That's no a limit for exploring new scientific grounds but a way to limit science to its own ground.
I assume it might sound quite weird to your ears, but personally I believe thatr not all "questions" should be "answered".
Why ? Several rasons, some of them not of philosophical nature.
- Finite answers lead into an "all-knowing" state. And since we see that humans simply love to
explore things, this also leads into boredom. I mean that it is part of humanity (imho) that people like to exßplore and think about things.
- From the point of view of a poet, finite answers remove the "sense of wonder" from the world - from the universe, from everything at all. It's like you walk through a dark wood at night and see a glowing worm - you watch it in an interely different way than you would if you tried to literally expose it with the lamp of an air-plane. The sense of "mystique" is completely lost, which is disastrous for Poets.
- We cannot answer *all* "questions". Because they are infinite and we are finite.
- Also, because of that, the above mentioned "all-knowing state" cannot be reached, imho.
(By the way, I shudder by your use of philosophers names ... I have never read enough to be able to discuss with you on your same level; I only know what I've learned, and that's it; I only know most of your mentioned persons by name and almost nothing more.)
