Skepticism

Nov 29, 2014 //
2

Skepticism is the belief that nothing can be defined as true, including the belief that nothing can be defined as true. The authentic skeptic questions even their own dogma.

I’ve basically already wrote this, but I feel as though I need to go a bit more in-depth into the subject, because I believe it to be important. Plus, that previous post focused more on experiential uncertainty, such as whether or not there is a God, or if Paul is a dick or actually a pretty cool dude, whereas now I hope to question more assumed knowledge, such as whether or not a table is solid.

This all stemmed from a dinner, sitting around the dining room table, discussing whether or not the table we were all sitting around was solid. Everyone asserted that it was, save for myself who suggested maybe there was more to it than how we all perceived it to be. For example, the table was wood, and someone who is accustomed to working with steel might not think it was all that solid. Or a Hindu might not believe there is a table at all, but an illusion to blind us to the ultimate reality. A Buddhist might see it as a transient object, and with its inevitable deterioration, would claim it to be empty, rather than a solid object. Or even someone taking hallucinogenic drugs might see it as fluid, and before you dismiss this as hogwash, remember that there are shamans who believe that drugs are a way of opening up the mind to reveal the true nature of things. These are but a few of the infinite ways of looking at a dining room table.

Yes, the popular opinion was that the table was solid, but if we adhered strictly to commonly-held beliefs, Copernicus would never have changed the way we look at the solar system.

Of course, we can’t prove that a table isn’t solid, as each different belief set has a way around simply knocking on it with your knuckle to check its durability. Does this lack of proof mean that those views are simply irrelevant? Should we, the knowledgeable ones, ignore the viewpoints that disagree with what is so clear to us? It seems just as likely that any arguments we make about the solidity of the table to those who view it otherwise would sound just as ignorant.

Skepticism was founded as a school of Greek philosophy from the mind of Pyrrho. As with all the early Greek schools, the premise was to divine a system of thought that would allow for an upstanding way of living. Skeptics believed that to doubt everything meant to have an open mind to all ways of thinking. Sextus Empiricus, a scholar in the Greek school, gave arguments both for and against the existence of God, as well as attempted to disprove death. This universal agnosticism, in turn, would theoretically make you less of an asshole. Certainty is the enemy of compromise. Why would you bend on something that you’re certain of, after all?

Tags , , , , , ,
Categories Philosophy

Another proof of God

Nov 25, 2014 //
12

Perhaps you might recall my earlier proofs of God, well here is another.

We live in a flawed reality. We use language with its limitations to describe things that we perceive with our imperfect sensory organs. The label of a thing is not that thing; it is merely how we as human beings are able to understand it to the best of our abilities. However, presumably there is actually a thing that we are perceiving and experiencing. It must have an essence that makes it what it is, despite us as a species being unable to objectively ratify it. The tree-ness of a tree, for example, that goes beyond a green leafy-looking thing that may or may not get rid of its green leafy-looking things every autumn.

The idea that things must have an essence that truly make them things was first theorized by a German, Immanuel Kant, and he referred to that essence as the thing-in-itself. While unable to be appreciated by our insufficient intellect, Kant suggests that there still must be an objective reality that transcends our experiential one, and defines it from the outside.

Arthur Schopenhauer, another German, built upon Kant’s theory of the thing-in-itself by suggesting that the Will is what makes a thing a thing. It is what drives us that defines us. Circumstance, character, environmental factors (note: all of these would be phenomena, existing within the experiential universe) may all focus or direct the Will, but the Will itself exists outside. The subject to the universe’s object.

Of course, there are gradations to the Will. The Will as it exists in a human being is a much stronger representation than the Will that exists in a fluffy bunny rabbit. The further down the scale, the more devoid of knowledge the subject becomes, and the more it must conform to laws. Animals are more susceptible to instincts, and plants only have the drive to grow, bear seed, and die. The bottom of the scale would be inanimate objects, mere pawns of physical laws.

