The first time I heard about it, I thought that "social engineering" was a fictional phrase. That was when I was young and naive, knowing nothing about the outside world. At that time, the phrase feel so strong, so oppressive, so dictating. So evil. Yet I went on with my life thinking that such phrase doesn't apply in real life. Well, as you can see, I was wrong.
I don't dwell deeper into the concept of social engineering. All I know is that "social engineering" refers to a method of influencing the society, usually by government policies. And I know very well that social engineering can be for a good cause, or even necessary in some cases.
Yet it vexes me how the naive me conceive such a concept as villainous, close to dictatorship. Call me self-centered, but I think the fact that something gave me a strong first impression might be worth thinking further. In a world where democracy is valued, people learn that freedom is a good thing, and they (we) were taught this since young. And the phrasing "social engineering" perhaps tugged my subconsciousness as an enemy to the concept of freedom. After all, "engineering" is essentially control, a term so related to modification: so rigid, so lacking in freedom (or even perhaps, in humanity.)
On the other end of the phrase is something of us: "social." It's between people, between creatures of freedom. It may also perhaps be an aspect of our lives so random, an aspect upon which we have not total control of (for it is of people, and thus, of their freedom), and it is perhaps what makes it so pleasantly surprising, so full of colours, so human. "Social" is about us, after all.
And that may be the reason bringing the two terms next to each other is nothing less than contradictory.
I am aware that some form (or extent) of control in everything might not always be bad. However, for the naive me, social engineering means that even the times that we can treasure, memories we create, are a result (or even worse: a side effect) of some of these engineers pulling some strings. Even if we are happy that we could share a chocolate cake with our loved ones, it might be vexing to notice, or merely question, how much of these times are determined by someone else; how much of us as the social being is deprived from the very act of social decisions. Yet why, despite all these thoughts, are chocolate cakes still more delicious shared?
Saturday, 25 October 2014
Saturday, 13 September 2014
To Spread Your Faith, Your Philosophy, and Yourselves
This may seem like something my colleague, Alexios Fidei, would write, but in fact this is very controversial to Alexios, especially about my what he called 'over-simplification' of evangelism and faith. He thinks that faith should not be reduced to a mechanism or hierarchical levels, but anyway this is my views, Severinus de Psedosolipsist's views as a 'heterodox' Christian.
There are three things that people want to spread in this world, their faith i.e. their personal relation to God, their philosophy, which includes their metaphysical beliefs, ethics and political ideals, and they want to spread themselves, i.e. their seeds and genes or names to "live forever".
These three things reside in three levels, at the top faith, then philosophy, and at the bottom themselves. These three levels are connected in many ways and their order are non-switchable.
First, one who has attained the ability to will to spread the higher levels can attain the levels bellow it. One who has faith can spread faith and his philosophy and himself. One who has not attained faith can only spread his philosophy and himself. One who do not think about anything and void of any personally serious-held beliefs, only can and only want to spread himself.
The relation described above is caused by this, the object of each levels have different distances to the man. The lowest level only has himself as the object, he need not reach for anything. The second level has ideas which he created/discovered which is within his grasp and this requires an effort in his part. The highest level can only be attained through a truly relational personal connection to God, he needs to focus on another person, God. This is why it is very easy to find those people who wants to spread their seeds to everyone. It is harder to see people who truly want others to adopt his beliefs. And harder still to find those who wants to spread the good news of God.
The next relation between the levels is that each level can be expressed by a perversion of the higher levels, this is wrong. This is usually the case when one has not attained the higher levels and yet try imitate them. When one has only reached the second level, he can "spread his faith" by spreading his own idea of God for the sake of the idea alone and not bringing people to God. This purely idea God without the person is the imitation of God, sometimes they use the word life force or the personified 'universe'. When one is at the lowest level, one can spread his bogus ideas just to be famous so his name stays forever or worse start a cult or a religious movement for his own glory or even worse so that he can spread his seeds. Or spread his interpretation of God for his own fame, a less dramatic scenario. This is the perversions and can be seen quite easily seen in this present age. This upward arrow, the bottom becomes the motivation for the imitations of the higher levels, is the corruption of the true relation, the higher should be the motivation for the bottom.
A person who has a personal relation to the Divine, will want to spread his understanding of God so that others can draw close to God. He will want to spread his ethics, which is in the second level, not only for the sake of the ethical idea alone but so that people will be right with God. And to fulfill God's commandment he would want to be fruitful and multiply, some would want to (i have nothing against voluntary celibacy). And some would want others to know them so that others can know God, the bottom level. This is the correct arrow, the downward arrow.
Lastly the levels illustrate how much caution should be given when spreading each levels. At the highest level, faith should be spread to anyone, without any exception. Everyone should hear the good news of God. The second level should be approached with more caution. One cannot spread his philosophical beliefs indiscriminately, as this can harm one's chances to know God as our philosophical views may not be correct and may be too harsh to some. The last part needs extra caution, one can only produce offspring within the institution of marriage and one should be wary of making his name known to the world.
To add-on the higher levels can be attained without the lower levels. An the highest level, by the grace of God, can be attained by anyone.
There are three things that people want to spread in this world, their faith i.e. their personal relation to God, their philosophy, which includes their metaphysical beliefs, ethics and political ideals, and they want to spread themselves, i.e. their seeds and genes or names to "live forever".
These three things reside in three levels, at the top faith, then philosophy, and at the bottom themselves. These three levels are connected in many ways and their order are non-switchable.
First, one who has attained the ability to will to spread the higher levels can attain the levels bellow it. One who has faith can spread faith and his philosophy and himself. One who has not attained faith can only spread his philosophy and himself. One who do not think about anything and void of any personally serious-held beliefs, only can and only want to spread himself.
The relation described above is caused by this, the object of each levels have different distances to the man. The lowest level only has himself as the object, he need not reach for anything. The second level has ideas which he created/discovered which is within his grasp and this requires an effort in his part. The highest level can only be attained through a truly relational personal connection to God, he needs to focus on another person, God. This is why it is very easy to find those people who wants to spread their seeds to everyone. It is harder to see people who truly want others to adopt his beliefs. And harder still to find those who wants to spread the good news of God.
The next relation between the levels is that each level can be expressed by a perversion of the higher levels, this is wrong. This is usually the case when one has not attained the higher levels and yet try imitate them. When one has only reached the second level, he can "spread his faith" by spreading his own idea of God for the sake of the idea alone and not bringing people to God. This purely idea God without the person is the imitation of God, sometimes they use the word life force or the personified 'universe'. When one is at the lowest level, one can spread his bogus ideas just to be famous so his name stays forever or worse start a cult or a religious movement for his own glory or even worse so that he can spread his seeds. Or spread his interpretation of God for his own fame, a less dramatic scenario. This is the perversions and can be seen quite easily seen in this present age. This upward arrow, the bottom becomes the motivation for the imitations of the higher levels, is the corruption of the true relation, the higher should be the motivation for the bottom.
A person who has a personal relation to the Divine, will want to spread his understanding of God so that others can draw close to God. He will want to spread his ethics, which is in the second level, not only for the sake of the ethical idea alone but so that people will be right with God. And to fulfill God's commandment he would want to be fruitful and multiply, some would want to (i have nothing against voluntary celibacy). And some would want others to know them so that others can know God, the bottom level. This is the correct arrow, the downward arrow.
Lastly the levels illustrate how much caution should be given when spreading each levels. At the highest level, faith should be spread to anyone, without any exception. Everyone should hear the good news of God. The second level should be approached with more caution. One cannot spread his philosophical beliefs indiscriminately, as this can harm one's chances to know God as our philosophical views may not be correct and may be too harsh to some. The last part needs extra caution, one can only produce offspring within the institution of marriage and one should be wary of making his name known to the world.
To add-on the higher levels can be attained without the lower levels. An the highest level, by the grace of God, can be attained by anyone.
Tuesday, 9 September 2014
Pizza?
Pizza? What makes a pizza a pizza. What defines a pizza. What is the essence of a pizza. Do pizzas even exist spatio-temporally, or is it just an abstract construct of the human mind. Is there a floating great marvelous ideal pizza (perhaps a margherita) in Plato's realm of forms. What impact does the concept of pizza has on human consciousness? How does the idea of pizza and the idea of the self interact?
"Pizza is such a complicated concept!" exclaimed Gaius D'Anzio.
"All that is round is pizza." Gaius told his followers, and thus was born the Gaian School in the philosophy of pizza.
From this simple claim that all is round is pizza, great diversity of thought emerged. New questions were asked. Why are some pizzas called pizzas by the crowd and some are not, the Gaian-Gnostics claimed their hidden knowledge of pizzaism (I would prefer the knowledge of a hidden pizza). The progressive pizza-linguists assert that the idea of pizza is embedded in the words describing pizzas but the word pizzas are slowly absorbed into the names now known as pseudo-non-pizzas such as coins (used to be pizzoins) or wheels (used to be pizzeels), and people do think of pizzas when they say coins. Linguists call this contrapizza syllable shift. Some of course are just skeptical about the ability of human reason to comprehend the pizzaism in these pseudo-non-pizzas.
But what about round holes? asked Gettierius. The Gettierius problem suddenly shook the world of Gaian philosophy. A massive exodus of thinkers from the Gaian School to the social movement of the square pizza makers or the SPM. The SPM's mptto, All that is round is not Pizza. The SPM who are mostly anti-gaians started to mock the Gaians by baking square pizzas. The faithful Gaians remain. Some claimed that yes, a hole is a pizza and not the absence of pizza. Others say that a hole is an anti-pizza, or just mere absence of a pizza (the condition of my stomach now, how sad).
The Gaian natural philosophers of pizzaism bring forth the theory of pizza atomism. They claim that SPM would never truly create a non round pizza because pizza consists of pizquarks which is always round, thus pizza will still be round, at least at the atomic level.
Gettierius laughed at the mess he caused by uttering a simple question
"No, a round hole is pizza but it is not a pizza." Gettierius answered his own question in a paper.
Unfortunately before every Gaians and Gaian apostates were reconciled Gettierius died.
First of many of joke posts. After all The Colosseum is not only for philosophical short expositions, it is for any thoughts.
Wednesday, 9 July 2014
Nothing
Some asks whether true nothingness instead of something possible. The correct question should be whether nothingness is conceivable. Or describable (sometimes it is easier to describe).
Let us try to describe nothingness. Scientifically inclined person will often think about the absence of material or energy within a space-time. But this is not nothingness as there is still space. Now what if there is no space, then there will still be laws of physics.
What if there is no laws of physics or mathematical truths or even ethical law. Or even metalaws which governs these laws. This will not be true nothingness either.
Regardless of how well you eliminated all conceivable concepts and forms from nothingness, it still will not be true nothingness. The truth of nothingness being nothingness means that there is a truth attached to nothingness which makes nothingness not true nothingness.
In fact, if you describe nothingness there will be properties attached to nothingness, and true nothingness is void of properties, because properties describe something and when nothingness become something, it cease to be nothing. Nothingness is a paradox.
What can we say about nothingness is. Do you understand (I did not even put a double period there)?
Maybe what we can say about nothingness is nothing is nothing. But nothingness having a name itself is a property. Saying nothingness is an offence to nothingness.
Why it is not conceivable is because we always conceive something. To conceive is to conceive something, just like to think is to think a thought. Thinking about it is an offence to nothingness.
True nothingness is not approachable, it is beyond our reason.
Have you noticed the parallel between God (as a concept) and nothingness? If God is the absolute existence as a respected colleague of mine often say, then nothingness is the opposite of God, he is the anti-God. They are both inconceivable. Beyond the realm of man. We know them only by name. One has His existence as His Essence is His Existence, therefore self-sufficient. The Other
Let us try to describe nothingness. Scientifically inclined person will often think about the absence of material or energy within a space-time. But this is not nothingness as there is still space. Now what if there is no space, then there will still be laws of physics.
What if there is no laws of physics or mathematical truths or even ethical law. Or even metalaws which governs these laws. This will not be true nothingness either.
Regardless of how well you eliminated all conceivable concepts and forms from nothingness, it still will not be true nothingness. The truth of nothingness being nothingness means that there is a truth attached to nothingness which makes nothingness not true nothingness.
In fact, if you describe nothingness there will be properties attached to nothingness, and true nothingness is void of properties, because properties describe something and when nothingness become something, it cease to be nothing. Nothingness is a paradox.
What can we say about nothingness is. Do you understand (I did not even put a double period there)?
Maybe what we can say about nothingness is nothing is nothing. But nothingness having a name itself is a property. Saying nothingness is an offence to nothingness.
Why it is not conceivable is because we always conceive something. To conceive is to conceive something, just like to think is to think a thought. Thinking about it is an offence to nothingness.
True nothingness is not approachable, it is beyond our reason.
