Human behaviors are different from mechanical motions. Human behaviors are consciously or unconsciously controlled or affected by aims, i.e. we can look for the values of human behavior to alive-system. But it is improper to look for the value of tide to the water. So we can’t think human behaviors are governed by Newton motion laws. But we should seek the value of behavior to human life.
So, when we collect facts or phenomena of human, we should know we are collecting alive-system actions.
How to describe a phenomenon?
We can describe a human phenomenon like describing a rock, or oil. But we should also describe a human phenomenon by describing the value of the behavior, object’s goal if it is a conscious phenomenon, feelings, what the object knows or experiences, decision making process and the reasons, ideas, thoughts, knowledge, attitudes, conflicts in environment or conflicts in mind, need, desire, the way to satisfy a desire, habit, history of experience, history of desire and the history of how desires got satisfied, what history the object remembers and what history the object forgets, what does the object desire most, what is the most unhappy thing in the object’s life, what strongly controls the object’s behaviors or actions, what controls the object, while not the object control him/herself, …, any factor affecting a person different from anything else. By comparing with anything else and seeking the reasons for the difference, we can gradually make the image of a person clear. And the right description can be done.
How to understand a phenomenon?
When the right description of a person is done, the phenomena are also well understood.
How can we know the description is the truth?
Here I have to give a presumption. I suppose all humans have the same original state with the same principles. Then, all of us are just conditionally different. If we can are under the same conditions, we are in the same state and we are the same, we have the same feelings, same desires, we act the same way … Then, if I can change my state to be the same as that of others, I can say I know others, or else, I don’t know others. This presumption is critically important. Without it, we can’t know each other exactly. For example, without that presumption, if somebody shows others something red, probably John actually sees something blue with the name of red, and Mary sees something yellow with the name of red. We just can’t prove it. Then, if we think the presumption true, it is critically important that we should get rid of our self to adjust our self to be the same as the object’s to have the possible knowledge of the object. When we naturally act the way same as the way our object acts, we probably know the object exactly. If we can know others, we can only know ourselves, and only when we can suppose we are the same as others, we can know others by knowing ourselves. But it is conditional. Or else, we would get the false information about the object.
