Washing up isn't infinite. It lasts, at most, for less than my lifetime (I didn't start doing washing up until I was probably around 5 years old, and there will probably be some time before I die when someone (or some thing) does the washing up for me).
A single poem is finite, yes. But If I ever knew that I had read the last poem or the last book because they had all been written then it would be a cause for despair indeed. Some writers have indeed declared that there are "only 6 plots" -- and then gone on to write many times that number of books (Georgette Heyer, for example).
Will 'science' ever totally understand people? I hope not, because if it does then we will have nothing left, no one would every try to write a book or a poem because it will be known exactly why they did it beforehand. A science which included total knowledge of why and how music is appreciated would be like "the ultimate tune", it would come up with the perfect melody and all composers would be out of a job. Indeed, a science that knows everything would no longer have any place for free will or surprises or unpredictability, it would be a monobloc and totally sterile.
If "understanding must be attainable", why does anyone bother? No one at our stage can know everything, so why not just give up? That we don't do that indicates that your "all or nothing" approach is not correct.
no subject
A single poem is finite, yes. But If I ever knew that I had read the last poem or the last book because they had all been written then it would be a cause for despair indeed. Some writers have indeed declared that there are "only 6 plots" -- and then gone on to write many times that number of books (Georgette Heyer, for example).
Will 'science' ever totally understand people? I hope not, because if it does then we will have nothing left, no one would every try to write a book or a poem because it will be known exactly why they did it beforehand. A science which included total knowledge of why and how music is appreciated would be like "the ultimate tune", it would come up with the perfect melody and all composers would be out of a job. Indeed, a science that knows everything would no longer have any place for free will or surprises or unpredictability, it would be a monobloc and totally sterile.
If "understanding must be attainable", why does anyone bother? No one at our stage can know everything, so why not just give up? That we don't do that indicates that your "all or nothing" approach is not correct.