The perfect starting point is Descartes’ irrefutable cogito; I think therefore I am. I know I have a mind –but I am not sure that I have a body; or sure of the physical world at all, actually.
But what of this body? Does the physical plane exist?
Well, my mind exists, but do other minds exist? I seem to come into contact with other beings with minds constantly, but do they exist like mine? Either a) these minds are independent minds, b) they are figments of my mind, or c) they are figments of another mind (God?). But a) and c) have the same relevant implication, because both assert that I am not alone and that other minds exist. And it seems to me that my own mind cannot be the source of other minds because these other minds frequently act in ways I cannot predict or comprehend. Therefore other minds exist independently of my own and of each other. These minds are distinct from each other. This means they cannot overlap, for then they would not be distinct.
Now, we can say that the apparent external world must either be a) physical, b) mental with my own mind as the source, or c) mental with another mind as the source (God?). Yet b) and c) cannot be the case, because if a mind was the source of the world, other minds could not exist within it, as minds can not overlap and remain independent, separate minds. Yet minds do exist within the world (I know mine and believe in others): therefore the logical conclusion is that both a mind-independent physical plane and my physical body exist.
So what of the relation between mind and body? Mind is what makes us human; our mind is us. The purpose of the physical plane is to allow minds to meet and interact, which they could not do in a purely mental reality. Our bodies are anchors in this physical plateau for minds, and allow us to operate within it. Whether the mind withers away at our body’s death or continues to exist, no longer with the ability to enter the physical plane, is unknown. I would say, however, that as interaction between minds is the purpose of physical reality, the mind might as well die with the body if it cannot interact with anything.
As always, I look forward to your comments
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Why Should I Be Good?
Why be good? Because the consequences of doing good are more favorable than those of not being good. This can be seen no matter how we interpret the meaning of ‘being good’. For children, being good means obeying one’s parents. By being good we gain parental approval and avoid punishment.
Extending this to the social norms of one’s community, being good means being a good citizen. As such we gain the approval and avoid the scorn of those whose opinions matter to us, not to mention avoiding fines and jail sentences.
To a more mature mind, being good might mean obeying the dictates of one’s conscience, an internal voice which judges our actions as right or wrong, as worthy of one’s own approval or disapproval. By being good we gain a sense of uprightness, of rectitude, and we avoid feeling guilt and shame.
Further reflection leads us to wonder where the voice of conscience comes from and what the justification is for what that voice tells us. We find ourselves with a sense of duty and wonder who or what imposes that duty. Many believe that God defines the moral rules and imposes the sense of duty. God is thus a surrogate parent, and by being good we gain divine reward and (we hope) avoid divine punishment.
Kant alleged that the dictates of pure reason impose the duty to act so that the principles on which we act could be universalized without contradiction. For a rational being, contradiction is certainly unfavorable.
Others postulate an unseen world of moral values not unlike Plato’s world of Forms, which the moral sense somehow apprehends. The consequences of doing one’s duty on this view are a sense of being in harmony with moral reality, of being virtuous and worthy of approval, whether or not anyone actually approves.
All these meanings of ‘being good’ involve obeying moral rules. In another sense, to be good means to be of benefit to someone or something. By being of benefit to other people and to our environment we can create a surrounding in which everyone flourishes, including ourselves. Whether we succeed depends on our skill in choosing actions that have good consequences. In any sense of ‘being good’, consequences are of utmost importance.
I look forward to your comments
Extending this to the social norms of one’s community, being good means being a good citizen. As such we gain the approval and avoid the scorn of those whose opinions matter to us, not to mention avoiding fines and jail sentences.
To a more mature mind, being good might mean obeying the dictates of one’s conscience, an internal voice which judges our actions as right or wrong, as worthy of one’s own approval or disapproval. By being good we gain a sense of uprightness, of rectitude, and we avoid feeling guilt and shame.
Further reflection leads us to wonder where the voice of conscience comes from and what the justification is for what that voice tells us. We find ourselves with a sense of duty and wonder who or what imposes that duty. Many believe that God defines the moral rules and imposes the sense of duty. God is thus a surrogate parent, and by being good we gain divine reward and (we hope) avoid divine punishment.
Kant alleged that the dictates of pure reason impose the duty to act so that the principles on which we act could be universalized without contradiction. For a rational being, contradiction is certainly unfavorable.
Others postulate an unseen world of moral values not unlike Plato’s world of Forms, which the moral sense somehow apprehends. The consequences of doing one’s duty on this view are a sense of being in harmony with moral reality, of being virtuous and worthy of approval, whether or not anyone actually approves.
