Can we grasp anything without any preconceived knowledge?

Swarn Gill:
Words must have meaning. I have just written a sentence, if you do not know the meaning to any of the words, there is nothing to ponder. To ponder the concept of ‘ego’ one must have their own definition of what ‘ego’ is to have an opinion of it. To have a discussion with someone else they must either share the definition or if they have different definitions they explain to each other what Ego means to them.

That´s my question:

Is Meaning something we ascribe based on a certain standpoint or argument? Do we understand anything according to an ubiquitous thesis after all?

Of course I hear what you say. Freud speaks about Ego – or, of whatever else – in a certain way, Jung, in a different manner. Philosophically speaking, we are expected to build up a suitable consensus – a system – if we are to appropriate anything.

That´s exactly what I am trying to avoid. That is:

Can we be so free and unbiased as to have a discussion without taking account of definitions and explanations?

Can we be so direct and intuitive as to take on something without any preconceived knowledge?

What happens to a poem if we try to “explain” it? Don´t we kill the very essence of music, if we are to define what music intrinsically is?

Can we thus be so free of any preconception to grasp a “truth” without “understanding” it?


Related articles: