Conditioning of mind is inevitable…no knowledge can be gained without some priori assumption. (A priori)
Knowledge starts as a belief, an intrinsic instinct or sense data pointing towards certain information to be true. So our trust on our senses and perception is perhaps the first conditioning human mind goes through. Second we learn to trust what we are not directly acquainted through…knowledge by description. I believe that there was once a man named Alexander who almost conquered the world. I am however not acquainted with him, I know him through description, through accounts of those who had been acquainted to him. This belief is again a conditioning.
The point I am arriving that even a second order cybernetic if conscious will be inevitably conditioned to accept certain information as matter of fact, at least its own senses.
Second argument being that the conscious human mind with all its intellect knows so little about minds of lower organism, minds of animals and insects. Human mind when studying minds of other creatures say an ape can be considered akin to a second order cybernetics . There exist no visible reason for any kind of subjective bias creeping into such studies. Why then we are not able to analyze them / what makes us incapable of knowing what exactly goes around in their minds. How it then can we expect the second order cybernetics to is analyze and decipher a much more complex human mind?
I believe that its better we continue with human mind only continuing with the process of discovering its secret. Introspection and systematic observation and analysis has taken us this far…I hope it will take us the rest of the way too.
A fear that such a process cannot remove all the false belief and information that we have already got conditioned to…but this is something that we have to bear with…evolution is still a very slow process for me….and I don’t expect to see answers to this in my life time….but humanity will one day find answers to all that troubles it conscious, irrespective of the (survival) conditioning it has undergone
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Moral codes~ An over view
To begin with let us first arrive at a definition of morality. The first question is are we clear as to what it is? In the study of ethics morality has been defined from two perspectives, personal morality which is what you feel from your conscious as right and social morality which is what the society as a whole feels to be right.
While the origin of personal morals are very simple and pure dictated by only one basic dictum that is innate nobility of the human soul. A person may be a criminal but he will always know from deep with that he is wrong unless he is a psycho. Social morals however are not so, they evolved for the singular reason that is to control man, to tame him so as to allow sustenance of society. In its essence it too is noble, for society too is a need of humanity. We wouldn’t have evolved to this juncture without this structured organisation called society. If I am sitting here and typing this, it is because someone else is cooking for me. Not everybody can be thinker and scientist, but they all in their own ways help in sustenance of the society and evolution of mankind as a whole. It is however difficult to conclude from here that social morality is right in all its perspectives. The sad part of the society is that it was not formed best logic of will full cooperation and subordination, with reverence to human soul and its spirit. For most part of the history it has been dominated by mystiques and brutes, the purpose of the society was to serve mankind as a whole but it ended up serving a few who had the power and intellect to manipulate the rest.
It is for these lacunae in social morality that I consider personal morality as a far more superior guideline to judge whether you are right or wrong. There are many such arbitration in the social code of morality that has no logical support to its stance except some vague religious dictums or traditions that a society has been following from time immemorial. This article is an apt example of how unjust and harsh these codes of socio-religious morality can become.
Of the many such debatable issues of conflicting personal and social morality I would like to discuss here the issue of sexual morality. The sexual liberation of the modern times has been largely viewed as a serious moral degradation of the society at large. On the issue of sexuality and our sexual needs, first question is whether it is our need or of the society. I believe that all of us would agree that we have sex not just to produce kids, to refurbish the human resource. We have it because we need it, nature made us so. I have a deep reverence for nature, for I believe that any need that nature instilled in us has a purpose and is innately good. The society in its primitive from had put in a lot of restriction on sex. The first reason was If sexuality is liberated it would have killed the institution of marriage and therefore the society. Models of these societies were all very authoritarian/ tyrannical where men were expected to have a very high quotient of obedience. As we evolved we slowly moved on into more democratic and cooperative models of society where the quotient of personal responsibility and maturity and free volition outweighed any kind of socio-religious adherence or obedience. Many a moral codes of conduct however were just borrowed from the old model of society which obviously has no space for these individual freedom and volition
The new world order as was dreamt by philosophers and intellectuals is slowly coming to reality. It is for sure that if you refer to the old book of social morals we would find ourselves morally degraded, but if we believe that at least now we are living in a free world free society, then society must start existing for man rather than vice versa. We need to rework on our studies of ethics and come up with better a moral code which cater for needs of a man and gives him/ her freedom to seek what they desire as long as they are not harming the society at large. A society that respects man as an entity, his rationales his intellect and his judgement and the innate goodness in him.
There used to be a time when it was moral to burn down alive on your husband’s pyre. Is it today moral? Will all of us call our change in perspective as moral degradation? How can those women think of another man? What is wrong in free sexuality, if it is forced, it is a rape then it is wrong because you are violating the will and independence of another person. Is homosexuality wrong? I think no, not at all because it is volition of individuals, it is what they need what they desire. It is thus I feel that we need to rework on our books of ethics, make our moral codes more humane and man friendly.
While the origin of personal morals are very simple and pure dictated by only one basic dictum that is innate nobility of the human soul. A person may be a criminal but he will always know from deep with that he is wrong unless he is a psycho. Social morals however are not so, they evolved for the singular reason that is to control man, to tame him so as to allow sustenance of society. In its essence it too is noble, for society too is a need of humanity. We wouldn’t have evolved to this juncture without this structured organisation called society. If I am sitting here and typing this, it is because someone else is cooking for me. Not everybody can be thinker and scientist, but they all in their own ways help in sustenance of the society and evolution of mankind as a whole. It is however difficult to conclude from here that social morality is right in all its perspectives. The sad part of the society is that it was not formed best logic of will full cooperation and subordination, with reverence to human soul and its spirit. For most part of the history it has been dominated by mystiques and brutes, the purpose of the society was to serve mankind as a whole but it ended up serving a few who had the power and intellect to manipulate the rest.
It is for these lacunae in social morality that I consider personal morality as a far more superior guideline to judge whether you are right or wrong. There are many such arbitration in the social code of morality that has no logical support to its stance except some vague religious dictums or traditions that a society has been following from time immemorial. This article is an apt example of how unjust and harsh these codes of socio-religious morality can become.
Of the many such debatable issues of conflicting personal and social morality I would like to discuss here the issue of sexual morality. The sexual liberation of the modern times has been largely viewed as a serious moral degradation of the society at large. On the issue of sexuality and our sexual needs, first question is whether it is our need or of the society. I believe that all of us would agree that we have sex not just to produce kids, to refurbish the human resource. We have it because we need it, nature made us so. I have a deep reverence for nature, for I believe that any need that nature instilled in us has a purpose and is innately good. The society in its primitive from had put in a lot of restriction on sex. The first reason was If sexuality is liberated it would have killed the institution of marriage and therefore the society. Models of these societies were all very authoritarian/ tyrannical where men were expected to have a very high quotient of obedience. As we evolved we slowly moved on into more democratic and cooperative models of society where the quotient of personal responsibility and maturity and free volition outweighed any kind of socio-religious adherence or obedience. Many a moral codes of conduct however were just borrowed from the old model of society which obviously has no space for these individual freedom and volition
The new world order as was dreamt by philosophers and intellectuals is slowly coming to reality. It is for sure that if you refer to the old book of social morals we would find ourselves morally degraded, but if we believe that at least now we are living in a free world free society, then society must start existing for man rather than vice versa. We need to rework on our studies of ethics and come up with better a moral code which cater for needs of a man and gives him/ her freedom to seek what they desire as long as they are not harming the society at large. A society that respects man as an entity, his rationales his intellect and his judgement and the innate goodness in him.
There used to be a time when it was moral to burn down alive on your husband’s pyre. Is it today moral? Will all of us call our change in perspective as moral degradation? How can those women think of another man? What is wrong in free sexuality, if it is forced, it is a rape then it is wrong because you are violating the will and independence of another person. Is homosexuality wrong? I think no, not at all because it is volition of individuals, it is what they need what they desire. It is thus I feel that we need to rework on our books of ethics, make our moral codes more humane and man friendly.
Objectivism and Rational morality
Possibility of an objectivistic view point
It is singularly impossible for any observer to have an objectivistic view point. We all construct our set of realities based upon our perception and cognitive reasoning. The point being that the argument both of you put forth are very much subjective and it can be just debated or discussed but cannot be sold, preached or forced upon. It is however possible to have an unbiased and rational view point which is guided by reason and logic. Such a view point even though not objective from purely philosophic angle can however be construed as practical objectivity
Rational Morality
For both emotions and rationality we have only one reference point that is humans. Both are human and are displayed by human beings. What is proposed by the thread originator is a post conventional morality based on a rational approach. Most people never evolve into out of conventional morality which is guided by social dictums of right and wrong. Their never bother to think as to why and prefer always being guided by a set of rules that are socially acceptable and is thus good. Society and religion as an institution however is a product of human thinking and thus is not infallible. Its dictums of right and wrong thus are neither omniscient nor infallible. Morality I believe cannot be emotional it must have rational basis. It is thus not rational to attach and defend these set of rules…more so force them on fellow men as a divine decree.
Where does rational morality leads us ?
The movie I robot has a reference of such rational probabilistic morality. The robot prefers to save one life instead of two because he calculates a higher probability of survival in saving one. (Rational but not emotionally appealing decision). Again it takes over the control because it feels that humans are too emotional conflictive and prone to indulging in self destructive activity. Such a rational morality automatically approves mercy killing for instance a person who is no more productive and is terminally ill need not be pulled along in pain and agony for little more days, again rational but not emotionally appealing decision. In such instances the only guiding principle as I see is that individuals must be conscious about the subjectivity of their morality and thus not expect others to follow or confirm with what they believe. In the same way it must be accepted by a free society in general as long as it does not infringe into freedom and right of an another person
Role of Emotions in morality
It would be foolhardy to deny existence of emotions and their role in human affair. Most decisions are taken by humans under some kind of self serving bias and emotions. A study on effect of mood on reasoning revealed that both positive and negative moods severely hamper the reasoning ability of an individual. An emotional sense of goodness or a feel good factor however cannot be termed as morality. It won’t be at least prudent from a philosophical perspective to leave issues of morality of fluctuations of mood. At the same time it is neither feasible nor appropriate to apply the dictums of rational morality on masses in general. It has to be on a personal basis and may be practiced at own volition by an individual of appropriate intellectual and emotional maturity.
It is singularly impossible for any observer to have an objectivistic view point. We all construct our set of realities based upon our perception and cognitive reasoning. The point being that the argument both of you put forth are very much subjective and it can be just debated or discussed but cannot be sold, preached or forced upon. It is however possible to have an unbiased and rational view point which is guided by reason and logic. Such a view point even though not objective from purely philosophic angle can however be construed as practical objectivity
Rational Morality
For both emotions and rationality we have only one reference point that is humans. Both are human and are displayed by human beings. What is proposed by the thread originator is a post conventional morality based on a rational approach. Most people never evolve into out of conventional morality which is guided by social dictums of right and wrong. Their never bother to think as to why and prefer always being guided by a set of rules that are socially acceptable and is thus good. Society and religion as an institution however is a product of human thinking and thus is not infallible. Its dictums of right and wrong thus are neither omniscient nor infallible. Morality I believe cannot be emotional it must have rational basis. It is thus not rational to attach and defend these set of rules…more so force them on fellow men as a divine decree.
Where does rational morality leads us ?
The movie I robot has a reference of such rational probabilistic morality. The robot prefers to save one life instead of two because he calculates a higher probability of survival in saving one. (Rational but not emotionally appealing decision). Again it takes over the control because it feels that humans are too emotional conflictive and prone to indulging in self destructive activity. Such a rational morality automatically approves mercy killing for instance a person who is no more productive and is terminally ill need not be pulled along in pain and agony for little more days, again rational but not emotionally appealing decision. In such instances the only guiding principle as I see is that individuals must be conscious about the subjectivity of their morality and thus not expect others to follow or confirm with what they believe. In the same way it must be accepted by a free society in general as long as it does not infringe into freedom and right of an another person
Role of Emotions in morality
It would be foolhardy to deny existence of emotions and their role in human affair. Most decisions are taken by humans under some kind of self serving bias and emotions. A study on effect of mood on reasoning revealed that both positive and negative moods severely hamper the reasoning ability of an individual. An emotional sense of goodness or a feel good factor however cannot be termed as morality. It won’t be at least prudent from a philosophical perspective to leave issues of morality of fluctuations of mood. At the same time it is neither feasible nor appropriate to apply the dictums of rational morality on masses in general. It has to be on a personal basis and may be practiced at own volition by an individual of appropriate intellectual and emotional maturity.
A critique on communism
Communism in its elemental form is as proposed by Marx in his book Das Capital -A critique of political economy. It is in this corner stone that we need to find the flaws. It is in this root where the real decay lies. Communism poses to the visible eye many a glaring inadequacies but I would like to rather point out the flaws in the base philosophy itself.
Commodities ~ the problem of valuation
One of the basic problems that Marx encountered was how to assign value to commodities in a socialistic economic system. A non existent issue in a free market or Laizze faire Capitalistic model where in market determines the exchange value of commodity. In Marxist economic model however these exchange value had to be fixed for him to proceed with his economic theory. Even though Mark admitted variance of quality and type of labour made a grave error of assigning every commodity value in labour rather than demand and supply. I quote “For simplicity sake we shall hence forth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making reductions” Economics needs mathematical precision his deduction to start with flawed theory. The fact being that society or state as an institution cannot determine the value of any commodity, especially so on the basis of labour. An accomplished painter may make a master piece in an hour’s time, and may end up painting a not so appealing painting after days of effort. What must be then the criterion that determines the prize of his paintings? In free market the demand shall determine the prize; the one that is more appealing shall fetch more. While as per Marxism the one that has taken more time and effort is automatically the costlier one. If we see any socialist set up the state tends to regulate the market. It is not what is demanded that is produced but what state deems as needed. They may end up producing guns and tanks when they needed to produce wheat
Wages and Labour problem
The first and foremost allegation against a free market from the socialist would be that who will ensure that labour gets the right wage. They will be underpaid and exploited by the capitalist if state does not regulate these issues. The fact being free market has no concept of exploitation. It was a feudalistic concept of bonded labour and slavery which were in prevalence when industrial revolution and capitalism came about. These concepts got tagged on and people still quote of exploitation while it is so visible that all capitalist countries have higher wages and living standards. Even in India no PSU or government organisation is paying its workers / labourers the way private institutions do. It however would be wrong that free market means higher pay. The market determines the prize be simple equations of supply and demand, if a labour is available at Rs 5/- then so shall it would get. There is no altruistic benevolence in these issues as socialist propose. What automatically happens is that such labour if not lucrative enough would soon start waning. It will automatically raise the demand and bring the equation to equilibrium. Communism instead fix the cost of the labour irrespective of the commodity being produced, even if the commodity is not in demand or the organisation is incurring loss the labour will still draw the same wage. Such an institution simply proliferates mediocrity and rots the economy.
Competition and quality
Instead of dwelling into the quality of commodities I would rather take the labour itself as a commodity. In a socialist economic model there exists no competition whatsoever. All men are equal and can produce equal, there is no scale that can differentiate two men and their work. They will be paid just the same for a type of work. Pay scale is fixed for a particular grade the years he has to put in before he gets promoted or gets an increment. The competition is literally nonexistent in the communist model. Capitalistic model is simply the way nature is, it works on one simple principle of survival of the fittest. Competition is an essential element of nature’s design, without it we could have never evolved and reached so far. Nature never made men equal…even if she did in some odd ways she wanted men to find where they differ and exploit their respective strengths in their struggle for existence. Assumption of all men being equal is thus the most essential flaw in socialist model.
Communism and Altruism
It is assumed more often than not that a socialistic model whether political or economical is more altruistically inclined and keeps in mind the interest and welfare of the downtrodden and the weak. Even though Das capital is more of an economic philosophy with almost negligible dwelling into any kind of socialistic altruism, its followers were able to move masses and bring about revolutions harping on these obscure aspects of the philosophy. I believe such agendas can only be political and not economical as no sane economist would ever suggest a model in which a large chunk of unproductive population is feeding on the hard work of a comparatively small work force. Such attempts of benevolence on the part of state have more often than not led to severe abuse of resources and worst, corruption in the part of the administration and state.
Disclaimer...
I must admit as I conclude that I am yet to read Das capital in complete depth my limited knowledge of economics has been a cause of hindrance in me doing so. I have however read the portion that are more theoretical in nature and found these fundamental flaws. The article has no bearing on my political inclination...It is but just one of the countless reflections of my philosophical odyssey
Commodities ~ the problem of valuation
One of the basic problems that Marx encountered was how to assign value to commodities in a socialistic economic system. A non existent issue in a free market or Laizze faire Capitalistic model where in market determines the exchange value of commodity. In Marxist economic model however these exchange value had to be fixed for him to proceed with his economic theory. Even though Mark admitted variance of quality and type of labour made a grave error of assigning every commodity value in labour rather than demand and supply. I quote “For simplicity sake we shall hence forth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making reductions” Economics needs mathematical precision his deduction to start with flawed theory. The fact being that society or state as an institution cannot determine the value of any commodity, especially so on the basis of labour. An accomplished painter may make a master piece in an hour’s time, and may end up painting a not so appealing painting after days of effort. What must be then the criterion that determines the prize of his paintings? In free market the demand shall determine the prize; the one that is more appealing shall fetch more. While as per Marxism the one that has taken more time and effort is automatically the costlier one. If we see any socialist set up the state tends to regulate the market. It is not what is demanded that is produced but what state deems as needed. They may end up producing guns and tanks when they needed to produce wheat
Wages and Labour problem
The first and foremost allegation against a free market from the socialist would be that who will ensure that labour gets the right wage. They will be underpaid and exploited by the capitalist if state does not regulate these issues. The fact being free market has no concept of exploitation. It was a feudalistic concept of bonded labour and slavery which were in prevalence when industrial revolution and capitalism came about. These concepts got tagged on and people still quote of exploitation while it is so visible that all capitalist countries have higher wages and living standards. Even in India no PSU or government organisation is paying its workers / labourers the way private institutions do. It however would be wrong that free market means higher pay. The market determines the prize be simple equations of supply and demand, if a labour is available at Rs 5/- then so shall it would get. There is no altruistic benevolence in these issues as socialist propose. What automatically happens is that such labour if not lucrative enough would soon start waning. It will automatically raise the demand and bring the equation to equilibrium. Communism instead fix the cost of the labour irrespective of the commodity being produced, even if the commodity is not in demand or the organisation is incurring loss the labour will still draw the same wage. Such an institution simply proliferates mediocrity and rots the economy.
Competition and quality
Instead of dwelling into the quality of commodities I would rather take the labour itself as a commodity. In a socialist economic model there exists no competition whatsoever. All men are equal and can produce equal, there is no scale that can differentiate two men and their work. They will be paid just the same for a type of work. Pay scale is fixed for a particular grade the years he has to put in before he gets promoted or gets an increment. The competition is literally nonexistent in the communist model. Capitalistic model is simply the way nature is, it works on one simple principle of survival of the fittest. Competition is an essential element of nature’s design, without it we could have never evolved and reached so far. Nature never made men equal…even if she did in some odd ways she wanted men to find where they differ and exploit their respective strengths in their struggle for existence. Assumption of all men being equal is thus the most essential flaw in socialist model.
Communism and Altruism
It is assumed more often than not that a socialistic model whether political or economical is more altruistically inclined and keeps in mind the interest and welfare of the downtrodden and the weak. Even though Das capital is more of an economic philosophy with almost negligible dwelling into any kind of socialistic altruism, its followers were able to move masses and bring about revolutions harping on these obscure aspects of the philosophy. I believe such agendas can only be political and not economical as no sane economist would ever suggest a model in which a large chunk of unproductive population is feeding on the hard work of a comparatively small work force. Such attempts of benevolence on the part of state have more often than not led to severe abuse of resources and worst, corruption in the part of the administration and state.
Disclaimer...
I must admit as I conclude that I am yet to read Das capital in complete depth my limited knowledge of economics has been a cause of hindrance in me doing so. I have however read the portion that are more theoretical in nature and found these fundamental flaws. The article has no bearing on my political inclination...It is but just one of the countless reflections of my philosophical odyssey
Monday, February 11, 2008
Linguistic Paradox and Emotional Quotient
I read something about Wernike’s aphasia or pure word deafness and wanted to share something about it. Well Wernikes is part in temporal lobe on damage of which person is able to hear sounds but not associate any meaning to it. That is he can even reproduce the sound/ word but cannot understand what it means. Our brain is a kind of parallel processor identification and association happens in different part of our brain.
