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.