Synthesis wrote: The fact that they are not exactly accurate is SPECIFICALLY the point. My raison d'etre is to demonstrate that reality is not accessible to the human intellect. I get that you believe that 'close enough' is a good thing, but I believe that all people who dabble in intellectual matters are deceiving themselves in this regard.
You're changing the topic. I agree that reality is not accessible to the human intellect. In fact, this is a basic premise in philosophy and psychology. But we approach
understanding reality when we formulate various laws which explain phenomenon.
Synthesis wrote: If you are a student of history [as I would imagine most are on this discussion-list], is it not fascinating to learn about how people rationalized [every damn thing] throughout the ages? How would it be possible that this is not going on as we speak?
What else can we do but reason things out? That's all we can do, until we find a way to improve the working of our machines (bodies). Reason is the tool nature gives us to figure things out, as much as that is possible. And good reason knows its own limitations
Synthesis wrote: Believing that we can understand anything [even the simplest of things have an infinite number of facets] is the greatest of all human folly. And, besides, there is no need to "understand" anything. Simply being with something [anything] is plenty good and leads to a wonderful sense of contentment [and, after all, can one really hope for more in this life?].
You're exaggerating and taking an extreme position. Understanding is relative. Of course we can't ultimately
understand things, but we can understand them better or worse, and formulating laws is one of the ways we begin to understand things.