Coming to more intriguing part where I am in doubt is that in earlier days IQ was associated with a person word power, but off late that concept has changed and more comprehensive ways of finding IQ have been designed vocabulary included. I however believe that vocabulary must be instead linked to EQ rather than IQ. If u notice the words that depict emotions have more synonyms, they have come because people found it exceedingly difficult to contain all their happiness/sadness in one word, their love in a single phrase. Again since brain is a parallel processor and words are stored separately, it’s not hard to believe that we store only those words which we need or use and perhaps understand. I believe that the words we use must then be a strong reflection of our emotional self rather than intellectual self. Again strong words reflect emotional strength or weakness. Strength in terms of stability per say that is a person whose language is very plain is emotionally stable/stoic and one with a richer language will tend to have more prominent mood swings and emotions.
A more comprehensive study of the subject will entail us to include other facets of language such as speech tones are more importantly body language. Body language in a way had been always a part of EQ parameter but language in general with it vocabularies and tones can give us a rather in depth idea of the emotional quotient of a person. More so a deeper study of the language used would reveal important behavioural traits. Language of a timid fearful person must have such inclination. All of us would have come across people who use the words like ‘God Forbid’ ‘Touch wood’ etc very frequently in their speech. Excessive use of abusive language is another common phenomenon that is seen among people which is indicative of behavioural patterns.
Words are an invention to which thoughts are the necessity. I strongly believe that as our thoughts, our imagination and our emotions grow or are consciously conceived by our mind, we need more and more words to describe them, give meaning to them. As a child we need to just cry to get our self expressed, then on from the limited vocabulary of a child to our adulthood we keep learning new words. Relative difference between people can be attributed to their emotional and intellectual thought processes and the need to express them thereof. Many a time words are reflection of our ego too, people tend to use more complicated vocabulary not as a part of need but as part of flare, use of lesser known synonyms without a justified need. It is not the need of thoughts but perhaps the need of the ego. What could be concluded for sure is that words convey much more than they apparently are meant to convey….they convey our state of mind, ego and perhaps much more
Coming to more intriguing part where I am in doubt is that in earlier days IQ was associated with a person word power, but off late that concept has changed and more comprehensive ways of finding IQ have been designed vocabulary included. I however believe that vocabulary must be instead linked to EQ rather than IQ. If u notice the words that depict emotions have more synonyms, they have come because people found it exceedingly difficult to contain all their happiness/sadness in one word, their love in a single phrase. Again since brain is a parallel processor and words are stored separately, it’s not hard to believe that we store only those words which we need or use and perhaps understand. I believe that the words we use must then be a strong reflection of our emotional self rather than intellectual self. Again strong words reflect emotional strength or weakness. Strength in terms of stability per say that is a person whose language is very plain is emotionally stable/stoic and one with a richer language will tend to have more prominent mood swings and emotions.
A more comprehensive study of the subject will entail us to include other facets of language such as speech tones are more importantly body language. Body language in a way had been always a part of EQ parameter but language in general with it vocabularies and tones can give us a rather in depth idea of the emotional quotient of a person. More so a deeper study of the language used would reveal important behavioural traits. Language of a timid fearful person must have such inclination. All of us would have come across people who use the words like ‘God Forbid’ ‘Touch wood’ etc very frequently in their speech. Excessive use of abusive language is another common phenomenon that is seen among people which is indicative of behavioural patterns.
Words are an invention to which thoughts are the necessity. I strongly believe that as our thoughts, our imagination and our emotions grow or are consciously conceived by our mind, we need more and more words to describe them, give meaning to them. As a child we need to just cry to get our self expressed, then on from the limited vocabulary of a child to our adulthood we keep learning new words. Relative difference between people can be attributed to their emotional and intellectual thought processes and the need to express them thereof. Many a time words are reflection of our ego too, people tend to use more complicated vocabulary not as a part of need but as part of flare, use of lesser known synonyms without a justified need. It is not the need of thoughts but perhaps the need of the ego. What could be concluded for sure is that words convey much more than they apparently are meant to convey….they convey our state of mind, ego and perhaps much more
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Consciousness without senses
First question that I would like to dwell is the possibility of a consciousness developing in the absence of senses. Can a kid born with all the five senses deficient ever develop a conscious?
In absence of all five senses the external world will be non existent for the mind. There won’t be any development of language or any meaning full communication of the mind with the external world. In such a circumstance development of a consciousness is impossibility. Language is a critical tool for the process of thinking and without language the consciousness will not be able to develop any construct or idea of either self or the external world.
More Intriguing will be the situation wherein the person looses all his senses at a later stage of life due to some accident. The question is what will happen to an already developed conscious if all senses are taken away from it?
In this case consciousness is already developed to a state that it can think and it already has a concept of self. More so it has a tool the tool of language which can allow formation of new thoughts.
If we remove all the senses then the person cannot see, hear, smell, feel or taste. In such a situation he will loose the sense of space and more so if he cannot even feel his breath the he will loose the sense of time. That is the component of ‘here’ and ‘now’ is removed from the existence. The question is whether the concept of ‘I’ can still survive. Such a person will soon loose the reference of where he/she is and how long it has passed since he entered this state. In my opinion the consciousness will start degrading and slowly end up in chaos.
This process however may not be immediate. It must be possible for some time for the mind to go with reference of past experiences and memory. The possibility of new thoughts and ideas are however is a very tricky question. He has the tool of language and he has retention in form of memory. Would it entail that the consciousness can still indulge in meaningful thinking. It is however uncertain that in absence of any new sensory inputs all thoughts being generated are more or less based on the past memories or new thoughts may also get generated.
Present knowledge of human brain has it that only 25% of the cerebral cortex is sensory and motor cortex rest is something called association cortex. This is where the modern psychology believes that thoughts originate. A complex association of sensory inputs past memories and perhaps many other factor lead to creation of thoughts. Coming to philosophy this question was most intricately studied by Immanuel Kant. His book critique of reason draws a detailed study of what is thought and what is its origin before dwelling further into what are the limitation of human thoughts. To start with he refutes thoughts being a mere interplay of sensation. So he dwells into a thoughts that would remain if all the sensations are removed, knowledge and thoughts that are independent of sensation, ‘a priory’. He has taken mathematics as a priory. Mathematical knowledge per say is not dependent on any sensation. So if it is not an association of sensation a derivative of past memory.
I am not sure however how much time it would take for the consciousness to loose the time and space reference and start degrading.
In absence of all five senses the external world will be non existent for the mind. There won’t be any development of language or any meaning full communication of the mind with the external world. In such a circumstance development of a consciousness is impossibility. Language is a critical tool for the process of thinking and without language the consciousness will not be able to develop any construct or idea of either self or the external world.
