Thursday, October 4, 2007
Living with Big Brother....
I just wrote a post about a particularly frustrating interaction I had earlier today with someone who seemed to lack the ability to reason. In my mind, it was a pretty humorous story, but the lack of privacy on the Internet just dawned on me in a much more salient way than it ever had in the past. I realized that I had to censor myself due to a variety of reasons, and its not a feeling that I like.
There's this stream...
I have to get up extremely early in the morning in order to get to the school where I work. I have to get there earlier than most teachers, because I have to meet the busses to help a disabled girl get off in the mornings. At first this really bummed me out, because I’m not generally a morning person. I would get to school just before Dawn, with her rose red fingers, would pull the upper crescent of the sun above the tips of the trees. The other day, however, I realized that this really is the most serene time of my day. Acres of open farmland are spread out behind the school, and when I’m lucky the tones of water that are pumped from the irrigation machines will capture and reflect the first light of dawn back to me as they rain down on the crops that will eventually make it to my plate and become one with my body. I like to think about how close that gets me to the dawn.
There is also this stream that runs behind the school. I have never seen it directly, but on nice cool mornings I can see this snake of mist that rises up between the trees. I like to imagine what the stream looks like, without ever going to see it directly.
All of this also reminded me of this Robert Frost Poem that I came across in a book recently:
Nature’s first green is gold
Her hardest hue to hold
Her early leaf’s a flower
But only so an hour
Then leaf subsides to leaf
And Eden sank to grief
Dawn subsides to day
Nothing gold can stay
I like potentials more than actualities. The verdict is still out on whether or not that’s a good thing.
There is also this stream that runs behind the school. I have never seen it directly, but on nice cool mornings I can see this snake of mist that rises up between the trees. I like to imagine what the stream looks like, without ever going to see it directly.
All of this also reminded me of this Robert Frost Poem that I came across in a book recently:
Nature’s first green is gold
Her hardest hue to hold
Her early leaf’s a flower
But only so an hour
Then leaf subsides to leaf
And Eden sank to grief
Dawn subsides to day
Nothing gold can stay
I like potentials more than actualities. The verdict is still out on whether or not that’s a good thing.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
If you are reading this… You don’t exist
(This concept was taken from an article I wrote for a school newspaper a few years back. However that article has been lost in the annals of the Washington College Elm archives. I wrote this by the seat of my pants… though due to its thesis, I suppose that no apology is necessary)
I’m terribly sorry to have to inform you in this way, but it appears that if I am to strictly follow reason in pursuit of epistemological infallibility based on direct experiential knowledge I cannot conclude with any significant degree of certainty that you exist as anything aside from a projection of my own mind. That’s, right. I’m a solipsist, and there is nothing you can do to conclusively prove me wrong (And in case you were attempting to do so by pointing out my use of different pronouns in the previous sentence… don’t worry, I’ll cover that base).
Lets start at the beginning. Descartes--the founder of modern philosophy. At the time that Descartes was writing, epistemology was founded on authority, which at this time, referred to the church and Aristotelian physics (which were deemed to be inoffensive to the church for a manifold of reasons). Descartes discarded this method obeying of authority and opted to ‘build a new house [of knowledge]’ as it were. Seeking to create a new epistemology that was founded on and individual ‘conducting one’s reason well’ Descartes employed his method of radical skepticism to destroy the old belief systems. He eventually settled upon the now-famous axiom of “I think therefore I am” as the only principle that he could accept with epistemological certainty—as it is self-evident (The very act of doubting proves that he is a thinking thing, and therefore must exist).
Descartes, however, had hit a dead end. He realized that he had fallen down a solipsistic rabbit-hole—a condition that he could not accept. To rectify this, he posited “God” in order to regain the world. However, later in the meditations he provides seemingly fallacious arguments for the existence of god; thus leaving that principle open to rejection via the very system he was espousing. I am unconvinced that Descartes is able to truly find away out of the solipsistic rabbit-hole that he found himself in, and so, I will adhere to his method and cogito ergo sum axiom, though by adhering faithfully to his method I must reject the god that saved the external world for Descartes.
**clearly, a much more in-depth exploration of Descartes’ writings would clear up any misunderstandings regarding this theme (I do actually believe that there is another was out of Descartes’ solipsism—but this is not the intent of this piece). Additionally, due to the transient nature of my current living conditions, my copy of the meditations is inaccessible, so I was unable to back this up with direct quotations**
Now, if I am to accept the cogito, it must seem clear that I must accept that it was written by a being external to myself (IE: Descartes) and therefore I cannot be a solipsist. Incorrect. I am bounded by my subjectivity, so while I can say conclusively that I am aware of the cogito, this awareness proves nothing of its relationship to my subjectivity be it internal or external. In fact, if I am to adhere closely to Descartes’ axiom and method it seems more likely that my awareness stems from my own consciousness rather than any external influence. Thus, Descartes, the cogito, the method, my keyboard, and you, are all manifestations of my subjectivity.
This might cause you to balk, as I appear to interact with “people” on a daily basis. However, it is important to remember that none of us have direct access to the subjectivity of other supposed beings. If I see you stub your toe for example, I can only assume that you feel pain. I may see you wince, yelp, or hop on one foot, compare that to my own past subjective experiences, recognize the similarities and assume that you are a distinctly separate subjective being from me. This is, however, only an assumption. As I am adhering to direct forms of knowledge as the only means towards epistemological infallibility I cannot accept such a leap of logic, as I have no experience of your subjective experience. With this understanding we may easily fall into a weak form of solipsism through the possibility of the existence of philosophical zombies, as was so interestingly brought up by the philosopher David Chalmers. However, as was stated earlier, my direct experience is bounded by my subjectivity, so I cannot accept the external world be it populated by zombies or mortals.
Ok. Clearly I have a bit of explaining to do regarding this world and my place in it. I certainly don’t have control over reality, and I still obey laws, and try to act like a legitimate humanist, but why would I do these things if I consider myself to be the only existing entity? To answer this I have to posit different levels of my own consciousness, of which I have varying degrees of awareness of and control over. I can accept the totality of the universe and its inhabitants as reflections of my mind if I treat them as manifestations of my subconscious over which I have no direct control. My conscious mind, then, would have to be that which we normally take to be the totality of our subjectivity. In this way, I can view the world as a conscious entity interacting with my own subconscious creation. Other people, then, are merely aspects of my self over which I have no control.
This is a pretty liberating world-view, as it entails that all human knowledge is actually my knowledge, any criticism that I receive is merely me teaching myself how to become a better person, and my interactions with others are really my limited consciousness eliciting knowledge from my infinitely knowledgeable subconscious. Sorry you have to sacrifice your subjectivity and independence for my solipsism. The hegemony of the AndySphere.
I’m terribly sorry to have to inform you in this way, but it appears that if I am to strictly follow reason in pursuit of epistemological infallibility based on direct experiential knowledge I cannot conclude with any significant degree of certainty that you exist as anything aside from a projection of my own mind. That’s, right. I’m a solipsist, and there is nothing you can do to conclusively prove me wrong (And in case you were attempting to do so by pointing out my use of different pronouns in the previous sentence… don’t worry, I’ll cover that base).
Lets start at the beginning. Descartes--the founder of modern philosophy. At the time that Descartes was writing, epistemology was founded on authority, which at this time, referred to the church and Aristotelian physics (which were deemed to be inoffensive to the church for a manifold of reasons). Descartes discarded this method obeying of authority and opted to ‘build a new house [of knowledge]’ as it were. Seeking to create a new epistemology that was founded on and individual ‘conducting one’s reason well’ Descartes employed his method of radical skepticism to destroy the old belief systems. He eventually settled upon the now-famous axiom of “I think therefore I am” as the only principle that he could accept with epistemological certainty—as it is self-evident (The very act of doubting proves that he is a thinking thing, and therefore must exist).
Descartes, however, had hit a dead end. He realized that he had fallen down a solipsistic rabbit-hole—a condition that he could not accept. To rectify this, he posited “God” in order to regain the world. However, later in the meditations he provides seemingly fallacious arguments for the existence of god; thus leaving that principle open to rejection via the very system he was espousing. I am unconvinced that Descartes is able to truly find away out of the solipsistic rabbit-hole that he found himself in, and so, I will adhere to his method and cogito ergo sum axiom, though by adhering faithfully to his method I must reject the god that saved the external world for Descartes.
**clearly, a much more in-depth exploration of Descartes’ writings would clear up any misunderstandings regarding this theme (I do actually believe that there is another was out of Descartes’ solipsism—but this is not the intent of this piece). Additionally, due to the transient nature of my current living conditions, my copy of the meditations is inaccessible, so I was unable to back this up with direct quotations**
Now, if I am to accept the cogito, it must seem clear that I must accept that it was written by a being external to myself (IE: Descartes) and therefore I cannot be a solipsist. Incorrect. I am bounded by my subjectivity, so while I can say conclusively that I am aware of the cogito, this awareness proves nothing of its relationship to my subjectivity be it internal or external. In fact, if I am to adhere closely to Descartes’ axiom and method it seems more likely that my awareness stems from my own consciousness rather than any external influence. Thus, Descartes, the cogito, the method, my keyboard, and you, are all manifestations of my subjectivity.
This might cause you to balk, as I appear to interact with “people” on a daily basis. However, it is important to remember that none of us have direct access to the subjectivity of other supposed beings. If I see you stub your toe for example, I can only assume that you feel pain. I may see you wince, yelp, or hop on one foot, compare that to my own past subjective experiences, recognize the similarities and assume that you are a distinctly separate subjective being from me. This is, however, only an assumption. As I am adhering to direct forms of knowledge as the only means towards epistemological infallibility I cannot accept such a leap of logic, as I have no experience of your subjective experience. With this understanding we may easily fall into a weak form of solipsism through the possibility of the existence of philosophical zombies, as was so interestingly brought up by the philosopher David Chalmers. However, as was stated earlier, my direct experience is bounded by my subjectivity, so I cannot accept the external world be it populated by zombies or mortals.
Ok. Clearly I have a bit of explaining to do regarding this world and my place in it. I certainly don’t have control over reality, and I still obey laws, and try to act like a legitimate humanist, but why would I do these things if I consider myself to be the only existing entity? To answer this I have to posit different levels of my own consciousness, of which I have varying degrees of awareness of and control over. I can accept the totality of the universe and its inhabitants as reflections of my mind if I treat them as manifestations of my subconscious over which I have no direct control. My conscious mind, then, would have to be that which we normally take to be the totality of our subjectivity. In this way, I can view the world as a conscious entity interacting with my own subconscious creation. Other people, then, are merely aspects of my self over which I have no control.
This is a pretty liberating world-view, as it entails that all human knowledge is actually my knowledge, any criticism that I receive is merely me teaching myself how to become a better person, and my interactions with others are really my limited consciousness eliciting knowledge from my infinitely knowledgeable subconscious. Sorry you have to sacrifice your subjectivity and independence for my solipsism. The hegemony of the AndySphere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)