Challenging the Boundaries of Knowledge

Setting off into the world of knowledge, we encounter that each system—be it philosophy, religion, or science—is inevitably limited by its own methodological framework and internal assumptions. At the very beginning of humanity’s search for Truth, philosophy aspired to unveil boundless horizons of knowledge; however, by its very nature it had to rely on beliefs that require trust and acceptance of certain truths on faith. Even the deepest ideas about good and truth, developed over centuries, remain unreachable for strict verification, giving rise to a striking diversity of views: from the exalted spiritual to the practical everyday.

When transitioning to religious systems, we see how revelations and historical-church experience overshadow the possibilities of rational analysis. Religion operates under different laws, remaining tightly connected to the spiritual realm, and its dogmas are not subject to critical examination by reason. This becomes especially apparent in the orthodox approach, where every concept is perceived as the product of divine revelation, once again emphasizing the inaccessibility of such ideas to objective verification.

And finally, even strict rationalism—one of the most modern methods of cognition—sometimes finds itself trapped within its own conceptual limitations. In its attempt to deduce the essence of being, science often faces a dilemma: either logically reducing being to abstract concepts or creating the illusion of understanding without engaging with genuine experience. This dissonance between abstract thought and the essence of life pushes us toward the realization that no system of knowledge is capable of fully encompassing the universe of truth.

In summary, we can confidently assert that each traditional approach harbors its own strength as well as its own limitations. The path to true understanding requires not only profound analysis but also the courage to step beyond accepted dogmas to touch the living, pulsating reality.

Why are traditional systems of knowledge—religion, philosophy, and science—unable to provide concepts that withstand critical scrutiny by reason?

Traditional systems of knowledge are limited in their ability to formulate concepts that withstand critical analysis by the mind precisely because their methodological foundations are imbued with internal assumptions based on faith, revelation, or the confined limits of deductive thinking.

Firstly, as noted in the source, philosophy originally is based on the pursuit of Truth, yet all philosophical schools inevitably demand faith in their assertions. In one of the cited materials it is stated:
"PHILOSOPHY has always seen good in the pursuit of Truth. (...) Therefore, all philosophical schools and doctrines have never risen above the requirement of faith in their assertions—that is, in their truth, in their understanding of good. At the same time, the gap separating the understanding of good in one system from that in another often turned out to be infinitely vast: from apathy to drugs, from the spiritual to the corporeal, from the eternal to the momentary. And there has been, and still is, no possibility to verify the truth of any of these interpretations, especially since even the idea of truth, along with that of good, after long quests and proofs, has repeatedly been declared a pseudo-problem." (source: link , page 31).

Secondly, religious knowledge is based not on rational analysis but on revelation and specific historical-church experience. This means that its concepts do not lend themselves to critical rational scrutiny because they lie beyond the realm of reason:
"Finally, RELIGION (in this case referring to ORTHODOXY), which is neither a science—since its object of comprehension is a completely different world, the spiritual world—nor philosophy—since the essence of religion lies in a special spiritual rather than rational apprehension of God. Orthodoxy, like any religion, in its testimony about the good, appeals directly to Revelation (...) which once again underscores the impossibility for reason to critically verify the basic dogmas of religious knowledge." (source: link , page 34).

Thirdly, sciences and rationalism, despite their methodological rigor in deduction and analysis, often cannot escape their own conceptual confines. The attempt to deduce a doctrine of being from the mind either results in the logical fixation of being or creates the illusion of understanding, thereby robbing the concept of a genuine foundation:
"If the object is conditioned by the subject (the mind, …), none of the existing theories of cognition resolve the problem of the relationship between thought and being. All of them either completely annihilate being or accept something entirely dissimilar as being." (source: link , pages 295–296).

Finally, the dissonance between abstract thought and experiential essence also leads to the fact that the concepts formed by traditional systems remain confined within conventionality and relativity. As noted:
"For an abstract mind, the essential is generally inaccessible. Only the essential can truly engage with the essential. Abstract thought deals only with the boundaries and relationships of concepts." (source: link , page 3).

Thus, each of the traditional systems—philosophy, religion, and science—operates within the constraints of its own methodological limits, either relying on faith and revelation or reducing being to a series of abstract concepts, thereby depriving them of the ability to provide universal concepts capable of withstanding strict critical scrutiny by reason.

Supporting citation(s):
"PHILOSOPHY has always seen good in the pursuit of Truth. (It has a history much older than science, and therefore, during its highest ascents and periods of crisis, it has repeatedly testified that it can offer humanity something.) Therefore, all philosophical schools and directions have never risen above the requirement of faith in their assertions—that is, in their truth, in their understanding of good. At the same time, the gap separating the understanding of good in one system from that in another often turned out to be infinitely vast: from apathy to drugs, from the spiritual to the corporeal, from the eternal to the momentary. And there has been, and still is, no possibility to verify the truth of any of these interpretations, especially since even the idea of truth, along with that of good, after long quests and proofs, has repeatedly been declared a pseudo-problem." (source: link , page 31)

"Finally, RELIGION (in this case referring to ORTHODOXY), which is neither science—since its object of comprehension is a completely different world, the spiritual world—nor philosophy—since the essence of religion lies in a special spiritual rather than rational apprehension of God. Orthodoxy, like any religion, in its testimony about the good, appeals directly to Revelation (with the question of its authenticity being separate) and to the historical (conciliar) experience of divine knowledge." (source: link , page 34)

"If the object is conditioned by the subject (the mind), if it in which the mind perceives its own nature, then clearly there is nothing unconditional in it; there is no being in itself, truly existent. Rationalism either tries to deduce from the mind, from concepts, a doctrine of being—with being being illogically deduced—or it completely eliminates being and arrives at the illusory, or it accepts as being something that only seems to be, conditionally. Thus, no existing theory of cognition solves the problem of the relationship between thought and being. All of them either completely annihilate being, or accept for it something entirely dissimilar. Then what? We must step out of the suffocating prison of rationalism into the fresh air, into the vast expanse of living being." (source: link , pages 295–296)

"For an abstract mind, the essential is generally inaccessible. Only the essential can truly engage with the essential. Abstract thought deals only with the boundaries and relationships of concepts." (source: link , page 3)