Have you noticed the parallel between God (as a concept) and nothingness? If God is the absolute existence as a respected colleague of mine often say, then nothingness is the opposite of God, he is the anti-God. They are both inconceivable. Beyond the realm of man. We know them only by name. One has His existence as His Essence is His Existence, therefore self-sufficient. The Other
Tuesday, 8 July 2014
Free Will and Memory
Some neurological studies suggests that our choices occur milliseconds before we realise we make them. This leads many people to hard determinism.
Now Consider the scenario
A man woke up at night, conscious, wrote the letter A on a table. He fell asleep. He woke up. He looked at the letter A and could not remember writing it. He said to himself that he was not conscious when he wrote it, he sleepwalked.
Let we call the man's Self or consciousness during the first period of conscious actions (i.e. when he wrote the letter A) X and during the second period (i.e. when he looked at the letter A) Y.
We can say that Y is not conscious during the actions of X, therefore his statement that he was not conscious is right. The sets of beliefs that Y has makes up his Self, and memory affects his sets of beliefs. Y did not do the actions of X 'freely', he was 'determined' by the will of X. Y did it nevertheless because X and Y has the same shell of identity.
We can say that Y has not acted 'freely', but we cannot say that the man has not acted freely. The man acted consciously and 'freely' as X although he was not aware of it as Y. The man is the aggregate of X and Y and therefore the man is conscious and 'free' throughout.
This analogy can be applied to the information that our choices is determined milliseconds before we realise we are making the choices. Our memory and hence sets of beliefs say that we 'made' the choices after the choices are apparently determined, but that does not necessarily mean that we did not make the choices. There may be X and Y components of our consciousness. They need not be different temporal instances of our consciousness, although they may be, but they are elements of our Self nonetheless. We may make our choices while we are not aware, and we may be aware when we are not making the choices. This illustrates how we can still be free, but it is not a proof of us being free.
Now Consider the scenario
A man woke up at night, conscious, wrote the letter A on a table. He fell asleep. He woke up. He looked at the letter A and could not remember writing it. He said to himself that he was not conscious when he wrote it, he sleepwalked.
Let we call the man's Self or consciousness during the first period of conscious actions (i.e. when he wrote the letter A) X and during the second period (i.e. when he looked at the letter A) Y.
We can say that Y is not conscious during the actions of X, therefore his statement that he was not conscious is right. The sets of beliefs that Y has makes up his Self, and memory affects his sets of beliefs. Y did not do the actions of X 'freely', he was 'determined' by the will of X. Y did it nevertheless because X and Y has the same shell of identity.
We can say that Y has not acted 'freely', but we cannot say that the man has not acted freely. The man acted consciously and 'freely' as X although he was not aware of it as Y. The man is the aggregate of X and Y and therefore the man is conscious and 'free' throughout.
This analogy can be applied to the information that our choices is determined milliseconds before we realise we are making the choices. Our memory and hence sets of beliefs say that we 'made' the choices after the choices are apparently determined, but that does not necessarily mean that we did not make the choices. There may be X and Y components of our consciousness. They need not be different temporal instances of our consciousness, although they may be, but they are elements of our Self nonetheless. We may make our choices while we are not aware, and we may be aware when we are not making the choices. This illustrates how we can still be free, but it is not a proof of us being free.
Monday, 7 July 2014
Criteria for a Truth Claim
Some say that Truth itself is unknowable and therefore it is absurd to try to claim a belief as true. Others, naturalists and theists alike, say that they have attained truth, they claim their set of beliefs as the Truth. So what must be the nature of a truth claim (TC) be?(and by truth claim i mean the claim of a worldview to be true) Truth itself may be unknowable, but there are criteria which must be fulfilled for a truth claim (TC) to have the probability of being true.
C1
The first criterion is absoluteness, a TC must be an absolute claim. God (as a concrete metaphysical being) can either exist or do not exist, he cannot exist for some people and do not exist for other people. This may be a real claim (RC), that for some people God is real, but it is not a TC. A TC will say that a concrete metaphysical God exist or He does not exist.
Some will say that light is both a particle and a wave, this is not an absolute claim and yet it is true, hence God may exist and does not exist at the same time, maybe like quantum physics, our perception matters.
First we have to examine the TC that Light is a particle. A particle traditionally is not a wave by definition. Since light exhibit wave like properties, light is not a particle by our traditional definition, therefore the TC that light is a particle is not true.
Second we examine the TC that light is a wave. Traditionally wave is not a particle. Since it exhibits particle like properties, it is not a wave. Therefore this TC is also not true.
