|
|
| Challenge the Philosophy - Inquiry 1 |
Dear Stephen Garvey,
Unfortunately I cannot agree that we must act on faith every time we use reason. Faith is something that can be applied to so many things, so for the sake of this argument I'm going to assume that the "faith" in question is of a religious nature. This doesn't seem inappropriate considering how much of philosophy was based in a time where religion dictated virtually all thought. Faith is something that most people turn to when times are troubling and answers are not readily available. It is a comfort cushion for the ignorant. Rather than admit they don't know, people turn to god, point their fingers and say, "His fault!!". This attitude is tantamount to saying that the boogie man is the one who stole the cookies from the cookie jar. It feels better for many people to have an explanation for everything regardless of how stupid it sounds. Reason combined with a reasonable amount of intellect provides a powerful punch. And if reason fails, which it has, something has not been explained that does not mean that it can't or won't be explained. The human species just isn't there yet. As for your opinion that reason is the cause of our gradual self destruction. I agree with you to a certain point, but reason is proportioned out in everybody equally like 10 fingers and toes. I admit that for some the only effect of reason is destruction, but the pros outweigh the cons by a landslide. Our gradual self destruction is caused by a misuse of the power that reason grants us, not reason itself. I also find that you're rather vague about this "destructiveness". In what way do you mean? And how is this a constraint on scientists when it comes to reason? Finally, I disagree with your assumption that the advances made in science will ever help in the realm of philosophy. Science can unlock the doors to the mechanisms of the brain, as well as the rest of the world around us, but will never be able to explain consciousness and thought, that is up to philosophers and the rest of humanity.
Anonymous
A. I look at faith in two ways. First, the meaning of faith, namely putting your trust or belief in something that is consciously unknown to you. Second, I look at faith itself, the word, idea, appearance that vanishes into the unknown if you try to break down further. Then I turn to reason, or any other thought system, and see that it too vanishes into the unknown if you try to break it down. For example, what it reason itself? It is a word, idea, idealogy, theory, appearance on our minds, and then the unknown. Therefore, because the basis for reason itself is unknown, it follows that put our belief and trust in it, we must act from faith, whether unconsciously or consciously. You can say the same for every system of thoughts.
B. >Rather than admit they don't know, people turn to god, point their fingers and say, "His fault!!".
Isn't this what we are doing today. Rather than admit they don't know, people turn to reason, and think they can know almost anything! They forget, ignore, or overlook that they only know within their system of thoughts, even then they really don't know. No offense, but your statement is an example:
>And if reason fails, which it has, something has not been explained that does not mean that it can't or won't be explained. The human species just isn't there yet.
D. >Reason combined with a reasonable amount of intellect provides a powerful punch.
I agree. But it only does so within its system of thought (or controlled environment).
>I admit that for some the only effect of reason is destruction, but the pros outweigh the cons by a landslide.
The only pro, from the large perspective, is that we have an opportunity to overcome our weakness for reason. To illustrate, I believe that the practice of medicine is determental to humankind, because through physicians and the medicines they use, we are shielding ourselves from instinctual nature. In other words, we are relying on others and things to perserve us rather than relying on ourselves. I know that this inherently weak, compared to instinctual nature, which does the opposite.
>Our gradual self-destruction is caused by a misuse of the power that reason grants us, not reason itself.
I agree. It is not reason itself that is destructive, it is our use of it.
>I also find that you're rather vague about this "destructiveness". In what way do you mean? And how is this a constraint on scientists when it comes to reason?
If I am right about the difference between our thoughts themselves, and who we are, by existing through our thoughts, and the inventions we create through them, we are suppressing our existence, and making the means for it empty of who we are. In other words, the longer and more we exist through reason, the more we will destroy who we are: our physical being, our mental being, and ultimately who we are. (In other words, our environment and means to exist will become more inhuman, and ourselves less human.) It's an incidious suppression, which most people don't realize because they themselves are doing it to themselves through their means to exist: reason.
>And how is this a constraint on scientists when it comes to reason?
Scientists are constrained by our dilemma because they are dependent on reason. Scientists can offer no solution to dilemma, other than admit that they are one of the causes of it. They explain our existence through reason, and intellect, and invent material things. If us existing through reason, and things we create through it is the problem, it follows that science is as well.
>Finally, I disagree with your assumption that the advances made in science will ever help in the realm of philosophy. Science can unlock the doors to the mechanisms of the brain, as well as the rest of the world around us, but will never be able to explain consciousness and thought, that is up to philosophers and the rest of humanity.
I don't understand your point. Surely, if scientists unlock the mechanisms of the brain, they might be able to use their findings to support theories about consciousness and thought?
Or are you saying that the basis for consciousness and thought is metaphysical?
From another perspective, we can never know consciousness, or thought, because we can't use something to know itself. Is that what you mean?
Best wishes,
Stephen Garvey