More Intriguing will be the situation wherein the person looses all his senses at a later stage of life due to some accident. The question is what will happen to an already developed conscious if all senses are taken away from it?
In this case consciousness is already developed to a state that it can think and it already has a concept of self. More so it has a tool the tool of language which can allow formation of new thoughts.
If we remove all the senses then the person cannot see, hear, smell, feel or taste. In such a situation he will loose the sense of space and more so if he cannot even feel his breath the he will loose the sense of time. That is the component of ‘here’ and ‘now’ is removed from the existence. The question is whether the concept of ‘I’ can still survive. Such a person will soon loose the reference of where he/she is and how long it has passed since he entered this state. In my opinion the consciousness will start degrading and slowly end up in chaos.
This process however may not be immediate. It must be possible for some time for the mind to go with reference of past experiences and memory. The possibility of new thoughts and ideas are however is a very tricky question. He has the tool of language and he has retention in form of memory. Would it entail that the consciousness can still indulge in meaningful thinking. It is however uncertain that in absence of any new sensory inputs all thoughts being generated are more or less based on the past memories or new thoughts may also get generated.
Present knowledge of human brain has it that only 25% of the cerebral cortex is sensory and motor cortex rest is something called association cortex. This is where the modern psychology believes that thoughts originate. A complex association of sensory inputs past memories and perhaps many other factor lead to creation of thoughts. Coming to philosophy this question was most intricately studied by Immanuel Kant. His book critique of reason draws a detailed study of what is thought and what is its origin before dwelling further into what are the limitation of human thoughts. To start with he refutes thoughts being a mere interplay of sensation. So he dwells into a thoughts that would remain if all the sensations are removed, knowledge and thoughts that are independent of sensation, ‘a priory’. He has taken mathematics as a priory. Mathematical knowledge per say is not dependent on any sensation. So if it is not an association of sensation a derivative of past memory.
I am not sure however how much time it would take for the consciousness to loose the time and space reference and start degrading.
Fredrick Nietzsche~ An Overview
“Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has been: namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir”- Fredrick Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil). In these words Nietzsche has so lucidly put across the inherent subjectivity in the various philosophical works. The inescapable link between memories and thoughts more so the cognitive personality of the philosopher on his philosophical works.
An analysis of the philosopher behind any philosophy is an act of objective screening of thoughts from the very point of its origin, which is the philosophers mind itself. The process leads to a more objective deciphering and in depth analysis of thoughts. Nietzsche being my subject I would like to quote him again on the issue “All philosophers have the common failing of starting out from man as he is now and thinking they can reach their goal through an analysis of him...Lack of historical sense is the family failing of all philosophers”- (Human All too Human).
Nietzsche son of a minister and a pious religious woman started off with extreme faith in Christianity and its theology. He in a very early age used to enjoying reading bible in seclusion and reciting it to others with extreme devotion and faith. Two major factors that led to him transgressing from this state of extreme religious faith to staunch atheism was the emergence of Darwinism in the field of biology and science and German Nationalism under the Iron hand of Bismarck. Darwinism destroyed his faith in Christian theology completely while German Nationalism under Bismarck which not only criticized piety and altruism among nation but also practiced Realpolitik. This Blood and Iron politics gave a new him a new definition if virtue based only on strengths and struggle. It in fact validated the struggle for existence as a universal virtue.
His faith was so vehemently obliterated that he declared God is dead: but considering the state the species Man is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which his shadow will be shown. To his faith his anguish can be seen in these words “I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are too venomous, too underhand, too underground and too petty—I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind.” (Antichrist)
Annihilation of faith however left Nietzsche with many daunting questions about the fate and purpose of humanity. The Christian linear progression of time ending in Armageddon and kingdom of heaven meant nothing to him. His earlier works thus gave a naturalistic inclination where in he held evolution as the purpose in itself. In his work “thus spake Zarathustra” where in he held man kind as a transitory phase in the evolution of superman or Cverman he wrote, Man is a rope, tied between beast and Superman—a rope over an abyss. The superman will mock at us like we mock the apes. (Nazis took this concept of superman and super race rather overzealously and embarked on their catastrophic mission)
Conception of superman was however not the end of his woe. It soon occurred to him that superman cannot be an end in himself. His conception of time was infinite, the question what after superman was his next challenge super-super man or God was not an answer because time was not ending at there also. The concept lived happily ever after was unacceptable to him. It is here that he realized perhaps that numbers of actions possible are finite while time infinite. It is thus he concluded that actions will start repeating itself the way day and night repeats itself; that every thing will return back to the chaos the primordial soup from where it started. It also however destroyed all sense of purpose that life can possibly hold everything was reduced to mere occurrences in the face of time. (It is not to be confused with eastern cyclic philosophy of birth and rebirth because eastern philosophy is far from destroying purpose in human life; it in fact gives purpose transcending life and death)
Nietzsche here achieved a cyclic redundancy in time for all occurrences and action leading ultimately to nothing.
I would love to discuss how such a brilliant mind was eaten away by the internal conflicts within his mind against the morality of his time. How it led to his neurosis and finally relegating him to schizophrenia cutting him off from reality…or perhaps returning him back to peace and tranquillity.
An analysis of the philosopher behind any philosophy is an act of objective screening of thoughts from the very point of its origin, which is the philosophers mind itself. The process leads to a more objective deciphering and in depth analysis of thoughts. Nietzsche being my subject I would like to quote him again on the issue “All philosophers have the common failing of starting out from man as he is now and thinking they can reach their goal through an analysis of him...Lack of historical sense is the family failing of all philosophers”- (Human All too Human).
Nietzsche son of a minister and a pious religious woman started off with extreme faith in Christianity and its theology. He in a very early age used to enjoying reading bible in seclusion and reciting it to others with extreme devotion and faith. Two major factors that led to him transgressing from this state of extreme religious faith to staunch atheism was the emergence of Darwinism in the field of biology and science and German Nationalism under the Iron hand of Bismarck. Darwinism destroyed his faith in Christian theology completely while German Nationalism under Bismarck which not only criticized piety and altruism among nation but also practiced Realpolitik. This Blood and Iron politics gave a new him a new definition if virtue based only on strengths and struggle. It in fact validated the struggle for existence as a universal virtue.
