Yea Im off abit, I was thinking of Epistemology which is the philosophy theory of knowledge....

_________________
Only a child can ask questions that the wise can not answer.

No, you're not. The whole discussion is about knowledge, Monadology was just claiming that perhaps we can't generalize about knowledge, because there are fundamentally different kinds of knowledge--scientific, aesthetic, and whatever other categories there might be.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Things being true isn't an absolute. It seems foolish to reject all knowledge just because it isn't perfect. 3.14159 might not be pi, but it's better for making circles than 3.

In other words - more evidence does lead to greater clarity, just not necessarily perfect clarity.

Also, xkcd love.

This conversation reminds me of Stephen Garvey ... talk about a flashback ... haven't thought about his books in 15 years or so.

I just had a haircut. My wife tells me I look great. Mission accomplished.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Meaning of what I said seems to be off. I ment that I was off a bit by the meaning of aesthetic, but I understood what Monadology meat about the fundamentally different kinds.

_________________
Only a child can ask questions that the wise can not answer.