Generally speaking, I think we can agree that the accumulation of knowledge is dependent upon our sensory apparatus. Something happens in the outside world, we actively or passively gather information about it, our brains process the information, and the end result is conscious perception. Implicit in this argument, and throughout society, is the concept of causality. Causality says that there is a cause for every effect/event. While the concept has proven convenient for survival, the existence of causality cannot be substantiated. In gathering knowledge, we are stimulated by something we consider to be external; however, if there is no causality, there is no stimulus, and no evidence of an external reality.
Now, there is substantial evidence for causality, and we base our actions on its consistency in our every day life. However, if we accept causality, we have to ask where Truth comes from; if the response is "we created it," then it is necessarily relative to the self, because realism argues that truth and reality exist independent of individuals. This argument is self-defeating, as causality necessitates a cause for every effect/event/existence. If you make an exception for Truth, then causality goes out the window, because a true theory requires 100% consistency. So there is no truth independent of the individual.
So it leaves you with two options, each with rather large implications. I think it's a pretty successful argument against either A) absolute truth or B) external reality. Thoughts?
8 comments:
intersting - aristotle states (also) that senses are the primary way in which we learn knowledge about the world with sight being the most important. the problem with this is that how do you know what you are seeing is reality and not just an image. and if it is an image how do you know if you are getting an image of an image of an image in an infinite regres. Aristotle goes further with this, saying that without a limit that prevents this infinate regress, there would be not be inteligence amongst beings because intelligence acts for the sake of something. point being that you can know something if you are aquainted with its causes. here comes the mindfuck though ... the cause of something has nothing to do with the experience of it. who is wiser, the engineer or the machanic? the machanic might be able to change a tire more effectivly but the engineer could tell you the imprtance of the tire and knowledge of how it works.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post, it is full of win! Will weigh in ASAP.
also - Above you say,"Now, there is substantial evidence for causality, and we base our actions on its consistency in our every day life." which more or less means that it could exists because we act like it does. In the past our conversations about relatity had a similar dialectic. I would argue that we act like we have morality while you/ tevon would argue that morality doesn't exist. I have been converted to your view point - that morality is a cultural representative of the ethos of a people or subculture - there is no one true, morality.
Could a similar mental leap be made with causality? that a chain of events like a specific morality can exist but that there is no one grand causality?
morality not reality
I mean to say that the existence causality is a big assumption to make; we all act like it does exist, and there is a boatload of evidence in support of that idea. But the evidence being meaningful is also based on the assumption of causal relationships. I'm pretty darn sure I believe in causality, but that doesn't mean it has to exist. Or maybe, like morality, it is culturally relative, just as there are basic moral certitudes that span pretty much every culture. I say "pretty much" because I'm not an anthropologist and can't speak with certainty, but maybe causality isn't universally accepted either.
I'm going to make this short now, maybe more later.This isn't going to be very cohesive.
1) You should read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason if you haven't already. Make sure to have a jug of water and a bottle of Tylenol at the ready.
2) "Generally speaking, I think we can agree that the accumulation of knowledge is dependent upon our sensory apparatus." Dude. If we could agree on that an entire branch of philosophy (being epistemology as you probably don't need me to tell you)would be out the window. There have probably been hundreds of books written arguing for or against that statement.
3) Somewhat related, the entire epistemological dilemma, like most supposedly profound philosophical dilemmas of the west, has its roots sunk into the big underlying assumption that duality has something to do with reality. ie, that our knowledge of the world must arise out of either reason or sensory input (or both or neither which are commonly and mistakenly presented as nondual alternatives).
4) you should read Sophie's World if you haven't already
5) Ok I actually could go on for a long long time which I don't have because the servant boy who is accompanying me has been waiting for over an hour for me in the hall (this is maybe a little too colonial for comfort). Two more things a)I'm not implying an answer: does 'individual truth' fit the definition of truth? b) There is always also the underlying assumption that our sensory apparatus is confined to our five senses, and that our consciousness is confined to mental capacity and reason. I don't mean to get all hippie dippie on this shit, but seriously. That's a HUGE assumption! :p Anyways I could, as could we all probably, go on and on and on spitting around philosophical technicalities and rhetoric about this topic like people have done for ages, but I don't think it's going to get anywhere until that assumption is questioned, and then maybe discussion will be defunct anyway.
Anyways hope yall are well I'll be out of touch for the next couple months but maybe I'll make some phone calls when I can.
haha matt so being an anthropoligist implies certainty? ... read Lila Pirsig just rips into anthropology ... there a few anthropo majors here and I have talked to them about Lila - I guess its a pretty hot debate in anthropology right now - how can one classify a culture outside of the perceptions of your own culture?
Your right Tevon. That is the biggest split in philosophy. The split between the empericists and the idealists. Idealists are funner and can make greater leaps (Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kant) without being stuck with necessarily only ones senses. HAHAHA your servent boy? Gotta love money ... hope your having a great time tevon
Post a Comment