His faith was so vehemently obliterated that he declared God is dead: but considering the state the species Man is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which his shadow will be shown. To his faith his anguish can be seen in these words “I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are too venomous, too underhand, too underground and too petty—I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind.” (Antichrist)
Annihilation of faith however left Nietzsche with many daunting questions about the fate and purpose of humanity. The Christian linear progression of time ending in Armageddon and kingdom of heaven meant nothing to him. His earlier works thus gave a naturalistic inclination where in he held evolution as the purpose in itself. In his work “thus spake Zarathustra” where in he held man kind as a transitory phase in the evolution of superman or Cverman he wrote, Man is a rope, tied between beast and Superman—a rope over an abyss. The superman will mock at us like we mock the apes. (Nazis took this concept of superman and super race rather overzealously and embarked on their catastrophic mission)
Conception of superman was however not the end of his woe. It soon occurred to him that superman cannot be an end in himself. His conception of time was infinite, the question what after superman was his next challenge super-super man or God was not an answer because time was not ending at there also. The concept lived happily ever after was unacceptable to him. It is here that he realized perhaps that numbers of actions possible are finite while time infinite. It is thus he concluded that actions will start repeating itself the way day and night repeats itself; that every thing will return back to the chaos the primordial soup from where it started. It also however destroyed all sense of purpose that life can possibly hold everything was reduced to mere occurrences in the face of time. (It is not to be confused with eastern cyclic philosophy of birth and rebirth because eastern philosophy is far from destroying purpose in human life; it in fact gives purpose transcending life and death)
Nietzsche here achieved a cyclic redundancy in time for all occurrences and action leading ultimately to nothing.
I would love to discuss how such a brilliant mind was eaten away by the internal conflicts within his mind against the morality of his time. How it led to his neurosis and finally relegating him to schizophrenia cutting him off from reality…or perhaps returning him back to peace and tranquillity.
Monday, January 28, 2008
On God
Descartes~Idea of God
How Idea of perfection came into being if nothing perfect ever existed?
The argument is logically correct for we can have knowledge of things which we are acquainted with. Direct or indirect, indirect in case of knowledge by description or by induction (logic). To start with let’s examine perfection as an idea. What exactly does it means to us? Perfection is not God but a quality attributed to God. So we can conclude that Perfection as an idea is a quality and not God itself. What is however more relevant is even for a quality to exist as an idea we must be acquainted with it, which is in fact the crux of the argument.
What is Perfection? Are we acquainted with it?
How Idea of perfection came into being if nothing perfect ever existed?
The argument is logically correct for we can have knowledge of things which we are acquainted with. Direct or indirect, indirect in case of knowledge by description or by induction (logic). To start with let’s examine perfection as an idea. What exactly does it means to us? Perfection is not God but a quality attributed to God. So we can conclude that Perfection as an idea is a quality and not God itself. What is however more relevant is even for a quality to exist as an idea we must be acquainted with it, which is in fact the crux of the argument.
What is Perfection? Are we acquainted with it?
Perfection if defined will take us to a combination of superlatives. There are qualities which we are acquainted with, qualities like beauty, strength, intellect, courage etc etc. These are qualities/virtues that exist and we are acquainted with. What is perfect then? It is a quality that comprises of superlatives of all other such quality that we are acquainted with. Perfection is thus combination of ideas. Another relevant doubt will be can we ever say 2+2=4 if we are not initially acquainted with the idea of 4. Answer to this lies in Kant’s Transcendental Analytic where in he has clearly pointed out that our mind is not merely a passive instrument, a collection of thought but an active one which can extrapolate knowledge from the already existing one. Relativity and off late the concept of singularity is example of such knowledge, Ideas which we have induced and derived rather than acquainted.
Can God exist as an Idea if not Real?
Well, we have discussed knowledge by acquaintance and induction/derivation but there remains knowledge by description. You have taken up an apt example 100 $ Note. Your knowledge of it is not by acquaintance but by description. If we were to limit ourselves only to knowledge that we ourselves get acquainted to or derive thereof, we would have never progressed so far. Knowledge by description how we share our knowledge, in fact I can further add that what cannot be described is not knowledge at all (limitation of language on description and thus our knowledge is another interesting topic on which James have elaborated). So we can conclude that we perhaps know God also as you know 100$ through description. Obvious question arising is that even the knowledge of description is indirectly knowledge of acquaintance. Somebody is acquainted with 100$ note and so has described it. Fortunately or unfortunately so is the case with the God. There are people who have claimed to have been acquainted with God. Prophets and Messiahs who have described God to us, knowledge of description the liberty lie with us to accept or reject an idea but as long as a single person exist who claims of such an acquaintance, God will exist.
Is all that exist real?
At this juncture I assume that we can agree God exists in human collective conscious as an idea for sure. Ideas are units of thought that are complete in it self. Ideas are to thought as sentences are to language. To examine if an idea is real or not we have to define what is real? I don’t confirm to idealist in this regard, my arguments against idealism as brought out by Russell in ‘Problems of philosophy’ are there in the post ‘On Reality’. Not all of reality however qualifies as absolute reality. There exists a lot of what we construe as reality which is subjective. Subjective reality does not ideally requisition any proof but an individual’s belief in it a trust on his own instincts intellect and senses. God again qualify as a subjective reality so does not requisition any proof in itself for those who believe will believe in it regardless of any argument against it.
God as a construct…
Assuming that God is an idea lets examine what would have led to its origin. What sustains it for no idea as doubtable as God can survive if it had no purpose no reason to exist? Human conscious as we can see is conditioned. What is the greatest pain of being conscious? Being aware but unable to control it, what our future holds for us is very dynamic set of probability where in lies our greatest fears and our greatest hope. I may die the very next moment or worse loose my limbs are a probability. On the other hand there are equally wonderful hopes that are equally probable. Our brains being a survival instrument prefers to dwell in hopes rather than fears. To achieve it needs conditioning a fear-hope conditioning where in I believe lays the reason for idea of God to exist. Hope is more often than not our belief that equations of probability will run in our favour. There are millions of people to whom the concept of God gives hopes and a reason to live. Research has shown that people with atheistic beliefs are more prone to depression than theist. The choice between an optimistic illusion and a pessimistic reality is a rather difficult one to make. From individualistic approach one need not worry as it’s a choice of the individual, let men decide what they want to believe. It is however a sad reality that there exists not many individuals, not many free minds, those who can decide for themselves.
As philosophers here we are facing an ethical question…On name of reality and reason are we justified to take away from the masses their hope. If intellectual reason is able to prove that God is indeed nothing but an illusion what do we achieve on the name of truth…is it worth it. There is a poem I would like to share
To Hope - John Keats
WHEN by my solitary hearth I sit,
When no fair dreams before my “mind’s eye” flit,
And the bare heath of life presents no bloom;
Sweet Hope, ethereal balm upon me shed,
And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head.
Whene’er I wander, at the fall of night,
Where woven boughs shut out the moon’s bright ray,
Should sad Despondency my musings fright,
And frown, to drive fair Cheerfulness away,
Peep with the moon-beams through the leafy roof,
And keep that fiend Despondence far aloof.
Should Disappointment, parent of Despair,
Strive for her son to seize my careless heart;
When, like a cloud, he sits upon the air,
Preparing on his spell-bound prey to dart:
Chase him away, sweet Hope, with visage bright,
And fright him as the morning frightens night!
Whene’er the fate of those I hold most dear
Tells to my fearful breast a tale of sorrow,
O bright-eyed Hope, my morbid fancy cheer;
Let me awhile thy sweetest comforts borrow:
Thy heaven-born radiance around me shed,
And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head!
