I don’t play games. I don’t have a game console and I don’t touch my smartphone often.
I don’t have any particular idea about it. Somehow, I’m dominated by the prejudice that games are boring.
Of course, I think you should refrain from evaluating things that you have never experienced. Because the concept formed only by impressions cannot explain anything.
But is experience one of the essential conditions for recognizing things?
To tell the truth, I’m a little skeptical of the opinion that experience is absolutely necessary to recognize things.
Because the experience itself is only an experience. In order to raise a concrete experience to an abstract perception, one must leave the experience.
In other words, in the task of recognizing things, experience is only one component, and another element is needed to assist the experience. Without this latter element, an experienced person cannot recognize anything when he or she experiences something.
In the worst case, even if the experience is unfortunate, the same unhappiness is repeated because there is no chance to reflect on it.
So what are such elements that complement the experience? Isn’t it an experience-agnostic idea?
Excuse me, the story got tangled! Simply put, it means that inexperience complements experience.
So it’s something like this: In other words, we must not overconfident that even if we experience something, that experience is absolute. And don’t dismiss things you’ve never experienced as unrecognizable things.
Why the White Sox’s first week felt awful… The White Sox should be better than 3-4. On the other hand, they nearly blew a 7-1 lead to the Angels in the second game of the season, …
That’s all for today’s post. Thank you
Comments