Recently, in class we have been discussing the existence of evil. It seems that nothing is, in itself, evil. Evil results from an individual's dissatisfaction with something. For example, fire in itself is not evil. However, one might see fire as evil if it burns down an entire city. The evil is found within the context the object (fire) is operating within. The same fire that burns down a city can also be seen as good, as fire is necessary for the environment to promote diversity in plant species and topsoil renewal. So, clearly the fire is not evil. The perspective from which one views the fire is where evil is derived. Professor Devitto discussed an example of evil where a mountain lion attacked a woman. How could this situation be anything but evil? To the woman and her friends, the attack was clearly unwarranted and evil. However, consider that to the mountain lion, the woman could have been a threat, Perhaps, the mountain lion had cubs near by and was afraid that the woman might be a threat, or maybe the mountain lion was starving. From the mountain lion's perspective, the attack was not evil, but a necessity. Who's perspective is correct, the mountain lion's or the woman's? An object or situation cannot be both good and evil at the same time. Clearly, good and evil are products of a context or perspective. Evil, like love, is an intangible concept that is derived from the mind. Something is only evil if one thinks it to be evil. Many diffrerent people will have varying opinions regarding whether the same object or situation is good or evil. The evil comes from an individual's perspective; therefore, evil must come from the self. Can we choose whether or not we see evil? There are always different ways to look at the same situation, and perhaps we can choose to focus on the good, therefore eliminating the evil. Thus, evil is derived from a context and is not inherent within objects or situations.
The notion of context also applies to the conflict between science and religion. Science and religion can absolutely be compared because they are attempting to do the same thing, explain reality, merely from a different perspective. Science is perceived to be the ultimate authority regarding the nature of reality; however, one must consider that even science operates within a context. Science is based upon observations. Man is greatly limited in his ability to observe, and he only knows his limitations once he has surpassed them. We only knew that the earth was not flat once we were capable of observing it as round. Thus, science is ever changing and we are unable to know exactly what our scientific limiations are. In addition, science measures what can be observed, but much of what rules man is unobservable. Where is love or hate or pride and how do we measure it? Something should not be discounted or discredited merely because it is unobservable. The most important things in life are unobservable. Why should we look to science as the ultimate authority to explain reality when it cannot even measure the most important and influential things?
It seems that everything is based upon context. Something can be an emergent property or extrapolation depending upon who is observing - namely, the context in which it is being observed.
20081205
20081116
on fantasy and faith
D.Z. Phillips argues that religious faith is merely a comforting projection of human ideals, which cannot be obtained. It seems reasonable that the notion of god could be just a dream that individuals hold on to in order to cope with the monotony and sometimes sorrowful nature of life. The stereotypical version of god is a perfect man, having everything that he wants at his finger tips- ultimate power, cities of gold, immortality, purity, goodness. Most of these things are not constantly obtainable to any human being. Few men might experience brief moments of power, wealth, and goodness, but these things cannot be sustained. There is no reason for god to have these qualities except for the fact that these qualities are human ideals. Why would god not possess other qualities, and why are other qualities not considered equally as great? Of all the creatures inhabiting earth, only man actively seeks supreme power, immortality, and wealth. Including animals, plants, insects and creatures of the sea, man is the great minority of earth's population, so why would a god that created all things be given human attributes? Some might argue that god is given human characteristics because man rules the world, but is this so? Man has learned over the centuries how to conquer some things, but he is still helpless at controlling nature. If nature decides that she wants to destroy a city, there is nothing that man can do about it. If nature decides that she wants to kill man with a rampant virus, man can attempt to fight it, but many will perish. Why is god not given the characteristics of nature? In some religions, he is. In the Christian bible, Jesus states, "consider the lillies of the field", as a comparison to god. How are lillies superior to human beings? They are at peace.
All evidence thus far points to the concept of god as being merely a psychological catharsis to human suffering. People need to be able to say to themselves, "there must be something greater than this...a point to all of this". People seem to think that the idea of life being pointless is depressing, but why? If in fact we die and disappear, and all the events of our lives culminated to a pile of bones, then every living moment would be MORE special, because it would be something we could never have again. We would be losing time and existence at every moment. In the movie Troy, Achilles tells his lover that the god's envy human beings because every moment could be their last, which makes every moment more special and celebrated. He says that, "you will never be more lovely than you are now". I have always loved that quote, because it gives reason to celebrate every stage of life, even the ugly. In our most painful moments we feel the most alive, because we are more aware of our mortality and the ephemeral nature of everything and everyone that we love. In these moments, we are the most thankful.
Aside from all of the arguments against the existence of God, it is peculiar to me that we all have an inner feeling of purpose, and a sense of an ultimate design. Every major religion is founded upon this intuition, and frankly people live their lives around it. Even atheists live their lives according to an ultimate and universal design- that there is no god. Why do we all have this inner sense of universal order, and seeming connectedness? Given this observation, it makes sense that perhaps there is a universal energy...not that this energy created us, or that we created it. It just is, and we are a part of it. This would explain why human beings feel a sense of connectedness and universal design. Maybe there is no word in our language for what "god" really is. Maybe god is just the all-encompassing substance of life. It does not make sense that reality is based upon a linear plan of man evolving and eventually reaching enlightenment with god, because apparently there is no such thing as time and space. Technically, everything that will happen has already happened. Time and space are just measurements of change. If enlightenment and unity with god is the ultimate goal, then technically we have already reached it. There cannot be a "plan" that we follow, or a spiritual progression of any type. There is only existence. Can existence be our purpose? Maybe our purpose is just to exist, like the lillies of the field.
All evidence thus far points to the concept of god as being merely a psychological catharsis to human suffering. People need to be able to say to themselves, "there must be something greater than this...a point to all of this". People seem to think that the idea of life being pointless is depressing, but why? If in fact we die and disappear, and all the events of our lives culminated to a pile of bones, then every living moment would be MORE special, because it would be something we could never have again. We would be losing time and existence at every moment. In the movie Troy, Achilles tells his lover that the god's envy human beings because every moment could be their last, which makes every moment more special and celebrated. He says that, "you will never be more lovely than you are now". I have always loved that quote, because it gives reason to celebrate every stage of life, even the ugly. In our most painful moments we feel the most alive, because we are more aware of our mortality and the ephemeral nature of everything and everyone that we love. In these moments, we are the most thankful.
Aside from all of the arguments against the existence of God, it is peculiar to me that we all have an inner feeling of purpose, and a sense of an ultimate design. Every major religion is founded upon this intuition, and frankly people live their lives around it. Even atheists live their lives according to an ultimate and universal design- that there is no god. Why do we all have this inner sense of universal order, and seeming connectedness? Given this observation, it makes sense that perhaps there is a universal energy...not that this energy created us, or that we created it. It just is, and we are a part of it. This would explain why human beings feel a sense of connectedness and universal design. Maybe there is no word in our language for what "god" really is. Maybe god is just the all-encompassing substance of life. It does not make sense that reality is based upon a linear plan of man evolving and eventually reaching enlightenment with god, because apparently there is no such thing as time and space. Technically, everything that will happen has already happened. Time and space are just measurements of change. If enlightenment and unity with god is the ultimate goal, then technically we have already reached it. There cannot be a "plan" that we follow, or a spiritual progression of any type. There is only existence. Can existence be our purpose? Maybe our purpose is just to exist, like the lillies of the field.
20081107
on morality
In class this week, we have been discussing the nature and validity of morality. Some define morality as a set of regulations for humanity, given to us by god. Others define morality based upon the context of a culture, which makes morality more subjective. As there are many definitions of morality, we cannot concretely say that one is absolutely correct. We have no way of knowing which god or which culture has the correct definition of morality.
In order to define morality, we have to find a constant or a universal moral truth that applies to all possible circumstances. It seems that all of the interpretations of morality are entirely subjective, so truth cannot be found in the practice of morality. Rather, one must look at the motivation. Though, morals can vary from society to society, what is the motivating factor that causes all people to follow some code of morals? It seems that all moral guidelines are founded upon the intention to stop people from hurting themselves or others. This concept applies to any moral "law" that you can think of. Therefore, it is universal.
How is the perception of bad vs. good created, in regards to hurting oneself or others? Perhaps one cannot prove other people's hurt, but one can definitely prove one's own hurt. In contrast to Aristotle, I think that morals were founded upon man's desire to stop hurting rather than his desire to be happy. Man can feel his own pain and he has an idea as to what causes this pain. Since man assumes that most people will think and feel similarly to himself, he projects that the things that are painful for him will also be painful for others, as well. Man has the ability to reason, and to be able to look at a situation not involving himself and think to himself. "this situation would hurt me if i were in it. The people in this situation must be hurting. Therefore, what is going on is bad." The discrepancy is that people do not always react similarly to the same circumstances. What hurts one man may not hurt another. There is no universal rule claiming that a certain set of actions hurt all people. It seems that the only constant is that morality is based upon keeping individuals from hurting themselves or others. Since we can't possibly know how or what hurts other people, we should not impose our perceptions of morality onto other people. One has the right to live under whatever moral code he or she wishes, as long as he or she is not imposing these regulations onto other people or hurting other people. Despite the fact that one may validly view an action as correct, if it is hurtful to another person one should not act. Acting in a way that hurts other people is similar to imposing your morals onto them. In this situation, you are saying "I know you are hurt by what I am doing, but you shouldn't be".
Thus, it seems that there is a constant concept behind all moral guidelines and this seems to be the true moral guideline: do not hurt yourself or others.
In order to define morality, we have to find a constant or a universal moral truth that applies to all possible circumstances. It seems that all of the interpretations of morality are entirely subjective, so truth cannot be found in the practice of morality. Rather, one must look at the motivation. Though, morals can vary from society to society, what is the motivating factor that causes all people to follow some code of morals? It seems that all moral guidelines are founded upon the intention to stop people from hurting themselves or others. This concept applies to any moral "law" that you can think of. Therefore, it is universal.
How is the perception of bad vs. good created, in regards to hurting oneself or others? Perhaps one cannot prove other people's hurt, but one can definitely prove one's own hurt. In contrast to Aristotle, I think that morals were founded upon man's desire to stop hurting rather than his desire to be happy. Man can feel his own pain and he has an idea as to what causes this pain. Since man assumes that most people will think and feel similarly to himself, he projects that the things that are painful for him will also be painful for others, as well. Man has the ability to reason, and to be able to look at a situation not involving himself and think to himself. "this situation would hurt me if i were in it. The people in this situation must be hurting. Therefore, what is going on is bad." The discrepancy is that people do not always react similarly to the same circumstances. What hurts one man may not hurt another. There is no universal rule claiming that a certain set of actions hurt all people. It seems that the only constant is that morality is based upon keeping individuals from hurting themselves or others. Since we can't possibly know how or what hurts other people, we should not impose our perceptions of morality onto other people. One has the right to live under whatever moral code he or she wishes, as long as he or she is not imposing these regulations onto other people or hurting other people. Despite the fact that one may validly view an action as correct, if it is hurtful to another person one should not act. Acting in a way that hurts other people is similar to imposing your morals onto them. In this situation, you are saying "I know you are hurt by what I am doing, but you shouldn't be".
Thus, it seems that there is a constant concept behind all moral guidelines and this seems to be the true moral guideline: do not hurt yourself or others.
20081030
on fairytales
fairytale
noun
1. an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse.
In class this week, we have been discussing religion, god and free-will. Despite the fact that mother culture has pounded the story of "humanity being created by an all-loving and all-powerful god" into my head from the time of my birth, I have no factual evidence to support or to make any arguments based upon the existence of god. However, in this blog I will proceed by granting that god does exist for the sake of argument.
Myth #1: Free-will
According to the Christian's story of creation, logically we cannot have free-will, even though god says that we can. The story claims that god created everything. If god created everything, then god created all of the choices that we have. Therefore, any action that we could possibly make would be an action that god gave us the option to make. There is no path we could take by our own free-will, without god's control, because god MADE every path that we could possibly take. Our sphere of choices is purely dictated by what god decided to create. There is no rebellion against god or action that would be completely devoid of his influence because he made everything. Thus, we have no free-will. We have the choice to decide between a few options that god decided to give us. Luckily, god is not too controlling and gave us a nice variety of options, at least. You could compare this to a prisoner, in jail for life, who can choose between fish sticks and a hamburger for dinner, as mandated by the prison kitchen staff. Yes, he has the choice between eating fish sticks and a hamburger, but he can't leave the prison and get something that is not made for him by the prison, like carl's junior. All of his choices are controlled by the prison, therefore he has no free will.
Myth #2: God is all-powerful
Apparently, God is all powerful. This means that he has complete power...ruler of the universe, king of everything. However, Christianity teaches that there is a fight between good and evil in the world, namely between god and the devil. The devil is said to influence people if they open the door to him. The devil even has his own corner of heaven all to himself, called hell. This would make the devil "somewhat" powerful. The logical error here is that god cannot be all powerful and the devil be "somewhat" powerful. If god is all powerful, then the devil must have no power, and the fight between good and evil must be nonexistent. This would mean that sin would be nonexistent because the devil would have no power to create evil. You could also argue that if god is all powerful and all good, then all of his creations are without sin because sin is evil, and god is all good and all powerful. Thus, if god is all powerful, then there is no such thing as sin. If there truly is a fight between good and evil, then the devil is "somewhat powerful" and god is "somewhat powerful".
Myth #3: God is all-good, and free of human imperfections.
The bible states that Jesus, God's son, came down from heavan and gave his life for all of our sins. This selfless act was supposed to cover all of mankinds sins for the rest of eternity, or at least the men that decided to give their lives to Jesus. In class, one of the students referred to this as "Jesus paying a debt"...Our sins being the debt, and Jesus' crusifixion being the payment. Jesus was a blood sacrifice to "satisfy" god by covering all of the sins of humanity. The problem here is that god is supposed to be all-good and free of human imperfection. Why would god feel the need for a blood sacrifice to "satisfy" his problem with the sins of humanity? This implies that God is personally offended by human sin. It also implies that God is insecure and feels like he needs to be re-paid for our sins. It implies that by sinning, we are taking something away from god, and causing in him the human emotion of offense, requiring retribution. Offense and satisfaction are human emotions, and not characteristic of an all-good and perfect being. By saying that god needed to be satisfied, you are implying that god was previously dissatisfied and threatened by something. Any being that was all-good, free of human imperfection, and master creator of the universe would never feel personally offended, threatened, or feel the need to be satisfied by spilling blood. (the crucifixion) In fact, blood shed seems to be a rather primitive and unevolved solution to sin. You would think that god could've been more creative and come up with a solution other than killing his son. We are giving ourselves a lot of credit by thinking that our "sins" cause the master creator of the universe to feel so offended that he has to give his only son to "repay the debt" that was afflicted upon him by us. Is god really this petty, and is man so arrogant to think that the emotional state of the master of all creation relies upon man's individual sins?? If god feels hurt, or is distraught, then this implies that he is a finite being and capable of being damaged. Isn't god supposed to be infinite? Isn't God supposed to be above all of these human emotions anyway?
Actually, an all- powerful, all-good creator lacking in all human imperfection would never create such an imperfect world. He would be perfect and incapable of creating anything but perfection, because creating something that is less than perfect would make him less than perfect. Maybe God is imperfect and corrupt and revels in the emotional drama that is life on earth. This would make him just like us...wait, Jesus said that we are just like him... "...you will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will you do. (John 14:12)
noun
1. an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse.
In class this week, we have been discussing religion, god and free-will. Despite the fact that mother culture has pounded the story of "humanity being created by an all-loving and all-powerful god" into my head from the time of my birth, I have no factual evidence to support or to make any arguments based upon the existence of god. However, in this blog I will proceed by granting that god does exist for the sake of argument.
Myth #1: Free-will
According to the Christian's story of creation, logically we cannot have free-will, even though god says that we can. The story claims that god created everything. If god created everything, then god created all of the choices that we have. Therefore, any action that we could possibly make would be an action that god gave us the option to make. There is no path we could take by our own free-will, without god's control, because god MADE every path that we could possibly take. Our sphere of choices is purely dictated by what god decided to create. There is no rebellion against god or action that would be completely devoid of his influence because he made everything. Thus, we have no free-will. We have the choice to decide between a few options that god decided to give us. Luckily, god is not too controlling and gave us a nice variety of options, at least. You could compare this to a prisoner, in jail for life, who can choose between fish sticks and a hamburger for dinner, as mandated by the prison kitchen staff. Yes, he has the choice between eating fish sticks and a hamburger, but he can't leave the prison and get something that is not made for him by the prison, like carl's junior. All of his choices are controlled by the prison, therefore he has no free will.
Myth #2: God is all-powerful
Apparently, God is all powerful. This means that he has complete power...ruler of the universe, king of everything. However, Christianity teaches that there is a fight between good and evil in the world, namely between god and the devil. The devil is said to influence people if they open the door to him. The devil even has his own corner of heaven all to himself, called hell. This would make the devil "somewhat" powerful. The logical error here is that god cannot be all powerful and the devil be "somewhat" powerful. If god is all powerful, then the devil must have no power, and the fight between good and evil must be nonexistent. This would mean that sin would be nonexistent because the devil would have no power to create evil. You could also argue that if god is all powerful and all good, then all of his creations are without sin because sin is evil, and god is all good and all powerful. Thus, if god is all powerful, then there is no such thing as sin. If there truly is a fight between good and evil, then the devil is "somewhat powerful" and god is "somewhat powerful".
Myth #3: God is all-good, and free of human imperfections.