Should e’er unhappy love my bosom pain,
From cruel parents, or relentless fair;
O let me think it is not quite in vain
To sigh out sonnets to the midnight air!
Sweet Hope, ethereal balm upon me shed,
And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head!
In the long vista of the years to roll,
Let me not see our country’s honour fade:
O let me see our land retain her soul,
Her pride, her freedom; and not freedom’s shade.
From thy bright eyes unusual brightness shed—
Beneath thy pinions canopy my head!
Let me not see the patriot’s high bequest,
Great Liberty! how great in plain attire!
With the base purple of a court oppress’d,
Bowing her head, and ready to expire:
But let me see thee stoop from heaven on wings
That fill the skies with silver glitterings!
And as, in sparkling majesty, a star
Gilds the bright summit of some gloomy cloud;
Brightening the half veil’d face of heaven afar:
So, when dark thoughts my boding spirit shroud,
Sweet Hope, celestial influence round me shed,
Waving thy silver pinions o’er my head.
February, 1815.
WHEN by my solitary hearth I sit,
When no fair dreams before my “mind’s eye” flit,
And the bare heath of life presents no bloom;
Sweet Hope, ethereal balm upon me shed,
And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head.
Whene’er I wander, at the fall of night,
Where woven boughs shut out the moon’s bright ray,
Should sad Despondency my musings fright,
And frown, to drive fair Cheerfulness away,
Peep with the moon-beams through the leafy roof,
And keep that fiend Despondence far aloof.
Should Disappointment, parent of Despair,
Strive for her son to seize my careless heart;
When, like a cloud, he sits upon the air,
Preparing on his spell-bound prey to dart:
Chase him away, sweet Hope, with visage bright,
And fright him as the morning frightens night!
Whene’er the fate of those I hold most dear
Tells to my fearful breast a tale of sorrow,
O bright-eyed Hope, my morbid fancy cheer;
Let me awhile thy sweetest comforts borrow:
Thy heaven-born radiance around me shed,
And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head!
Should e’er unhappy love my bosom pain,
From cruel parents, or relentless fair;
O let me think it is not quite in vain
To sigh out sonnets to the midnight air!
Sweet Hope, ethereal balm upon me shed,
And wave thy silver pinions o’er my head!
In the long vista of the years to roll,
Let me not see our country’s honour fade:
O let me see our land retain her soul,
Her pride, her freedom; and not freedom’s shade.
From thy bright eyes unusual brightness shed—
Beneath thy pinions canopy my head!
Let me not see the patriot’s high bequest,
Great Liberty! how great in plain attire!
With the base purple of a court oppress’d,
Bowing her head, and ready to expire:
But let me see thee stoop from heaven on wings
That fill the skies with silver glitterings!
And as, in sparkling majesty, a star
Gilds the bright summit of some gloomy cloud;
Brightening the half veil’d face of heaven afar:
So, when dark thoughts my boding spirit shroud,
Sweet Hope, celestial influence round me shed,
Waving thy silver pinions o’er my head.
February, 1815.
On Reality
We cannot judge that we perceive is hallucination or real…
It is essentially true that this argument cannot be proved wrong completely and it therefore that the ‘critique of reason’ came into being. Undoubtedly as brought forward by Kant human reason in itself has certain limitation of judgement.
I am presenting my arguments only to show certain anomalies and contradictions in this Kantian idea and not refute it because unfortunately it can’t be done.
Our problem with dismissing our sense perception as mere hallucination or an idea/construct starts with the basic question that if what we perceive is not real then what is real? Does there exist anything in this world independent of our mind?
To answer lets take an example of an empty room with only a table inside. Though I thoroughly agree that no two people may describe the table exactly same way, that is the properties of the table that are perceived by different minds tend to be subjective. It is however irrelevant when dealing with the basic existence of the table as irrespective of the subjective difference of opinion almost everybody accepts existence of the table.
Now to claim that the table is a mere hallucination we have to consider following arguments
1. Does the table continue to exist when no one is looking/perceiving it?
2. Suppose the table is covered after completely after you have seen the table such that it cannot be made out what is there beneath. In such a case is it that other people entering the room are looking at a cloth hanging in air?
In order to counter these arguments we have to incorporate some more assumption into the theory. This was first proposed by Bishop Berkeley and of course later made quite famous by the movie matrix. These assumptions are
1. All minds are interconnected and are not independent of each other/ has limited independence
2. To maintain the continuation of the hallucination, a universal mind (God in case of Berkeley/ and Hindu philosophy of Maya and Machine main frame in case of Matrix) is always perceiving/ projecting the things as they appear to us.
In such a case it can be safely assumed without any logical contradictions that all that we see is a veil pulled over our eyes. This argument however severely undermines human mind. If this be the case then we are practically incapable of acquiring any knowledge and our sense tools are mere input devices for a dream. Science or any other stream of knowledge too cannot exist because they all are based on systematic observation. So no electricity, no magnetism, no gravity, no matter, nothing remains but just illusion.
Such idealism I don’t hold as rational. Presence of logic alone cannot hold an argument rational. It has no proof whatsoever to support it neither there is a direct cognitive evidence or authentic historical evidence to support the argument. Presence of a universal mind controlling all minds making us perceive things cannot be proven so as to conclude it as true.
It is the way of philosophy one may argue. To accept red as red has never been defining attribute of philosophy. It is however to be kept in mind that in order to proceed with our quest of knowledge, we need to accept dependence of our consciousness on the sense perception and its input. If we have a reality it is from what we perceive and without it our consciousness will simply relegate into a chaos.
It is essentially true that this argument cannot be proved wrong completely and it therefore that the ‘critique of reason’ came into being. Undoubtedly as brought forward by Kant human reason in itself has certain limitation of judgement.
I am presenting my arguments only to show certain anomalies and contradictions in this Kantian idea and not refute it because unfortunately it can’t be done.
Our problem with dismissing our sense perception as mere hallucination or an idea/construct starts with the basic question that if what we perceive is not real then what is real? Does there exist anything in this world independent of our mind?
To answer lets take an example of an empty room with only a table inside. Though I thoroughly agree that no two people may describe the table exactly same way, that is the properties of the table that are perceived by different minds tend to be subjective. It is however irrelevant when dealing with the basic existence of the table as irrespective of the subjective difference of opinion almost everybody accepts existence of the table.
Now to claim that the table is a mere hallucination we have to consider following arguments
1. Does the table continue to exist when no one is looking/perceiving it?
2. Suppose the table is covered after completely after you have seen the table such that it cannot be made out what is there beneath. In such a case is it that other people entering the room are looking at a cloth hanging in air?
