[JoeRedskin]

And what exercise might that be?

For the record, I essentially agree with D'Souza. The fundamental tenet of the Enlightment was based on the hubris that the infinite can be determined and accurately described through finite methods. I think the article's critique is correct to a point - if D'Souza is saying that we cannot ever understand the true reality because our perceptions of reality interfere, then I would disagree. As the critique points out, their are ways in which we can be sure that certain realities exist - perceiving the motion of a fastball is a "real" reality that allows the batter to hit it.

What the article fails to accept or credit, however, is that the multitude of changes occurring in the sum total of reality just at the moment the ball leaves the pitcher's hand are simply "unperceivable" to anyone through those same senses that let us track the reality of the ball in order to strike it (babies are born, stars may be exploding, etc). Further, that "reality" vanishes the moment the ball travels on its path, never to be discovered again. Thus, though we percieve a limited snapshot of reality that contains real truths, the ultimate reality of any moment (and thus every moment) is simply beyond conception through the means which we can perceive it. The enlightenment's faith in the believe that the universe could be "solved" through the use of our limited means to perceive it was, at best, naive.


It has been ages since I sat down and read this stuff - small children have an adverse affect on both your ability to read anything deeper than "Pinkilicious Tells A Joke" and the ability to think logically.