Home | Philosophy | General

First Principles/Part One
By: textman

FIRST PRINCIPLES/Part One
Or: Beyond Reasonable Doubt -
Or: On De-Constructing the Prevailing Philosophical Paradigm -

"All are lunatics; but he who can analyse his
Delusion is called a philosopher." - Ambrose Bierce

So the Great Doubter Sayeth:

"All these philosophies of yesteryear claim to show us knowledge of very many things, but the conclusions of their reasonings are not knowledge at all, but merely opinion, for their truths lack the rigor and clarity of mathematics. Therefore all their works are lacking in true knowledge, for true knowledge must be simple and clear to the point of absolute certainty, so as to be incapable of being doubted. Away with them all then, and let us begin anew! Let us build philosophy upon firm foundations of certainty and reliable knowledge. Let us begin by doubting everything; and then admit only that which has passed the test of doubt.

Philosophy Built On Wax

"What, then, can we really know about the world? Can we trust in our senses to give us accurate information about all the things in the world? Look at this funny lump of wax here on my table. Now it is cold and hard and solid as a rock. But when I apply a little heat to it, it becomes warm and soft and pliable as dough. And when I apply even more heat it becomes a liquid, clear and smelly and too hot to handle. What then do my senses tell me about the nature of wax? That it is hot and cold, soft and hard, solid and liquid, colourless and colourful, odourless and stinky.

Reality is NOT What You Perceive!

"Clearly this is most absurd; a contradiction of terms that makes no logical sense whatsoever! Therefore our senses are ultimately unreliable and incapable of providing us with true knowledge about the world. Therefore only Reason can provide our minds with the true knowledge that we need. And the most basic truth that escapes all doubt is the fact of my own personal awareness, and the fact that this awareness (this 'I' thingy) is now doubting and reasoning: . . . I think, therefore I am!"

Observer Before Doubter?

Now the most curious thing about Descartes' new method of philosophy is the strange way in which he dismisses the senses as a source of reliable information about the world. Please note that he uses the experimental and empirical method (so beloved by science), such that he could just as easily have said, 'I observe, therefore I am' (i.e. observing is logically prior to thinking and reasoning about what you observe). Thus Descartes observes the wax as it moves from one physical condition to the next in response to external forces being directed upon it (i.e. fire). He very carefully notes these changing states and conditions of the wax, and the sensory data / information that they provide, and then summarily concludes that because wax behaves so irrationally (by providing illogical and contradictory sensory data) that our senses cannot be trusted. In other words, Descartes relies upon the accuracy of sense perception to show that the senses are unreliable! Apparently this little contradiction, this little logical inconsistency, this minor wrench in the gears (as it were) was beyond, or perhaps beneath, his notice.

Questions and First Things First

But what if Descartes did come to realize this error in time? Would he back up to the beginning and try again? Could we put ourselves in Descartes' shoes and start again? If we can, then we must think carefully about what our first question should be. Perhaps "What do we really know about the world?" is the wrong question to start with. First principles! Before we begin to investigate the World we must first take stock of some of those things that we already know with some small measure of certainty. And the first of these first things that I know with certainty is that I am. Of course, I am not so certain as to *what* and *why* I am, but *that* I am is beyond all reasonable doubt.

Just Me and My World

The second thing that passes the test of doubt is that I am here; i.e. here in this particular room at this particular time. And the third thing that seems beyond all doubt is that I am aware of this particular place and moment BECAUSE I am here. I am in my room here and now, and for all practical purposes this room and all its contents constitutes the sum total of the world in which I seem to be completely embedded. My immediate awareness of the entire cosmos for all practical purposes ends at the limits of my perceptions. The world is therefore a rather small thing that has me at the centre of it. This world seems to be a living and dynamic thing, chiefly because I am the biggest part of it. Indeed, I am the most important part of it, I am the core and power of it, I am that which brings meaning and value to it.

In other words, the space-time world around me begins at the edge of my skin and ends at the (very fluid) limits of my intentional perception. It is therefore very much *my* world, and it includes this strange awareness/mind entity at the centre of it. I am a unique aspect of a much larger reality. Together we constitute or create this tiny (but unique) world that is always flowing and changing as we (i.e. I and it) move through time and space. All of this is quite direct and obvious, and therefore beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, I can always *assume* that my world (of which my mind is a part) is only a thin slice of a larger reality called the cosmos (and/or the multi-verse), but since all that is quite beyond the limits of my senses it cannot have the same strength of certainty that my awareness of this very particular and concrete world has.

On Having Things On My Mind

So what is this 'mind' that is so important to who and what I am? Awareness is. Awareness = textman. textman = body + mind. Mind = my awareness + all of its contents. The funny thing is that the mind appears to be able to have, hold, and contain many intangible objects of various kinds. 4X: sensations and impressions, feelings and emotions, urges and cravings, pleasure and pain, ease and dis-ease, health and unhealth, certainty and doubt, dreams and schemes, imagination and delusion, music and noise, liberty and oppression, glory and debasement, power and futility, will and inertia, reason and madness, history and science, cause and effect, art and religion, harmony and nothingness, good and evil, words and language, ideas and concepts, philosophies and ideologies, objects and subjects, other minds and persons, laws and crimes, nations and gangs, societies and civilizations, joy and happiness, misery and loneliness, work and play, wealth and poverty, justice and injustice, faith and belief, opinion and fact, war and peace, and so on and so forth ...

Thus we see that Reality is composed of *many* things, including things of mind, things of matter, and things of spirit (i.e. those things that don't seem to fit into the previous categories). It does not seem possible for us to reasonably doubt the reality of any of these things (each real in its own particular way), even though few of these things are now present to my senses. Nevertheless, they appear to be what we can call universal constants (in that almost everyone knows what these things are, and what objects they refer to). Is it reasonable to doubt any of this? If not, then all these things must go into that larger entity, mysterious and unknowable, that we call Universal Reality (or what the ancient Greeks called the cosmos).

On the True Meaning of Wax

Awareness is. Awareness exists within a context (a world) composed of time and space, and other elements of reality as we know it. This is the cosmos, or all that is, was, and shall be. Awareness is within cosmos, and a part of cosmos. We cannot separate ourselves from the cosmos, nor can we fully know the cosmos; indeed we can know with certainty only a very limited portion of it, and that is chiefly the immediate world around us. I am. I am aware. I am, therefore I think. I think, therefore I am aware of the world around me, and I am aware of myself as both mind and body, as both spirit and matter, as both in the world and of the world. I am a part of this world. The part that observes the world, and all the things in it, as it moves through time and space, and a part that thinks about these observations and what they mean (or might mean). I observe this world through my senses, and so I must necessarily rely upon these senses to give me accurate and reliable knowledge about the world and the things that I observe in it.

Am I wrong to do so? Can I reasonably doubt the general accuracy and reliability of the data that my senses continually provide my brain, my awareness, my mind? Descartes would surely say 'yes' because of his scientific observations of his curious lump of wax; but my observations (both intuitive and rational) of the 'illogical' nature and behaviour of wax only demonstrates that the complexity of Reality is surely beyond a reasonable doubt. Descartes wax certainly doesn't provide just cause for doubting the general veracity of our senses, and then summarily declaring Reason to be supreme. On the contrary, I observe that our thoughts and reasonings are generally more prone to inspiring a measure of doubtfulness than the (far less slippery) information given through our senses. The body, in other words, seems to be a more solid and stable entity than the mind.

On Defining Important Concepts

But before we can sketch out the limits of reasonably certain knowledge we must first be clear about the meaning of the key words and concepts we use to build and contain our knowledge. Some words are simple and straightforward, while others are complex and difficult to grasp. Here is a brief list of some tricky terms that are relevant to these meditations. Different sources define these words in different ways:

Subjective - related to the thinking subject. That which exists only when it is apprehended by an active mind; i.e. as a mirage on the desert, or snakes on Mars. Lacking OBJECTIVE ONTOLOGY. - Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion

Subjective - that which depends upon the personal or individual, especially where - in contrast with the objective - it is supposed to be an arbitrary expression of private taste. - Foldop

Subjective - adjective: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias (Example: "A subjective judgment")/adjective: of a mental act performed entirely within the mind - OneLook Dictionary

From these three definitions we get a strong sense that 'subjectivity' is somehow a "very bad thing". I cannot say that I am particularly happy with any of these three. Indeed, I think that they are all quite bad, and most certainly inadequate just from the point of view of mere philosophical utility. A more philosophically useful definition of 'subjective' might simply state that it (i.e. the subjective) obviously involves a thinking subject (i.e. a mind) as it generates mental activity within the context of his or her life. This broadens the scope of the word so as to include both positive and negative attributes (illusions, value-judgments, tastes, and other such-like spiritual realities, etc, etc) so as not to seem favourable to one side at cost to the other (e.g. objectivity is *obviously* so much *better* than subjectivity).

Objectivity Where?

Objective - that which exists in its own right independent of an evaluating mind. Opposed to SUBJECTIVE. - Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion

Objective - something is objective insofar as it is independent of either a particular human mind or minds altogether. - Foldop

Objective - adjective: emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings or interpretation (Example: "Objective art")/adjective: belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events (Example: "There is no objective evidence of anything of the kind") - OneLook Dictionary

Why does 'subjective' and 'objective' have to be *opposed* to each other as if they were fighting a war or something? ... Here objectivity seems to have a much closer connection to Reality than subjectivity does. And I rather object to that particular assumption. I see subjectivity and objectivity as but two sides of the same coin, where that coin is nothing less than Mind. Foldop's definition comes close to accuracy, however. I would only adjust it slightly: something/anything is objective insofar as its existence in reality (i.e. its actuality) is not dependent upon being perceived by a particular human mind (or Mind in general). OneLook's second adjective is also interesting: "belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events" cannot be restricted to sense data alone, for "actual things or events" can be found within the confines of my mind just as easily as they can be found "out-there". If OneLook is *implying* that "actual things or events" really means "actual *material* things and actual *external* events" it really ought to specify this in no uncertain terms! As it is, all these definitions are philosophically inadequate.

On Seeing the Given

SENSE DATA: what is immediately known by the senses or that which is the given in direct awareness. -- Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion

Sentience - refers to possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception ... Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness. - From Wikipedia

Sentience - noun: the readiness to perceive sensations; elementary or undifferentiated consciousness / noun: the faculty through which the external world is apprehended - OneLook Dictionary

Sentience - feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Hexham's definition suggests that sense data is the only possible thing of which we can be directly aware, and that is surely NOT the case. Wikipedia goes to the other extreme and includes our senses, and the capacity to feel and perceive, all taken under the concept of sentience. This is fine, as long as we remember that the feelings and perceptions referred to are of a very basic (perhaps even animalistic) nature. Babies and very small children could thus be described as being far more sentient than they are sapient ... perhaps that is what "undifferentiated consciousness" is intended to refer to. But I can't say that I care much for OneLook's second noun either since "the faculty through which the external world is apprehended" is nothing less than the human Mind in all its fullness and complexity. MW's definition is perhaps the best since it goes straight to the point, and makes no bones about it! :) The only trouble with that is that in mature human beings there is no straight and sharp line between our feelings and sensations "over-here" and our perceptions and thoughts "over-there".

A Problem With Wisdom?

Sapience - is the ability of an organism or entity to act with judgment. Judgment is a mental facility that is a particular form of intelligence or may be considered an additional facility, above intelligence, with its own properties. Robert Sternberg has segregated the capacity for judgment from ordinary meanings of intelligence, which is closer to the sense of clever than to wisdom. Good judgment in making decisions about complex life or social decisions is a hallmark of being wise. The word sapience is derived from the Latin verb sapere, which means 'to taste' but with the sense of tasting the meaning of life. It is generally interpreted in the English-speaking world as meaning to be wise ... - From Wikipedia

Sapience - noun: ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight - OneLook Dictionary

So sapience is intimately intertwined with judgment and wisdom, eh? Oh-kay. Which both are also products of mind and intellect? Ah-so, grasshopper. OneLook emphasizes the qualification of applied or practical knowledge, yet says nothing about wisdom. Odd? I think so too. Putting these two definitions together (if that is logically possible) only increases the distance between sapience and sentience. I'm not so sure that this is altogether a wise choice, since everyone alternates between these two states-of-being on a daily basis. Many people call them sleeping and being awake. And as we all also know, the transition from one to the other is relatively easy and painless; I mean, for most human beings past about seven years old. And is there a term for the state or condition that lies somewhere midway between sentience -->??? --> Sapience? Apparently not. So here again, as before, online dictionaries prove themselves to be philosophically inadequate in a most unpleasant way.

Whither Layeth Veracity?

Solipsism - Belief that only I myself and my own experiences are real, while anything else-a physical object or another person-is nothing more than an object of my consciousness. As a philosophical position, solipsism is usually the unintended consequence of an over-emphasis on the reliability of internal mental states, which provide no evidence for the existence of external referents. -- Philosophy Pages Dictionary

It's true. Ideas are incapable of proving the reality of "external referents". That's why we have sense organs hooked up to our brains by way of our naked-ape body. So even though my observations of physical objects and other persons are ultimately reduced to mere sense-data and supposition within the mind of any individual, it is nevertheless irrational to posit the non-existence of those particular not-mind entities that are the exclusive source of said sense-data. Worse still to say that we cannot actually know anything about them. Such extreme doubt implies that Reality is actually very extremely *different* from what most people normally think it is. There is, of course, no real evidence to pin down Reality one way or another … alas ... however, probability alone suggests that our senses are generally reliable and NOT the consummate liars and deceivers that "they" (and even Father Descartes too) suppose they are.

Well! … That was a lot of fun, wasn't it? I could go on like that all day long if you'd only let me. But I fear that I have already tasked the patience of the good reader beyond acceptable limits. I was only trying to make the point that even simple, single words and/or concepts are rather fluid entities in and of themselves, and can cause much confusion - not to say anguish - when used carelessly, or with misunderstanding, or presented in a special way with unique meanings or shades of meanings. Moreover, when you consider that philosophers talk to each other over immense stretches of time (centuries and millennia), the probability of generating various errors, and misunderstandings of words and ideas, and sloppy interpretations of concepts, etc, increases dramatically; especially for newbie philosophy-readers who know nothing about the history of philosophy and haven't got the first clue what they're heading into.

Awareness and Existence

So what about knowledge? Well, there is a popular theory about knowledge that speaks of its three sources: "The majority of our supposed knowledge comes from our senses, our faculty of reason and our memory" (Ben). But this is somewhat incorrect; or rather, it is inadequate to the complexity of reality. It might therefore be better to say that the three things that generate knowledge through the ever-ongoing process of awareness are: Perception (involving both body and mind, immediate and intuitive facts, sensations and feelings, etc), Philosophy (or rational thinking in general), and History (not just personal and collective memories, but also an awareness that the present is the result of a very long movement through space-time; i.e. the Eternal Now is the point at which the past and future meet and mingle in a world full of determinism, but also open to as yet unrealised possibilities.

If we compare both sets of three we see that the first set of knowledge-sources appears to be composed of concrete and limited entities that are suitable to an isolated individual person adrift within a great somethingness, while the second set is composed of large and complex concepts not easily defined or understood. But this is just the point! Perception is *more* than just passively receiving data about the "objective and external" world by way of our material and functional sense organs. Philosophy is *more* than just the faculty of reason and logical thinking, and History is *much* more than just my own personal memories. Indeed, it is fair to say that perception, philosophy, and history are a large part of who *and* what I am. When I say 'I am something that is aware of my existence, my thoughts, and my doubts" I am not claiming that this is all that I am, some abstract and logical entity, but rather that all these things imply that they are rooted in something else, that they come from somewhere; namely, the 'I' (this textman person) that exists here and now, and generates all these words and thoughts and reasonings and doubts and certainties and memories.

So what exactly is this Cartesian 'I' that seems to me to be at the very centre of the world? Ben (of ILP) says that it "refers specifically to whoever or whatever is having the thought at the time it is thought. It is not necessarily the man Rene Descartes or any embodied human being at all. The doubt of the external world still holds and so it is important not to assume that the statement 'I think, therefore I am' establishes anything more than a thing that thinks at the time it is thinking" (from 'Russell, Descartes and the Sceptic'). And this is quite correct; Descartes is not interested in investigating this mysterious 'I', but rather in finding some point of certain knowledge upon which he can stand. But when I say 'awareness is, therefore I must exist, therefore I am' I would say that awareness and existence both presuppose each other. Awareness asserts, declares, confirms, and demonstrates the undeniable actuality, reality, and fact of existence. Accordingly, awareness would appear to be a rather vital aspect, I should suppose, of whatever our existence is, means, and implies.

(Part Two coming soon)

Article Source: http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com

Part Two
Part Three

Please Rate this Article

 

Not yet Rated

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive General Articles Via RSS!
Additional Articles From - Home | Philosophy | General
Sign Up as an Author.
Submit Articles
Member Login
Top Authors
Most Popular Articles
Submission Guidelines
Ezine Notifications
Article RSS Feeds
New Stuff
Forum
Link to Us
Contact Us

Powered by Article Dashboard