The correct TC according to our current understanding is that light is a whole new thing altogether which is neither a particle nor a wave, and this claim is absolute. The truth will be that light is this whole new thing or it is not this whole new thing.
C2
The second criterion is Coherence. A whole set of belief can only be a TC if all the constituent TCs does not contradict each other. Given that our rational faculties are correct (otherwise thinking itself is absurd and epistemological solipsism is inevitable) or reliable to some degree, that it can be considered as a tool to think about the truth. Since one claim can make another claim impossible, then a claim must not contradict itself or else the claim will be impossible altogether.
A TC is all-encompassing and all constituent TCs make up the TC. Therefore a contradiction between the constituent TCs will be a self-contradiction of the TC. A self-contradiction is an impossibility. An impossible claim cannot be a TC.
e.g. One's ethics and epistemology must not contradict one's metaphysics. Naturalists cannot say that there is an abstract set of rules of moral right and wrong which is a concrete abstract object.
However, this criteria may be suspended by C3, elaborated in the next part.
C3
The third criterion is that there must be room for the unexplained (RFU). RFU can suspend C2 by saying that the apparent contradiction lies in the RFU, therefore the apparent contradiction is not a true contradiction and therefore it fulfills C2. RFU suspends C2 not removing the necessity of C2.
To understand why RFU is necessary consider this scenario. We are given five multiple choice questions, with options A B C D, but we can only read four of them. We can only get all questions correct if we answer the four questions correctly and we guess the fifth question correctly. We must guess without explanation, we know that we cannot know question number 5 but we have to guess anyway if we want to get all questions correctly. If we only guess the things that we can explain, we will only be attempting four questions and we will have a zero probability of getting all the questions correct.
Now consider this, if question number four is dependent on all the other questions, i.e. number 1 2 3 and 5, and
the answer without considering 5 is A and
if 5 is A then 4 is B
if 5 is B then 4 is B
if 5 is C then 4 is C
if 5 is D then 4 is D,
Then to answer number four with A is a definite wrong, we would have a better chance to guess between B C D, although without considering number 5, 4 is definitely A
Lastly let us consider another rules for scoring, every correct answer is given one mark, a wrong answer is given minus one mark and all the questions are independent of each other.
If we answer the first four questions correctly we get four marks. If we blindly choose number 5 we have a one fourth chance of getting all questions right and three quarter chance of getting 3 marks which is lower than if we do not attempt question 5. Therefore not attempting 5 will give a better chance of getting a higher score, but you will have zero probability of getting all the questions right. Therefore not attempting 5 is a better RC than attempting, but it cannot be a TC, since a TC must have the probability of being true.
Although the relationship between different questions in life may be arguable, human ability is almost certainly limited, and hence there will always be that fifth question that we cannot read. And attempting that question is a must if we are to make a TC.
C1
The first criterion is absoluteness, a TC must be an absolute claim. God (as a concrete metaphysical being) can either exist or do not exist, he cannot exist for some people and do not exist for other people. This may be a real claim (RC), that for some people God is real, but it is not a TC. A TC will say that a concrete metaphysical God exist or He does not exist.
Some will say that light is both a particle and a wave, this is not an absolute claim and yet it is true, hence God may exist and does not exist at the same time, maybe like quantum physics, our perception matters.
First we have to examine the TC that Light is a particle. A particle traditionally is not a wave by definition. Since light exhibit wave like properties, light is not a particle by our traditional definition, therefore the TC that light is a particle is not true.
Second we examine the TC that light is a wave. Traditionally wave is not a particle. Since it exhibits particle like properties, it is not a wave. Therefore this TC is also not true.
The correct TC according to our current understanding is that light is a whole new thing altogether which is neither a particle nor a wave, and this claim is absolute. The truth will be that light is this whole new thing or it is not this whole new thing.
C2
The second criterion is Coherence. A whole set of belief can only be a TC if all the constituent TCs does not contradict each other. Given that our rational faculties are correct (otherwise thinking itself is absurd and epistemological solipsism is inevitable) or reliable to some degree, that it can be considered as a tool to think about the truth. Since one claim can make another claim impossible, then a claim must not contradict itself or else the claim will be impossible altogether.
A TC is all-encompassing and all constituent TCs make up the TC. Therefore a contradiction between the constituent TCs will be a self-contradiction of the TC. A self-contradiction is an impossibility. An impossible claim cannot be a TC.
e.g. One's ethics and epistemology must not contradict one's metaphysics. Naturalists cannot say that there is an abstract set of rules of moral right and wrong which is a concrete abstract object.