Now what does the Will as the thing-in-itself have to do with God? Well, if the Hindus are to be believed, the Atman (the Self) is the same as the Brahman (God). The Will, as Schopenhauer envisions it, permeates all of eternity, and we are individualized portions of it, focusing it in our actions. If our Selves (our Atman) are all the representations of this Will, then we are all disillusioned into thinking that we are individual people, and to achieve salvation, or moral well-being, we would have to recognize the unity in all things, and act accordingly.

Another possibility of this theory accounting for a God is if each individual person/creature/object has their own thing-in-itself, rather than a generalized one that encompasses everything. For example, my Will would exist strictly within my own consciousness, and would not be a focusing of a larger/greater Will. If this were the case, and each Will of each person is their essence, each Will of each fluffy bunny or of each stone, then there would be a thing-in-itself of Being as well. Existence would require its own thing-in-itself, and following Schopenhauer’s proposition that the thing-in-itself is a Will, then there would be a Will behind the universe, this being God. Of course, Schopenhauer followed closer to the Hindu model and didn’t investigate this more individuated method (so far as I know), so this is just my own theory as to how the Will as the thing-in-itself is a potential for a proof of God.

Do I agree with this? Nope, still atheist. However, it is an interesting proof, and does answer the problem of Free Will that I look at in my previous post. Should I offer my refutation as to why I don’t believe it? Ehn, it’s getting kind of late. Maybe I’ll let you, dear readers, figure this one out for yourselves.

 

Tags , , , , , , , ,
Categories Philosophy, Religion

Freedom from Causality

Nov 16, 2014 //
5

The law of causality basically says that shit can’t happen without some other shit happening first. Everyone knows what cause and effect are, but I just really enjoy saying “shit” to describe things. If something happens, something necessarily had to happen before in order to cause that event. We base not only science on this, but religion as well. The Unmoved Mover, or the First Cause, is the very beginning of the causal chain. If everything has a cause, the idea is that there has to be a beginning tethering the causes to an initial… something or other. In some circles, that “something” is theorized to be God.

So everybody agrees that the law of causality is probably true. However, things get a little tricky when we consider Free Will. Free Will is humanity’s innate ability to choose our actions. Since we feel in control, normally most people assume that we possess Free Will. But when the law of causality is applied to our choices, our actions must have a cause, and that cause must have a cause, and that cause must have a cause, and so on. Given that that causal chain would continue back to infinite along with all the others (or to the First Cause, whatever) then it seems highly unlikely that there was an autonomous “choice” at all.

This is not a new idea. People often wonder whether or not we are but slaves to our instincts and our environment, and if the law of causality is true and universal, then it would follow that humans are nothing but a mold going through its familiar phases. This raises some issues; if we are not free, then we are not responsible, and ethics just fall to the wayside. Any sort of meaning to our existence sounds a little hollow as well.

However, if there is Free Will, then the law of causality becomes called into question, and every scientific theory becomes a lot more correlative than it was before. Humanity, America especially, needs its freedom, but is it willing to do away with cause and effect just to keep it?

There are other options. There is the idea of the Causa Sui, or the self-caused cause. These are indeterminate causes that start their own, new causal chains. Quantum physics has these a bunch, where things on the atomic level are popping in and out of existence like a whack-a-mole game, seemingly without cause. However, if there are an infinite number of quantum reactions happening in the consciousness part of our brain that are the Causa Sui for our actions, then again, we are not choosing, but our actions are determined by random occurrences. This leads to the same problems of responsibility and meaning as in a deterministic universe.

Or possibly the Will itself is the Causa Sui and is perpetually creating new, causal chains. This, however, leads to the question of how?

It is possible that the human Will exists outside of the causal universe, thereby cancelling out the paradox of choice within a deterministic or random world. Those with a religious background are likely to exclaim, “Something that transcends the material realm!? Surely you can’t be serious!” but if Free Will is to be maintained, this is a consideration not to be taken lightly.

Remember, this is philosophy. There is never a satisfactory answer. Whether or not we possess Free Will all comes down to your perspective. Maybe humans are just special and that’s why we’re able to freely make choices. Maybe we live in a world of anarchy and chaos. Maybe we live meaningless, responsibility-less lives. Who knows? But always remember, whether or not Free Will exists, we must act as if it does.

Tags , , , , , , , ,
Categories Philosophy
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »