I think it's a good mental exercise to compare sentences that are presented as eternal truths in public discourse with their opposites to see if there isn't something to them. Here are a few examples: Instead of "I know that I don't know(s)", one should say, "I know that I want to know", which is what one immediately senses after all.
And is it true to say "All beginnings are difficult"? Shouldn't the reverse be true: "All beginnings are easy." Perseverance is hard. And if the Chinese philosopher Confucius said "The path is the goal", wouldn't it be better to write "Becoming is the goal"? The saying "time is money" is famous, but time is actually free. It is the only thing that people get for free in their lives and that they also need in order to grow and say something. Philosophers like to say things like "The whole is more than the sum of its parts." It would be better to say that the whole is different from the sum of its parts. The great Newton wrote, "I make no hypotheses!". Didn't he know that you can't do anything without hypotheses? This brings us to science, which is thought to reveal the secrets of the world. In fact, the opposite happens: science deepens the mysteries of the world. There is no "disenchantment", but there is "the enchantment of the world". As a result, life becomes open, because with growing knowledge, the future is not predictable, but increasingly unpredictable. Example: The Human Genome Project hoped to gain an overview of people's genes. In fact, we have lost track of all the data - of possible interpretations. One of the famous sentences of the social philosopher Theodor W. Adorno is the assertion that there is no right life in the wrong one, which becomes false if you add the word: there is no right life in the wrong body. But there is. Medicine goes to great lengths to allow its patients to live a lot of real life in a sick body. Perhaps Adorno should have asked himself whether there is right thinking in the wrong head. His students tried to develop a theory of society without borrowing from the natural sciences. That's what you get when you ignore the history of the natural sciences. It shows that you can't even understand genetics without physics, although the first explorers of heredity wanted nothing more than that.
