It should be obvious enough to say that if something is true, then something contradictory cannot simultaneously be true. People understand this on a logical level, but when it comes to philosophical and religious questions, more and more people are willing to believe that I can have my truth while you have your truth. This is ridiculous. Even if I make a statement like “Green is better than yellow,” it is understood that green is not really objectively better than yellow. What I’m really saying is that I prefer green to yellow. If it could accurately be said that as a matter of fact green really is better than yellow, then that would be that. Another person could not come in and say that yellow is better. One person or the other must be wrong. And in this case, we can see that both are wrong, because this is a matter of opinion, not of fact.
Some people point to the quantum principle of superposition as evidence that two things can simultaneously be true. This argument is evidence that they do not understand superposition. The theoretical principle states that a particle exists both in state A and state B simultaneously until the point of measurement, at which time, the particle then exists in one state or the other. Assuming this is a true principle, there is still only one truth – the particle exists in state A and state B simultaneously. It would be false to say that it exists in state A only, or in state B only. When the particle is about to be measured, we can each place our bet on what state it will be in; maybe you say state A and I say state B. But when the measurement takes place, one of us will be wrong. There is only one truth.
Why would this change in matters of philosophy and religion? If a thing is true, it does not change depending on our perspective or belief. If, for example, in reality, it was true, that there was a deity named Prometheus who visited the Greeks several thousand years ago and taught them how to use fire, then, regardless of whether we can find proof of it, that’s what happened. It doesn’t matter whether you think it happened or not. It was a historical event. Likewise, if it didn’t happen, no amount of belief will change that. Prometheus didn’t somehow visit the Greeks in my reality, but not in yours. Your reality and mine are the same.
Why do people say that it is possible for something to be true for one and false for another? It is a weak attempt at making peace between groups who believe in incongruent stories. You have two groups arguing over facts that are important to them. Both parties passionately believe something absolutely false on the matter. But because they cannot be dissuaded from their lies with any amount of effort, and the disagreement causes disharmony, eventually, some have decided that the higher road is to hand them another lie to hang on to, a lie which allows an exit from the argument without requiring an actual resolution – both parties can be right in their own subjective view. Sadly, this takes us even further from the truth than we were in an irresolvable argument. The important fact to recognize is that people get upset in such arguments precisely because discerning the truth on such matters is terribly important. Rather than trade the noble pursuit of higher truth for an illusion of rightness, we need to be willing to trade our false conceptions for the truth, in spite of our fears.
A statement such as “Your God is real to you and my God is real to me,” is untenable in objective reality. It only approaches sensibility if we try to relegate the question to a matter of opinion or preference. Essentially, what this statement implies in that sense is that the whole question is so meaningless or absurd that it doesn’t matter in the slightest what you believe about it. To me, this seems even more insulting than a heated argument over the matter. The other possible implication is that reality is not real, that perhaps we are each just dreaming our own dreams, which happen to intersect at this point. I have already written what I will about the idea that reality isn’t real in a previous post.
Basic Assumptions: Coherent Reality
The world around us is real and consistent. I don’t have much to say on this topic. The idea that reason is reasonable, logic is logical, reality is real, and observation is generally valid is an assumption I’m willing to make. I can’t demonstrate the reasonableness of this assumption from any platform other than the assumption itself. If you want to challenge any of my philosophy based on the invalidity of this assumption, I guess I would just have to say, don’t bother, because I’m not interested in spending much of my time talking to crazy people.
Basic Assumptions: We Are Not Alone
We can each individually run the mind experiment Descartes discovered quite easily: "I think; therefore I am." We can each observe our own thinking and questioning minds and recognize that because we have a subjective, conscious mental experience, that very experience is solid proof of our own existence, but there can be no similar proof of the existence of others around us. It is theoretically possible that they are all in our imagination, part of a world that exists only in our mind. What if we are the only truly real thing? Well, first of all, if you really believe that no one else in the world is truly a conscious thinking being, then you have an acute case of megalomania. We know such people are crazy because each of us can prove for ourselves that their belief is flawed, by observing our own conscious existence. But we can't prove that to the deranged person.
Nothing can be proven completely other than our own existence without making some basic assumption. In fact, even belief in Descartes’ proof requires a presupposed faith in logic. So how do we make the leap to an assumption that others exist? We have to change our question. Rather than asking what we can prove, we must settle on what is reasonable. Socrates is correct in stating that we can’t really know much of anything for certain. But we might as well move forward with some pretty good guesses and act on them. A life sitting around drooling isn’t very useful or exciting.
If we are going to make an assumption on the existence of others outside of ourselves, what is reasonable? What is functional, or useful to us? I think you could make a case that believing that others don’t really exist could have a limited function. It justifies a person doing whatever they want. He could enjoy a limited sociopathic frenzy of extreme self indulgence, which brings a limited sense of satisfaction. Of course this cannot be sustained for long because eventually he must face the consequences that others will impose upon him. Far more functional of course, is recognizing that others have thoughts and feelings just like you. By recognizing this, we can treat them in ways which will generate good will toward us. It makes our lives happier to follow the Golden Rule.