The bible states that Jesus, God's son, came down from heavan and gave his life for all of our sins. This selfless act was supposed to cover all of mankinds sins for the rest of eternity, or at least the men that decided to give their lives to Jesus. In class, one of the students referred to this as "Jesus paying a debt"...Our sins being the debt, and Jesus' crusifixion being the payment. Jesus was a blood sacrifice to "satisfy" god by covering all of the sins of humanity. The problem here is that god is supposed to be all-good and free of human imperfection. Why would god feel the need for a blood sacrifice to "satisfy" his problem with the sins of humanity? This implies that God is personally offended by human sin. It also implies that God is insecure and feels like he needs to be re-paid for our sins. It implies that by sinning, we are taking something away from god, and causing in him the human emotion of offense, requiring retribution. Offense and satisfaction are human emotions, and not characteristic of an all-good and perfect being. By saying that god needed to be satisfied, you are implying that god was previously dissatisfied and threatened by something. Any being that was all-good, free of human imperfection, and master creator of the universe would never feel personally offended, threatened, or feel the need to be satisfied by spilling blood. (the crucifixion) In fact, blood shed seems to be a rather primitive and unevolved solution to sin. You would think that god could've been more creative and come up with a solution other than killing his son. We are giving ourselves a lot of credit by thinking that our "sins" cause the master creator of the universe to feel so offended that he has to give his only son to "repay the debt" that was afflicted upon him by us. Is god really this petty, and is man so arrogant to think that the emotional state of the master of all creation relies upon man's individual sins?? If god feels hurt, or is distraught, then this implies that he is a finite being and capable of being damaged. Isn't god supposed to be infinite? Isn't God supposed to be above all of these human emotions anyway?
Actually, an all- powerful, all-good creator lacking in all human imperfection would never create such an imperfect world. He would be perfect and incapable of creating anything but perfection, because creating something that is less than perfect would make him less than perfect. Maybe God is imperfect and corrupt and revels in the emotional drama that is life on earth. This would make him just like us...wait, Jesus said that we are just like him... "...you will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will you do. (John 14:12)
20081025
on inconsistency
Last week in class we discussed Moore and his logical arguments regarding reality. Moore claims that he can prove the existence of his reality because he senses his reality. He can prove the existence of the furnishings in his room because he can see them and feel them. Moreover, Moore also claims that some realities are over determined, such as the reality of death after drinking a poison. In class, we argued that the exceptions to these statements merely go against reality and are not the true reality. We also argued that though the skeptic may believe that his hand might not exist, he would never venture to cut it off.
The problem with the logical point of view is that it is inconsistent. In order for a reality to make sense, it has to be consistent and universal. Though the reality that we perceive tends to, most of the time, agree with Moore's logical claims, there are still occurrences that defy his claims. The few occurrences that go against Moore's logic are enough to invalidate his theories, as it makes them inconsistent. Claiming that there is a logical organization to the universe and random and rare chaos at the same time does not make sense. There is either a logical organization that all of life follows at all times, or there is random chaos. There cannot be both.
In class on Friday we discussed a woman with multiple personality disorder. Multiple personality disorder would be considered by Moore to be all in the mind. Moore would consider the individual with multiple personality disorder to have one self identity, that is afflicted with mental illness. He would say that the mentally ill individual has the same body and mind despite which personality was manifested. This seems to be true, however, there are inconsistencies. There are reported cases of multiple personality disorder where people's bodies chemically changed depending upon which personality is present at the time. In one case, a man had an allergic reaction to a particular substance that caused hives and swelling while one personality was present, and when his other personality was present he had no allergic reaction at all. In another case, an adult with two personalities, an adult personality and a child personality, responded differently to drugs depending on which personality he identified with. When this adult believed he was the child personality, his body responded to lower levels of drugs than when the adult believed he was the adult personality. These medical cases completely defy Moore's logic, and do not make sense according to his theories. This is merely one example of the many inconsistencies in life that go against logical theories.
Before studying logic, most of the class agreed that your reality is what you believe it be and that reality is completely subjective. I have theorized that you create your own reality and that everything that occurs in life happens because you believe it will happen. I feel this theory is strong because it is the only theory that universally makes sense. This theory seems to make sense with any possible scenerio. For example, in class we discussed how language must be real because we all use it an understand it. Since Moore's logic is inconsistent and not universal, it is invalid and cannot apply to language or anything else. However, all of us believe that language works and that we all understand it, so perhaps this is what makes it so. We would not even try to use language if we did not believe, without a doubt, that it is real. Using another example that we argued in class, the skeptic can question the reality of his hand all he wants but he probably would never attempt to cut it off. Moore claims that this is because his hand is real and exists despite what the individual might believe. However, consider that by the mere fact that the skeptic is doubting the existence of his hand is evidence that he does in fact truly believe he has a hand, therefore he does, which would cause him to bleed if he attempted to cut it off.
