Statesboro, GA, USA
No. For "everything" means just that: everything. And "The National Baseball Hall of Fame Museum" means just that as well: The National Baseball Hall of Fame Museum.
But "everything" is just a concept. Therefore mentioning it does not cover the particular subjects contained therein. Does saying or even discussing "The National Baseball HOF Museum" necessarily cover the subject of the life of Babe Ruth? Of course not. And that's my point. There are hordes of important particulars which have not been discussed even if a category has been touched upon. And even the particulars which have been talked about, have not been explored exhaustively.
I think we already discussed the things Brad mentioned, for we discussed the "Trees" to which the branches belong: many things in general such as Art, War, Science, History, Politics, etc, in which all those specific things are included and part, even if not specified.
Same answer as above. Talking a bit about an oak, doesn't mean you've necessarily understood much about leaves or acorns.
They were still encompassed in an encompassing word or example, or included in an inclusive generalization.
But generalizations do not replace the need, freedom, or ability to delve into particulars. A discussion about politics will not sate someone's interest in Chinese or British Monarchy, nor will generalizations succeed in explaining everything important about them.
One could say we never talked about the red of the rainbow because we didn't talk specifically about the red. But if we talked about the rainbow itself, then I think we certainly encompassed the red through a greater thing of which it is part.
And yet you can certainly talk about the particular wavelength of light which constitutes "red" in a more detailed way. And especially in ways which transcend the rainbow: in art, in astronomy, in fashion, in imagination, in history, in medicine, etc ... etc ...
No, the rainbow doesn't cover it all, though it might be a good place to start.
But I don't think it is the fact that we talk about every important thing over and over and again that bothers me, but rather the fact that we don't seem to come to make much compromise between our sayings and arguments. They show up and clash almost the same way over and over again as well.
Well that's different, since you have brought up a different premise than the one you started with. You are now talking about something in human nature which prevents the profitable discussion of subjects, which isn't related to whether we have exhausted all subjects. This has to do more with approach, method and attitude, as Bob has suggested.
For example, you would argue against my belief in oneness, yet none of my belief denies or takes anything away from your Christian beliefs.
Then perhaps I have misunderstood you. The problem could be that I am obtuse. Or the problem could be that you have communicated your beliefs inadequately. For in conversations in the past, I have tried to suggest that a philosophy of "oneness" (which I actually share) can only go so far. This is not only true as I see it in nature, but also in the doctrines of Christianity. Heaven and Hell will not be married. There are fixed gulfs as between Lazarus and Dives. And what has Christ to do with Belial? I am not denying commonalities and connections, but only insisting that oneness doesn't always work. It is a paradigm that isn't (yet) universally applicable.
In the past it has seemed to me that you have denied some of the kinds of distinctions I am speaking of. And since Christian doctrine speaks into some of these issues, I have only tried to suggest that your belief diverges from Christian Orthodoxy on those points. But again, maybe I've misunderstood you. Or maybe you've misunderstood me. Or maybe we just genuinely disagree and can go no further on that particular matter (another gulf, at least for now). Its something that requires work and chivalry on both our parts. I have certainly learned things from you Ess, and feel that you contribute valuably to the forum. So I think you should heartily doubt any feeling of utter frustration that pops up (which only contributes to the barriers). Besides, I admit my love of debating style can be a stumbling stone to some ... and maybe that is part of the problem. Though I try to be a gentleman and still meet my appetite for cross-examination.
But at any rate, it does seem that your main issue is with the ways in which sinful and imperfect human beings relate to each other ... not necessarily in feelling that we've exhausted the universe. Right? Maybe instead of thinking there are no more roads to explore, you're feeling that having flat tires presents us with the same problem practically speaking? Something like that?