In order to counter these arguments we have to incorporate some more assumption into the theory. This was first proposed by Bishop Berkeley and of course later made quite famous by the movie matrix. These assumptions are
1. All minds are interconnected and are not independent of each other/ has limited independence
2. To maintain the continuation of the hallucination, a universal mind (God in case of Berkeley/ and Hindu philosophy of Maya and Machine main frame in case of Matrix) is always perceiving/ projecting the things as they appear to us.
In such a case it can be safely assumed without any logical contradictions that all that we see is a veil pulled over our eyes. This argument however severely undermines human mind. If this be the case then we are practically incapable of acquiring any knowledge and our sense tools are mere input devices for a dream. Science or any other stream of knowledge too cannot exist because they all are based on systematic observation. So no electricity, no magnetism, no gravity, no matter, nothing remains but just illusion.
Such idealism I don’t hold as rational. Presence of logic alone cannot hold an argument rational. It has no proof whatsoever to support it neither there is a direct cognitive evidence or authentic historical evidence to support the argument. Presence of a universal mind controlling all minds making us perceive things cannot be proven so as to conclude it as true.
It is the way of philosophy one may argue. To accept red as red has never been defining attribute of philosophy. It is however to be kept in mind that in order to proceed with our quest of knowledge, we need to accept dependence of our consciousness on the sense perception and its input. If we have a reality it is from what we perceive and without it our consciousness will simply relegate into a chaos.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
On Philosophy
As the human mind started to perceive, to understand what is around, the first thing it ever needed was a priori, some basic building blocks for furtherance of reason. Thus began philosophy. Every step further in classification, quantification and justification was philosophy. To call a color green or to identify an object round, the things we take for an all accepted truth was in the beginning just an idea of an inquisitive mind. To move further it gave rise to belief and religion. Attributing all beyond human understanding to one reason "God" (saying this I am not an atheist). As the human inquisitiveness grew, philosophy conceived another child "Science". As the Science took on the responsibility of investigating the external nature, philosophy went on to understanding the internal nature. Most of it again bifurcated as Psychology. As the quantum of knowledge grew many more branches sprouted out and gained a separate distinction. Yet there is no doubt all of human intellectual endeavor started by philosophizing. Philosophy thus is a ‘priori’ to all of human knowledge and understanding.
This concept however only glorifies philosophy but not justifies it. Its purpose and relevance today still seem unclear and vague. Does the priori once established need to be investigated and studied further? Shouldn’t philosophy retire, handing over the onerous job to other branches of investigation? Well I think yes, provided the priori is constant and not changing. It is however not the case, as the human collective conscious evolve, this priori or the established set of truth and beliefs also evolve. A good example would be that the world today believes that the earth is round while a century ego the same thought was a heresy. Same holds good for every other aspect of the human collective conscious, a constantly evolving morality, an ever changing sense of right and wrong. Philosophy spearheads this process and thus can be deemed as the very root cause of human intellectual evolution. End of this evolution nobody knows, perhaps the much harped utopia, perhaps the final amalgamation of humanity and divinity.
If such noble is the destiny of philosophy, what would be of philosophers, the numerous ranks of truth seekers? To whom we owe our today, our beliefs, our knowledge, our truth. And what will become of us who trade the same path? Will it be our destiny to unveil the ultimate truth? Well who knows, noble indeed it would be to subdue our ego, to accept for once that it might not be our fate to know the ultimate truth, the purpose and beyond. Yet, even the most learned man is not able to do so. Human ego continually trying to justify its existence makes the most ardent truth seekers stop amidst and conclude. It would be indeed the greatest pain for a traveler to know all through out that there is no end to his journey. So they stop at the greenest patch that comes across their way and settle down. Bending and molding the very reason that made them travel so long into a faith, a belief that they have ultimately found the truth they seek all along so desperately. What of those who never come across such green patches? Those who fail to compromise, conclude and get a faith go mad as Nitchze did. Torn apart between an ego which not willing to accept fate of an unsung lost traveler and a reason that’s not willing to subdue constantly defiling every conclusion they arrive upon. Yet all this toil is not in vain, for they are the starting point and the milestones for their successors. Their discoveries become the priori for the next generations. The established truth which the sharp and zealous reason of the coming generations question and thus start their journey.
Human life is indeed very short to make such long journey but what of humanity, humanity is some million years old and in good faith it has many more millions to go. Take each generation’s contribution to the human understanding, refining of the existing knowledge, their exploits with the established truth of their times, as a step in the humanity’s progress, in its evolution. I quote "Out of our ashes a greater love shall rise"-Gibran (a poet philosopher of 19th century).This alone I believe is one certain purpose of life, to yield greater life to yield greater knowledge, in short Evolution.
This concept however only glorifies philosophy but not justifies it. Its purpose and relevance today still seem unclear and vague. Does the priori once established need to be investigated and studied further? Shouldn’t philosophy retire, handing over the onerous job to other branches of investigation? Well I think yes, provided the priori is constant and not changing. It is however not the case, as the human collective conscious evolve, this priori or the established set of truth and beliefs also evolve. A good example would be that the world today believes that the earth is round while a century ego the same thought was a heresy. Same holds good for every other aspect of the human collective conscious, a constantly evolving morality, an ever changing sense of right and wrong. Philosophy spearheads this process and thus can be deemed as the very root cause of human intellectual evolution. End of this evolution nobody knows, perhaps the much harped utopia, perhaps the final amalgamation of humanity and divinity.
If such noble is the destiny of philosophy, what would be of philosophers, the numerous ranks of truth seekers? To whom we owe our today, our beliefs, our knowledge, our truth. And what will become of us who trade the same path? Will it be our destiny to unveil the ultimate truth? Well who knows, noble indeed it would be to subdue our ego, to accept for once that it might not be our fate to know the ultimate truth, the purpose and beyond. Yet, even the most learned man is not able to do so. Human ego continually trying to justify its existence makes the most ardent truth seekers stop amidst and conclude. It would be indeed the greatest pain for a traveler to know all through out that there is no end to his journey. So they stop at the greenest patch that comes across their way and settle down. Bending and molding the very reason that made them travel so long into a faith, a belief that they have ultimately found the truth they seek all along so desperately. What of those who never come across such green patches? Those who fail to compromise, conclude and get a faith go mad as Nitchze did. Torn apart between an ego which not willing to accept fate of an unsung lost traveler and a reason that’s not willing to subdue constantly defiling every conclusion they arrive upon. Yet all this toil is not in vain, for they are the starting point and the milestones for their successors. Their discoveries become the priori for the next generations. The established truth which the sharp and zealous reason of the coming generations question and thus start their journey.
Human life is indeed very short to make such long journey but what of humanity, humanity is some million years old and in good faith it has many more millions to go. Take each generation’s contribution to the human understanding, refining of the existing knowledge, their exploits with the established truth of their times, as a step in the humanity’s progress, in its evolution. I quote "Out of our ashes a greater love shall rise"-Gibran (a poet philosopher of 19th century).This alone I believe is one certain purpose of life, to yield greater life to yield greater knowledge, in short Evolution.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