Anything that we doubt is something that we firmly believe in, otherwise we would not waste time doubting it. No one sits around doubting the existence of dragons because none of us firmly believe that dragons exist. An individual might take a moment to state that he does not believe in dragons, but he would never spend his life coming up with theories as to why dragons might not exist, and even if he did spend his life doing this, no one would care about his work because no one believes in dragons enough to care to examine any possible doubt. Thus, all of the things that we doubt are things that we firmly believe in. Therefore, if belief were to presuppose existence, everything in our reality would make sense. We believe in everything around us, even the things we doubt.
20081011
11 October 2008: on substance
It seems that the only reality we cannot doubt is the reality that we exist as some type of thinking substance. Whether that substance be thought, creative energy, or spirit, "we know not what". It is impossible to escape our own minds and check the existence of other entities as existing separately from our own consciousness, therefore, nothing else is provably real. Hence, it seems we can argue that perhaps only one substance exists because we can argue that all other substances might not exist. All other substances could be creations of our own consciousness and there is no way of proving otherwise. To do this, we would have to escape our own consciousness and this is not possible.
How can only one substance exist, and what is this one substance made of? And if there is only one substance that makes up "reality", how is it that we perceive the world to be made up of many different things, functioning independently of each other? In class, we discussed the flaw in the argument that reality is made of one substance, because then one could inquire as to what that one substance is made of, which could lead one to inquire as to what the one substance composing the one substance that reality is made of is REALLY composed of. It would be impossible to argue that a unit is the ultimate unit of measurement, and that there is no measurement beyond that unit. Also, attempting to measure reality in units describing its size is completely flawed because size is a product of the senses and human perception. Size might not arguably exist.
Thus it is futile to attempt to measure reality by some type of ultimate unit that everything is composed of. However, we are still faced with the dilemma that we can only argue the existence of one substance, being our own consciousness.
In my last blog, I discussed how everything must exist in a context because nothing can exist without context. The context of an entity gives an entity its meaning. For example, the term "everything" would have no meaning without comparing it to its opposite term "nothing", or a lesser amount like "some things". Another example: the color black could not exist if it were the only color in the world, as there would be nothing to compare it to. The only way we measure the color black is by other colors which are not black.
In this case, singularity cannot exist without multiplicity because there would be no measure of singularity without multiplicity. Thus, the single consciousness that we can argue exists would not exist in the absence of multiplicity. Perhaps reality is composed of one consciousness, which is made of a multitude of individual consciousness, and the multitude of individual consciousness is made of one consciousness and so on. The presence of a multitude of individual consciousness is necessary for the existence of one consciousness. The only reality we can prove is the existence of one consciousness, being our own. Therefore, a multitude of individual consciousness must exist at the same time in order for our own singular consciousness to exist.
(by "a multitude of consciousness" I am referring to all of existence, not just human consciousness. Anything that we perceive to exist separately and independently of our own consciousness represents a multitude of consciousness. Berkeley claims that nothing can exist without being "thought of". He claims that, for this reason, everything must have consciousness. Berkeley used this argument to prove the existence of god, however, I think there is no logical reason to assume that god must exist as a result of every "existing" thing having consciousness. However, this could lead one to inquire as to the nature of god, and what "god" really is, but this is a litte off topic for this blog.)
How could it be possible for one consciousness and a multitude of individual consciousness to exist at the same time, moreover, defining each other and in a way becoming the "substance" that makes up the other? Once again, in order for there to be one consciousness (our own consciousness, which is the only entity that we can actually prove at this point to exist), a multitude of individual consciousness must exist to give the one consciousness meaning. It is difficult to argue whether or not your own consciousness is truly separate from that of other people's. This is a huge topic to tackle and would require way more than one blog. In short we have no way of proving whether or not our consciousness exists separately and completely independent of "everyone else", or whether or not there is a collective consciousness that we are a part of and perhaps our thoughts are merely a reflection of the thoughts of the collective consciousness. There is no way to know anything, except for the existence of our own consciousness, which necessitates the existence of a multitude of individual consciousness at the same time. It seems that this "context" is the only unit of measurement that could really apply to reality, as the general measurements for reality cannot be proven to concretely exist. Time and distance are merely a measurement of change, and change is merely a perception of the human mind. We have no way to prove the existence of these entities as they are merely products of our senses, and senses deceive. Time exists in relation to infinity, distance exists in relation to unity, multiplicity exists in relation to singularity. Perhaps context is the only true measurement of reality. Perhaps substance is context.