However, this criteria may be suspended by C3, elaborated in the next part.
C3
The third criterion is that there must be room for the unexplained (RFU). RFU can suspend C2 by saying that the apparent contradiction lies in the RFU, therefore the apparent contradiction is not a true contradiction and therefore it fulfills C2. RFU suspends C2 not removing the necessity of C2.
To understand why RFU is necessary consider this scenario. We are given five multiple choice questions, with options A B C D, but we can only read four of them. We can only get all questions correct if we answer the four questions correctly and we guess the fifth question correctly. We must guess without explanation, we know that we cannot know question number 5 but we have to guess anyway if we want to get all questions correctly. If we only guess the things that we can explain, we will only be attempting four questions and we will have a zero probability of getting all the questions correct.
Now consider this, if question number four is dependent on all the other questions, i.e. number 1 2 3 and 5, and
the answer without considering 5 is A and
if 5 is A then 4 is B
if 5 is B then 4 is B
if 5 is C then 4 is C
if 5 is D then 4 is D,
Then to answer number four with A is a definite wrong, we would have a better chance to guess between B C D, although without considering number 5, 4 is definitely A
Lastly let us consider another rules for scoring, every correct answer is given one mark, a wrong answer is given minus one mark and all the questions are independent of each other.
If we answer the first four questions correctly we get four marks. If we blindly choose number 5 we have a one fourth chance of getting all questions right and three quarter chance of getting 3 marks which is lower than if we do not attempt question 5. Therefore not attempting 5 will give a better chance of getting a higher score, but you will have zero probability of getting all the questions right. Therefore not attempting 5 is a better RC than attempting, but it cannot be a TC, since a TC must have the probability of being true.
Although the relationship between different questions in life may be arguable, human ability is almost certainly limited, and hence there will always be that fifth question that we cannot read. And attempting that question is a must if we are to make a TC.
Thursday, 3 July 2014
Knowledge and The Crowd
Knowledge nowadays has become a crowd-centered process, to convince people to accept something as true via empirical evidence (sciences) and/or logical reasoning. Maieutics is long forgotten. The enlightenment part of knowledge has become unfashionable, indeed the word 'enlightenment' nowadays is more closely related to spiritual hippies rather than to intellectuals. This stems from the diminishing recognition of knowledge as acquiring a fraction of the one absolute truth. 'Knowledge' itself is not knowledge of the truth, but a means to convince the crowd to a certain proposition. Knowledge without truth is not knowledge, as knowledge by definition is knowing something and if there is no something out there, there is no knowing it. Imbeciles of the modern world claim illogically that the truth is always relative, everything is relative, the truth of their mothers being human is a matter of opinion then, they should accept if i disagree with them. The truth is not relative it is absolute, a number can only be an integer or not an integer. The truth is absolute. To sense a touch of this truth must be our goal. The objective of positing a theory must be to claim the truth of it, not just to become a widely accepted proposition. Not just to convince the crowd. Why would they even want to convince the crowd? The crowd is untruth
Tuesday, 24 June 2014
Rationalism Over Empiricism
What is weak about Empiricism is this : the basis of empiricism cannot be derived from observation. One cannot see that what one sees is true. One can only assume. Is this not relying on one's a priori knowledge?
Rationalism on the other hand allows for some basic beliefs, that a priori knowledge. Rationalists can say that it is rational to hold all that is logical is true. Therefore not self-contradictory.
Rationalism on the other hand allows for some basic beliefs, that a priori knowledge. Rationalists can say that it is rational to hold all that is logical is true. Therefore not self-contradictory.
Saturday, 21 June 2014
Argument: Rationalism or Empiricism
An issue that has been bothering me for a while is that which take on an argument should be used: rationalism or empiricism.
Rationalism is, in the simplest explanation, knowledge that is gained by deriving it from basic knowledge or assumptions. In essence, you can sit down and think about it yourself to arrive at the answer you're looking for. I think one of the assumption here is that everything can be derived from something else.
Empiricism is, on the other hand, knowledge gained from observation and sensory experience. Many a times the results that are observed are not questioned, and accepted as truth. If we are not to question our own senses, it makes sense that what has happened cannot be denied or rebutted.
