I disagree, good reasons are useless without something to act them out on. Your value (why) might be truth, but unless you search (what) for it, you're going no where.
They're equal parts important. They're the union of physical and metaphysical realities.
I was part referencing the literal entry of "why" (because Gillian Foster really is that amazing) but for the sake of argument . . .
What you do is 1) directed by the why, and 2) dependent on the why. Meaning, we can have "why"s without "what"s, and that the what is given its meaning by the why. They're equally necessary, but I would never venture that they are equal in importance. Why is the raison d'etre of the what.
3 comments:
Doesn't matter half as much as the why.
I disagree, good reasons are useless without something to act them out on. Your value (why) might be truth, but unless you search (what) for it, you're going no where.
They're equal parts important. They're the union of physical and metaphysical realities.
I was part referencing the literal entry of "why" (because Gillian Foster really is that amazing) but for the sake of argument . . .
What you do is 1) directed by the why, and 2) dependent on the why. Meaning, we can have "why"s without "what"s, and that the what is given its meaning by the why. They're equally necessary, but I would never venture that they are equal in importance. Why is the raison d'etre of the what.
Post a Comment