On The Usefulness Of Existential Sciences

On The Usefulness Of Existential Sciences Humans have been fighting against the currents for quite a while, trying to dismantle and understand the components and constituents which make up this experience we call reality rather than trying to understand the purpose and uses of that experience. In much the same fashion that one might disassemble the recipe for a cake or such, for example, there are but three potential goals to be reached from this, of any practicality or actuality. Those goals would be to disassemble it, to manipulate those parts and rearrange them, or to recreate it. None of these goals seem useful in light of the fact that one know not yet the purpose or uses thereof such a cake for, if it be unknown that it is an edible confectionary, what good camest of the reproduction? What good, then, camest of its disassembly but a pure and senseless exercise in entropic glee of the most chaoti

c sadist known to Man? What good, then, camest of its rearrangement or manipulation when one may very well arrange it in such a way that is less than half useful as its former shape and size? No, the ignorance is obvious for the long unanswered questions taunt us, at every turn, yet we have grown so accustomed to both the answer eluding us and our own grandiose delusions concerning our own intellectual prowess and universal usefulness. The most important and, arguably, the only important question, at this juncture, is the same one that has remained unanswered for millennia and argued over for at least just as long. That question is the one necessary to know the answer to before understanding of the parts that make up this experience and the things in it becomes useful or necessary and is: What is the purpose of everything? To briefen it into a vague inquiry only useful in this context: Why? For if one cannot answer this then it matters not what pieces make it up and matters it not what we can do with it. One is wont to argue, naturally, siding with a more nihilistic approach, as a likely unwitting parrot of the good but naive Protagoras, stating that the meaning is what we make or invent. And if that be true, then one may seek to manipulate this experience to fit his own selfish desires for his own imagined purposes of reality. However, it must be considered the most obvious and elegantly forthright and simple refutation of this philosophy and that is that a screwdriver may be purposed as a lever but it makes for a better screwdriver thus it is safe to conclude (through intuition, common sense, and a favoring of the simplest explanation being the most likely as is contrary to the thoughts of the still prevalent schools of Sophists that permeate and plague our society, to this day) that it must have been invented with the purpose of driving screws. Since such a sort of explanation of that nature has not yet been arrived at, concerning this experience we call reality, one ought to stop swimming upstream so zealously but take a moment to examine what sort of bears lie awaiting the up-swimming salmon whom arrive at that destination yonder and beyond that short little waterfall our fellows strive to overcome, in unquestioning obedience and mimeticism.