Hierarchies are also in nature...without human linguistic definition. There is all a materiality of life that works even with no human languages and definitions, there are forces in play even without anthropocentrism...there is a matter of fact. A completely decentralized power is a non-sense. And even definitions are much more complex than it looks like. You can define man against woman but there will always be also a minority inside the category of woman and even contradictions inside the category.
Then...who made the scientific revolution? And how science cannot be anthropocentric? It is still made by technologies, methodologies and human observations. You cannot access the non-anthropocentric in itself. Is it possible even biological knowledge without a human center of knowledge as Knower and reference of Knowledge? I do not think so. The fact that I can explain scientifically a dog does not mean that I can know a dog as it is. I know my biased human perception of a dog. So I cannot de-centring myself as human at all; even if I consider the importance of the dog in defining human history or human habitat for example. It is still a rationally human perceived dog. Is there someone who can explain me why I am wrong?
amazing talk! thank you HKW
❤❤
Great mind, Rosi. Warm hug from indonesia
Hierarchies are also in nature...without human linguistic definition. There is all a materiality of life that works even with no human languages and definitions, there are forces in play even without anthropocentrism...there is a matter of fact. A completely decentralized power is a non-sense. And even definitions are much more complex than it looks like. You can define man against woman but there will always be also a minority inside the category of woman and even contradictions inside the category.
Then...who made the scientific revolution? And how science cannot be anthropocentric? It is still made by technologies, methodologies and human observations. You cannot access the non-anthropocentric in itself. Is it possible even biological knowledge without a human center of knowledge as Knower and reference of Knowledge? I do not think so. The fact that I can explain scientifically a dog does not mean that I can know a dog as it is. I know my biased human perception of a dog. So I cannot de-centring myself as human at all; even if I consider the importance of the dog in defining human history or human habitat for example. It is still a rationally human perceived dog. Is there someone who can explain me why I am wrong?