Similarly, when we recognize that treating people well generates a positive reaction, that leads us to the conclusion that the other people are conscious beings like us. Otherwise, why are they reacting that way? Who shall we suggest is controlling their behavior, if not themselves? If people are in your imagination, you should be able to control their behavior on some level without having to modify your own behavior. If some part of you controls them, which is so unconscious that you cannot access it, well, that might as well be another person. In any case, if some other being is controlling the people around you, then you are interacting with that other being through them. So in essence, this is equivalent to them being real people. Therefore it is both reasonable and functional to believe that other people are really thinking conscious beings like us. The contrary is absurd.
Most of you reading this may find it absurd that we need bother discussing such an issue at all, but the modern rise of atheism demands the discussion of the absurd. Look up references to philosophical zombies (different from the undead in movies) for more information. Here are a few references I have found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=1661
Nothing can be proven completely other than our own existence without making some basic assumption. In fact, even belief in Descartes’ proof requires a presupposed faith in logic. So how do we make the leap to an assumption that others exist? We have to change our question. Rather than asking what we can prove, we must settle on what is reasonable. Socrates is correct in stating that we can’t really know much of anything for certain. But we might as well move forward with some pretty good guesses and act on them. A life sitting around drooling isn’t very useful or exciting.
If we are going to make an assumption on the existence of others outside of ourselves, what is reasonable? What is functional, or useful to us? I think you could make a case that believing that others don’t really exist could have a limited function. It justifies a person doing whatever they want. He could enjoy a limited sociopathic frenzy of extreme self indulgence, which brings a limited sense of satisfaction. Of course this cannot be sustained for long because eventually he must face the consequences that others will impose upon him. Far more functional of course, is recognizing that others have thoughts and feelings just like you. By recognizing this, we can treat them in ways which will generate good will toward us. It makes our lives happier to follow the Golden Rule.
Similarly, when we recognize that treating people well generates a positive reaction, that leads us to the conclusion that the other people are conscious beings like us. Otherwise, why are they reacting that way? Who shall we suggest is controlling their behavior, if not themselves? If people are in your imagination, you should be able to control their behavior on some level without having to modify your own behavior. If some part of you controls them, which is so unconscious that you cannot access it, well, that might as well be another person. In any case, if some other being is controlling the people around you, then you are interacting with that other being through them. So in essence, this is equivalent to them being real people. Therefore it is both reasonable and functional to believe that other people are really thinking conscious beings like us. The contrary is absurd.
Most of you reading this may find it absurd that we need bother discussing such an issue at all, but the modern rise of atheism demands the discussion of the absurd. Look up references to philosophical zombies (different from the undead in movies) for more information. Here are a few references I have found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=1661
Introduction
This blog is my philosophy. Like most mathematicians, I have a profound love for truth which compels me to reach for deeper levels of understanding in many areas. I spend great quantities of my time and energy in consideration of the questions I will address here. In areas where I think that I have stumbled upon something of value, I will write my thoughts here. Some of it, I'm sure, will be wrong, though I'm really trying to avoid that. Some of it, I hope, will challenge you to consider questions on a higher level than you have previously.
Socrates said that the only true knowledge is knowing that you know nothing, and Descartes was only able to add to that one absolutely provable fact, “I think, therefore I am.” Although I can’t prove anything beyond that with complete certainty, there are several other base assumptions that I feel are safe. My first entries will be dedicated to explaining and justifying some of those base assumptions. I will only name a few here, but will try to identify other assumptions I make as they materialize in different topics I will address.
1) We are not alone. While I can prove that I exist, I postulate that you also exist.
2) The world around us, whatever its nature may be, is sufficiently real and consistent for logic and reason to operate successfully.
3) There is one objective truth to be found in things of this world. Truth is subjective only in subjective matters, like tastes, and preferences.
4) There is a Supreme Being (God) which is perfect and immortal.
5) God created us in His image and sent us here to a world of imperfection. Thus, humans have a dual nature. They tend to strive for the divine, doing what is right, loving and being selfless. And they tend to be selfish, do wrong, and give in to the lower animal-like instincts of this fallen world.
6) In the presence of all relevant facts, choices can be accurately and objectively denoted as good and/or evil.
7) Life and all of existence has a purpose.
While I recognize that there are those who take exception to some of these assumptions, I consider these so reasonable as to be almost self-evident, so other than a brief justification of these, I hope to spend most of my time moving on from this foundation.
Socrates said that the only true knowledge is knowing that you know nothing, and Descartes was only able to add to that one absolutely provable fact, “I think, therefore I am.” Although I can’t prove anything beyond that with complete certainty, there are several other base assumptions that I feel are safe. My first entries will be dedicated to explaining and justifying some of those base assumptions. I will only name a few here, but will try to identify other assumptions I make as they materialize in different topics I will address.
1) We are not alone. While I can prove that I exist, I postulate that you also exist.
2) The world around us, whatever its nature may be, is sufficiently real and consistent for logic and reason to operate successfully.
3) There is one objective truth to be found in things of this world. Truth is subjective only in subjective matters, like tastes, and preferences.
4) There is a Supreme Being (God) which is perfect and immortal.
5) God created us in His image and sent us here to a world of imperfection. Thus, humans have a dual nature. They tend to strive for the divine, doing what is right, loving and being selfless. And they tend to be selfish, do wrong, and give in to the lower animal-like instincts of this fallen world.
6) In the presence of all relevant facts, choices can be accurately and objectively denoted as good and/or evil.
7) Life and all of existence has a purpose.
While I recognize that there are those who take exception to some of these assumptions, I consider these so reasonable as to be almost self-evident, so other than a brief justification of these, I hope to spend most of my time moving on from this foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)