How can only one substance exist, and what is this one substance made of? And if there is only one substance that makes up "reality", how is it that we perceive the world to be made up of many different things, functioning independently of each other? In class, we discussed the flaw in the argument that reality is made of one substance, because then one could inquire as to what that one substance is made of, which could lead one to inquire as to what the one substance composing the one substance that reality is made of is REALLY composed of. It would be impossible to argue that a unit is the ultimate unit of measurement, and that there is no measurement beyond that unit. Also, attempting to measure reality in units describing its size is completely flawed because size is a product of the senses and human perception. Size might not arguably exist.
Thus it is futile to attempt to measure reality by some type of ultimate unit that everything is composed of. However, we are still faced with the dilemma that we can only argue the existence of one substance, being our own consciousness.
In my last blog, I discussed how everything must exist in a context because nothing can exist without context. The context of an entity gives an entity its meaning. For example, the term "everything" would have no meaning without comparing it to its opposite term "nothing", or a lesser amount like "some things". Another example: the color black could not exist if it were the only color in the world, as there would be nothing to compare it to. The only way we measure the color black is by other colors which are not black.
In this case, singularity cannot exist without multiplicity because there would be no measure of singularity without multiplicity. Thus, the single consciousness that we can argue exists would not exist in the absence of multiplicity. Perhaps reality is composed of one consciousness, which is made of a multitude of individual consciousness, and the multitude of individual consciousness is made of one consciousness and so on. The presence of a multitude of individual consciousness is necessary for the existence of one consciousness. The only reality we can prove is the existence of one consciousness, being our own. Therefore, a multitude of individual consciousness must exist at the same time in order for our own singular consciousness to exist.
(by "a multitude of consciousness" I am referring to all of existence, not just human consciousness. Anything that we perceive to exist separately and independently of our own consciousness represents a multitude of consciousness. Berkeley claims that nothing can exist without being "thought of". He claims that, for this reason, everything must have consciousness. Berkeley used this argument to prove the existence of god, however, I think there is no logical reason to assume that god must exist as a result of every "existing" thing having consciousness. However, this could lead one to inquire as to the nature of god, and what "god" really is, but this is a litte off topic for this blog.)
How could it be possible for one consciousness and a multitude of individual consciousness to exist at the same time, moreover, defining each other and in a way becoming the "substance" that makes up the other? Once again, in order for there to be one consciousness (our own consciousness, which is the only entity that we can actually prove at this point to exist), a multitude of individual consciousness must exist to give the one consciousness meaning. It is difficult to argue whether or not your own consciousness is truly separate from that of other people's. This is a huge topic to tackle and would require way more than one blog. In short we have no way of proving whether or not our consciousness exists separately and completely independent of "everyone else", or whether or not there is a collective consciousness that we are a part of and perhaps our thoughts are merely a reflection of the thoughts of the collective consciousness. There is no way to know anything, except for the existence of our own consciousness, which necessitates the existence of a multitude of individual consciousness at the same time. It seems that this "context" is the only unit of measurement that could really apply to reality, as the general measurements for reality cannot be proven to concretely exist. Time and distance are merely a measurement of change, and change is merely a perception of the human mind. We have no way to prove the existence of these entities as they are merely products of our senses, and senses deceive. Time exists in relation to infinity, distance exists in relation to unity, multiplicity exists in relation to singularity. Perhaps context is the only true measurement of reality. Perhaps substance is context.
20080926
26 September 2008: on the derivation of meaning and the structure of reality
In order to examine the question of, "how do we know what we know", one must first examine how we learned what we know. Generally, an individual is taught what he knows either through social interaction or observation of his society. Individuals learn meaning, and thus an understanding of his subjective reality, through communication and the use of symbols. Language is the most common symbol by which one acquires an understanding of reality. Words have no concrete meanings within themselves, rather they are symbols for a concept or entity. As children, our parents point to objects and teach us words for those objects. Our parents also teach us words to describe emotions and other intangible entities. Through the use of symbols and language, we also acquire an understanding of concepts that are taught to us as concrete truths, such as religion. Our reality is taught to us through communication and the use of symbols.