In many arguments, I tend to favor rationalism, which possess some problems because it seems that many people would rather believe what they had already seen, what had already "proven". Rationalism appears to be more convincing, and it's comforting in my opinion, to know that the worlds is understandable instead of undeniable.
What annoys me the most is when people argue about something as if it was irrefutable and is but something to be accepted, or to put it simply, "that's just how it works." Sure, there are many instances in which this is true, but from my experience at least, many a times this has been overused to describe a generalization of the fact. And it is convenient that it is used as such, for the arguing party, since once some main arguments became basic assumption, the end is clearly seen. It just doesn't seem to be so convincing, to be honest.
Rationalism is, in the simplest explanation, knowledge that is gained by deriving it from basic knowledge or assumptions. In essence, you can sit down and think about it yourself to arrive at the answer you're looking for. I think one of the assumption here is that everything can be derived from something else.
Empiricism is, on the other hand, knowledge gained from observation and sensory experience. Many a times the results that are observed are not questioned, and accepted as truth. If we are not to question our own senses, it makes sense that what has happened cannot be denied or rebutted.
In many arguments, I tend to favor rationalism, which possess some problems because it seems that many people would rather believe what they had already seen, what had already "proven". Rationalism appears to be more convincing, and it's comforting in my opinion, to know that the worlds is understandable instead of undeniable.
What annoys me the most is when people argue about something as if it was irrefutable and is but something to be accepted, or to put it simply, "that's just how it works." Sure, there are many instances in which this is true, but from my experience at least, many a times this has been overused to describe a generalization of the fact. And it is convenient that it is used as such, for the arguing party, since once some main arguments became basic assumption, the end is clearly seen. It just doesn't seem to be so convincing, to be honest.
Friday, 23 May 2014
My Reflection as the Core of Existence
If solipsism is true, the core of all physical existence is my own reflection.
If solipsism is true, the physical world is a projection of my unconscious, all of it reflects my self. My self consists of my unconscious and my psyche. My psyche is me, the conscious thinking me which exists independently,the part of me which says "cogito ergo sum", my thinking is me.
The physical world and observations which is not me is an illusion. But from all these illusions there is one that stands out, the reflection of my physical body, and to a lesser extent my shadow, collectively called my reflection. My reflection is the most real of all things more real than 'things' and 'humans'. My reflection is the projection of me in the physical world, it is what 'defines' me visually. As everything that appears to exist centers around my unconscious, and hence my self. My reflection is the core of all illusions, it is more real than all other illusions.
Although in optics it is said that my image is virtual and not real,i.e. in the mirror, whereas things outside (or my observations) are considered 'real'; It is more real than other observations, yes my reflection is more real than 'you', because it is the unconscious projection of my psyche. My psyche is the essence of all things. So my reflection is the core of all physical existence.
And this is why my reflection amazes me.
This is narcissism to a whole new level.
If solipsism is true, the physical world is a projection of my unconscious, all of it reflects my self. My self consists of my unconscious and my psyche. My psyche is me, the conscious thinking me which exists independently,the part of me which says "cogito ergo sum", my thinking is me.
The physical world and observations which is not me is an illusion. But from all these illusions there is one that stands out, the reflection of my physical body, and to a lesser extent my shadow, collectively called my reflection. My reflection is the most real of all things more real than 'things' and 'humans'. My reflection is the projection of me in the physical world, it is what 'defines' me visually. As everything that appears to exist centers around my unconscious, and hence my self. My reflection is the core of all illusions, it is more real than all other illusions.
Although in optics it is said that my image is virtual and not real,i.e. in the mirror, whereas things outside (or my observations) are considered 'real'; It is more real than other observations, yes my reflection is more real than 'you', because it is the unconscious projection of my psyche. My psyche is the essence of all things. So my reflection is the core of all physical existence.
And this is why my reflection amazes me.
This is narcissism to a whole new level.
Thursday, 15 May 2014
Truth and Reality : Definition
When I talk about Truth and Reality, I am referring to two completely different ideas, and my usage of these two words is as far as possible strict.
Reality is what is real to you, whatever that you consider real. An illusion can be real but its reality can be affected by reason. There can be multiple realms of reality, one above the others, and hence one is more real than the others or there can be realities that are not connected in any way, one of them being an illusion. And indeed every different reality have different degree of reality, and there is one absolute reality, which is the Truth. Thus the degree of reality is a reality's relation to the Truth.
Therefore whereas Reality is relative, Truth is absolute, Truth is the only one Absolute.