All these meanings of ‘being good’ involve obeying moral rules. In another sense, to be good means to be of benefit to someone or something. By being of benefit to other people and to our environment we can create a surrounding in which everyone flourishes, including ourselves. Whether we succeed depends on our skill in choosing actions that have good consequences. In any sense of ‘being good’, consequences are of utmost importance.
I look forward to your comments
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Are We Free?
This question may be seen from at least three perspectives: In what ways are we free? In what does free will consist? How come we have free will, if we do? All other freedoms pre-suppose, are subordinate to, and are irrelevant without free will.
Consider one of the ways in which we may see ourselves as free: free as a bird, or as a wild animal. But do these have any power of choice? Are they not on auto-pilot, constrained by instincts, hunger, thirst, social pressures and fear? So are we also on auto-pilot, yet with a greater degree of choice and a stronger range of constraints: prison, blackmail, death threats? Humans clearly have the power of self-restraint, good manners, tact, enlightened self-interest; the ability to think through and carry out a plan of action which may or may not be benign, taking into account how others will react. But even in the most perfect world, there will be constraints.
Where in all this constrained freedom is free will? Free will requires total autonomy in thought, or at least the power to establish for oneself one’s principles of action. Even then, one’s behaviour will not necessarily accord with those principles. My mind, and I suppose others’, has been influenced from birth by what others communicate. Every neuron that has fired has been a response to some stimulus. So every thought has to follow from some signal. In simple animals there’s no room for free will. A man-eating tiger must be shot, clearly, even though it surely has done nothing but followed its nature and instincts?
Free will is autonomy, the unconstrained freedom to choose values and beliefs. But where does it come from? From nothing? From mass and energy? From a power beyond all science? So, if I have free will, how come? Is there something deep within me – self, id, soul, spirit that operates independently of instincts? There cannot be any explanation of free will from science. Yet to abjure free will is to abjure all responsibility, and all credit for any so-called achievements. The only possible explanation for free will speaks of a God who gives us choice even with considerable limitations on the freedom to act. (But does God exist? That is a question we will discuss another time.)
I look forward to your comments
Consider one of the ways in which we may see ourselves as free: free as a bird, or as a wild animal. But do these have any power of choice? Are they not on auto-pilot, constrained by instincts, hunger, thirst, social pressures and fear? So are we also on auto-pilot, yet with a greater degree of choice and a stronger range of constraints: prison, blackmail, death threats? Humans clearly have the power of self-restraint, good manners, tact, enlightened self-interest; the ability to think through and carry out a plan of action which may or may not be benign, taking into account how others will react. But even in the most perfect world, there will be constraints.
Where in all this constrained freedom is free will? Free will requires total autonomy in thought, or at least the power to establish for oneself one’s principles of action. Even then, one’s behaviour will not necessarily accord with those principles. My mind, and I suppose others’, has been influenced from birth by what others communicate. Every neuron that has fired has been a response to some stimulus. So every thought has to follow from some signal. In simple animals there’s no room for free will. A man-eating tiger must be shot, clearly, even though it surely has done nothing but followed its nature and instincts?
Free will is autonomy, the unconstrained freedom to choose values and beliefs. But where does it come from? From nothing? From mass and energy? From a power beyond all science? So, if I have free will, how come? Is there something deep within me – self, id, soul, spirit that operates independently of instincts? There cannot be any explanation of free will from science. Yet to abjure free will is to abjure all responsibility, and all credit for any so-called achievements. The only possible explanation for free will speaks of a God who gives us choice even with considerable limitations on the freedom to act. (But does God exist? That is a question we will discuss another time.)
I look forward to your comments
Welcome!
Welcome to my new site and first entry. We will be exploring ideas, and their everyday application, in areas concerning existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, justice, mind and language.
First, what is philosophy?
Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing the ideas listed above by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned arguments. The word is of Greek origin: "love of wisdom." Before philosophy, "folk wisdom," mythology, religion and other approaches had already appeared to explain life, the universe, etc. Philosophy came to challenge old beliefs. It is a search for truth.
I look forward to your comments!
First, what is philosophy?
Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing the ideas listed above by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned arguments. The word is of Greek origin: "love of wisdom." Before philosophy, "folk wisdom," mythology, religion and other approaches had already appeared to explain life, the universe, etc. Philosophy came to challenge old beliefs. It is a search for truth.
I look forward to your comments!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