Thus, we learned what we know through the mechanism of symbols. Society taught us the nature of reality through the use of symbols. But what if we had been taught different concepts with different symbols as children? Would our realities be completely different? How different would you be if you were raised to fear Christianity, and taught that you must eliminate Christianity to glorify your god. What if you were taught by everyone that you love and trust that your pleasing god will ensure that one thousand virgins will be waiting for you in heaven upon your death? Men are very driven by primal passion, and I can see how a man might decide to become a suicide bomber if he truly believes that he is not only glorifying god in the most valiant way, but he is also ensuring that a thousand virgins will be waiting for him in heaven when he dies. What a deal...glorifying god, gaining respect from your society, and acquiring a harem of virgins all for yourself! If your parents and society whom you trusted implicitly taught you this, you might believe it and live your life according to these teachings. These beliefs may sound silly to people who were not raised with them, but they are considered to be reality and truth by some people in other cultures. In contrast, your beliefs might be considered silly to some people who were raised differently. All of our tastes and aversions are taught to us as children.
"The structures of society become the structures of our own consciousness." - Peter Berger
There is no evidence that anything is "evil" or "good". The concepts of evil and good are taught to us as children. Aside from the fact that our society teaches us that certain things are good or evil, we have no way of really knowing if anything in our lives is good or evil; moreover, we have no way of knowing if anything we were taught is true. If you think about it, everything you know was taught to you, either by your parents, the scientific community, or culture. And our parents, our scientific community, and our culture learned what they know from their parents, scientific community, and culture. Everything in life merely exists, and human beings give meaning to existence. Thus, you could say that the only truth is that everything is meaningless until the individual assigns meaning. However, even if one accepts the fact that all of life is meaningless and meaning is socially conditioned, we still live in the reality we have learned and therefore it is difficult to escape. The concept of living in a dream can be applied here...
When one considers the idea that we might be living in a dream, the general impression is that our "true" self is "out there" somewhere dreaming, and that our reality and everyday experiences, such as attending la sierra, are a dream. However, consider the idea that perhaps our acquired beliefs and social conditionings are the dream. We believe so strongly in the ideas and concepts that we are taught as children that they become our realities, however, these ideas and concepts are taught to us and may not truly exist; thus, living your life according to these ideas and concepts would be like living in a dream...all that you are living for would not be real. Perhaps the true reality is that life has the meaning that we give to it and that we can choose that meaning, by living actively, instead of living passively according to what we have learned from society.
Thus, we learned what we know through the mechanism of symbols. Society taught us the nature of reality through the use of symbols. But what if we had been taught different concepts with different symbols as children? Would our realities be completely different? How different would you be if you were raised to fear Christianity, and taught that you must eliminate Christianity to glorify your god. What if you were taught by everyone that you love and trust that your pleasing god will ensure that one thousand virgins will be waiting for you in heaven upon your death? Men are very driven by primal passion, and I can see how a man might decide to become a suicide bomber if he truly believes that he is not only glorifying god in the most valiant way, but he is also ensuring that a thousand virgins will be waiting for him in heaven when he dies. What a deal...glorifying god, gaining respect from your society, and acquiring a harem of virgins all for yourself! If your parents and society whom you trusted implicitly taught you this, you might believe it and live your life according to these teachings. These beliefs may sound silly to people who were not raised with them, but they are considered to be reality and truth by some people in other cultures. In contrast, your beliefs might be considered silly to some people who were raised differently. All of our tastes and aversions are taught to us as children.
"The structures of society become the structures of our own consciousness." - Peter Berger
There is no evidence that anything is "evil" or "good". The concepts of evil and good are taught to us as children. Aside from the fact that our society teaches us that certain things are good or evil, we have no way of really knowing if anything in our lives is good or evil; moreover, we have no way of knowing if anything we were taught is true. If you think about it, everything you know was taught to you, either by your parents, the scientific community, or culture. And our parents, our scientific community, and our culture learned what they know from their parents, scientific community, and culture. Everything in life merely exists, and human beings give meaning to existence. Thus, you could say that the only truth is that everything is meaningless until the individual assigns meaning. However, even if one accepts the fact that all of life is meaningless and meaning is socially conditioned, we still live in the reality we have learned and therefore it is difficult to escape. The concept of living in a dream can be applied here...
When one considers the idea that we might be living in a dream, the general impression is that our "true" self is "out there" somewhere dreaming, and that our reality and everyday experiences, such as attending la sierra, are a dream. However, consider the idea that perhaps our acquired beliefs and social conditionings are the dream. We believe so strongly in the ideas and concepts that we are taught as children that they become our realities, however, these ideas and concepts are taught to us and may not truly exist; thus, living your life according to these ideas and concepts would be like living in a dream...all that you are living for would not be real. Perhaps the true reality is that life has the meaning that we give to it and that we can choose that meaning, by living actively, instead of living passively according to what we have learned from society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