Reality is what is real to you, whatever that you consider real. An illusion can be real but its reality can be affected by reason. There can be multiple realms of reality, one above the others, and hence one is more real than the others or there can be realities that are not connected in any way, one of them being an illusion. And indeed every different reality have different degree of reality, and there is one absolute reality, which is the Truth. Thus the degree of reality is a reality's relation to the Truth.
Therefore whereas Reality is relative, Truth is absolute, Truth is the only one Absolute.
Empirical Perspective on Free Will
If we take an empirical point of view in which our ideas and concepts all derive from our observations, the relationship between Free Will and Determinism seems interesting.
Free Will is derived from the act of simply choosing, or you may say the illusion of making conscious decisions (depending on your position regarding Free Will). Or in other words Free Will is the extrapolation of our observation of a decision making act. To make things clearer, consider this, we observe numbers and large numbers, hence there is a concept of large numbers and we extrapolate this idea saying that there is an extremely large number the googol and there is the abstract idea of infinity, although we never observe this. This illustrates how the concept of Free Will may be generated empirically.
If Free Will is only a derivative concept and since the observation which it derives from is true, that yes there is an act of choosing in my world, then the idea cannot be simply dismissed, you cannot say that there is no free will.
This of course does not deal with the nature of free will.
Determinism can still be true. If determinism is true then the act of choosing is determined and not a conscious act. Then freewill becomes a subset of determinism since the act of simply choosing is a product of determinism, be it Divine or mechanistic.
This is not dealing with the well defined metaphysical concept of free will, but with our idea of free will, the free will shape that our mind has. This is what we can deal with naturally without any effort on studying what others define free will as. This is our Natural Empirical Free Will Thought Shape.
Free Will is derived from the act of simply choosing, or you may say the illusion of making conscious decisions (depending on your position regarding Free Will). Or in other words Free Will is the extrapolation of our observation of a decision making act. To make things clearer, consider this, we observe numbers and large numbers, hence there is a concept of large numbers and we extrapolate this idea saying that there is an extremely large number the googol and there is the abstract idea of infinity, although we never observe this. This illustrates how the concept of Free Will may be generated empirically.
If Free Will is only a derivative concept and since the observation which it derives from is true, that yes there is an act of choosing in my world, then the idea cannot be simply dismissed, you cannot say that there is no free will.
This of course does not deal with the nature of free will.
Determinism can still be true. If determinism is true then the act of choosing is determined and not a conscious act. Then freewill becomes a subset of determinism since the act of simply choosing is a product of determinism, be it Divine or mechanistic.
This is not dealing with the well defined metaphysical concept of free will, but with our idea of free will, the free will shape that our mind has. This is what we can deal with naturally without any effort on studying what others define free will as. This is our Natural Empirical Free Will Thought Shape.
Wednesday, 14 May 2014
The Reason for Colosseum
"The true nature of reason is such an abstract concept. One that is beyond human mind, or any derivative mind in that matter." - Severinus Pseudosolipsist, 2014
Many would find it rather irrelevant to question one that is already determined abstract, and since it is already beyond us, it is entirely useless to pursue knowledge in such a path. We don't think so. My good friend Pseudosolipsist always mentions about how the purpose of humanity is to advance closer to the truth, no matter how far, no matter how impossible it may seem. Our pursuit may behave like an exponential function approaching assymptote that is true: always nearing, never reaching, yet closer regardless. After all, aren't we all here, in the age of advanced technology and questioning consciousness, as a result of our predecessors continuous effort on learning the basic nature of things and questioning what seemed ridiculous at their point in time? These "leap of faith" are, in my opinion, of essence.
The colosseum is essentially a platform for us to note down our thoughts, our leaps, our attempts at reaching the unreachable. It might be the dumbest, reckless idiot that entered the colosseum to show how insignificant he truly is. It might be the most daring and most challenging of thoughts that entered the colosseum, standing for what it really believe is true until the last breath. And you, you are the audience sitting from the seemingly higher ground, watching, analyzing, judging, for the life of a gladiators also depend on the direction your thumbs are pointing at. In the end, it is the beast that are before him, the audiences shouting insults and singing praises for him, and the others fighting for the same purpose, that will truly shape a gladiator into his truest form. These gladiators are our ideas, and for such a purpose the Colosseum of Reason exists.
So let it be known that the battle has begun. May those worthy of progress stand tall.
Greggory Kygrykhon & Severinus Pseudosololipsist
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)