We ought to live our lives according to reason, which is a limit on the will, yet a necessary one. Everything in existence operates and persist through reason. I’m not saying every object comes into being for a reason (I’m not promoting a god), but for the most part, every object must abide by universal laws, and this is a limit on what we call the will, and on the possible actions in which the will can actualize. Will is the act or process of using or asserting one’s choice; volition. But we all know that there are limited options for us which to choose from. I can not fly to the sun and walk on it simply because I will it. The desire to act is not alone sufficient enough for an action. The ability to perform the action which we desire, materials which to act on, and a space which to act in are all necessary components of any option the will contemplates. We can only do what is rational and logic. No one can square a circle because it is an illogical action, therefore impossible; and even if it becomes possible to do so, there must be a reason and logic process for it having the capacity to be a possible object.
We also know every action demands a reaction and a cause, does free-will not necessitate this principle? It is impossible to kill a man, but by the free-will of either the killer or the victim to not want the outcome to be death, not have the man die. No freedom is unrestrained freedom, it is all based on qualifiers and contingencies. If you are living under a government, then you can bet your freedom is limited by law. If you are not living under a government, but are alive, then you are still not absolutely free, as the body necessitates that you obtain certain materials (air, food, water, sleep) to continue your living state. People say “god is good” which means it doesn’t have the option to be evil, which is a limitation on this being’s power and free-will. Our ignorance of the future forces us to make uncertain decisions, resulting in consequences not always desired by the will, again limiting the will’s freedom and spoiling its intended results. And if we knew the future perfectly, then we would have no will, for the future would be absolute and decided, the only choice the will would have is the determined performance which the future dictates.
We do have a will which can make a particular choice out of a set of options. But, this will is not free, as the options are not unlimited, making the choices limited. I think the confusion is due to equating the will with desire, instead of equating the will with reason. Our desires are many and nearly limitless, but our reason is founded on knowledge obtained; reason bases its determinations on the role we play in the world and the limits our actions possess, rather than on our desires and ultimate wants, for even these must subject themselves to reason to be obtained (for no one has wants without a reason for wanting what they desire).
Imagine that the will of A can choose from one to an infinite amount of options. A can only choose ONE out of infinite choices, for even if A could choose ALL the choices, this should be the destruction of A, as there must be a conflict between, at least, two of the infinite options; because conflict must also be an option in an unlimited set of options. Or imagine the scenario, A has B, C, and D, but not H, I, or J, therefore A can not choose the options which necessitate H, I, or J; this makes the infinite choices limited, not only to one choice, but now to choices which can only be chosen by an A that has B, C, and D; and we don’t even know if there are A’s with only one out of B, C, and D; nor if it would limit the choices of A further. Is there really a logical way to have a will, such as that of A, which is fully and without any restraint free to choose any and all forms of being and action without a single pair contradicting each other? Such a will would need to destroy the operation of negation in logic itself. What kind of world would exist without any negation at all?
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Thinking of Aristotle's Thoughts
If I follow the logic principles which Aristotle suggested, I find it quite easy to perceive the universe having an actual existence, perhaps too easy, which is where doubt sets in and the problems begin. Simply put, the laws of logic proposed by Aristotle are as followed. The first principle Aristotle proposed is the law of identity, meaning whatever is, is itself. We may not know exactly, in great detail, what an object is, but our knowledge of any object must yield to what that particular object actually is. It is the basic definition of a falsehood to claim an object to be whatever we maintain it in our minds to be, without any justification or evidence whatsoever as to what an object is in itself. The second principle is the law of non-contradiction, which basically states that no object can both be and not be in the same space at the same time. This principle is logic’s most basic guard against absurdity, in my opinion, as we may imagine an object flickering in and out of existence in our minds, but can not say the object is maintaining an existence that both is existence and is not existence at the same time in the same space. The final principle is the law of excluded middle, which basically means all knowledge should be pushed to its utmost limit. When defining what a man is, we should include every single characteristic that makes up a man, in particular or in general(which is just another characteristic of that particular piece of knowledge). As every piece of knowledge is of something, the law of excluded middle needs only two objects, that which knows of a thing and the thing known, knowledge is a correlation between the actual object and the notion of the object in the knower’s mind. But, it seems impossible for there not to be a middle point, as we know of objects through our senses, and understand their significance through the use of language or mental images.
These principles are said to be the laws of thought, but whether they pertain only to thought, or to reality itself, seems to me to be a trivial matter, as I can not think past my own thoughts. Is it possible to know anything without it passing through one’s thoughts? Even our subconscious presents itself to us from time to time, in dreams or moments of enlightenment. All knowledge must be that of actual objects, or ideas in one’s mind.
These laws have left me with this argument concerning the universe, or the extent as to what our minds are able to comprehend.
1. Non-existence can not exist.
2. Non-existence contradicts existence.
3. Everything in existence, and everything in our minds, existence in some space at some time.
4. Non-existence doesn’t existence in any space nor in any time.
5. Therefore non-existence can not exist.
In my mind there could never be such a object or presence as absolute nothing. A thing may be able to not exist in a certain place or in a certain time, but there is something in every point of existence. I think people throw the term “nothing” around very often, and it does serve a utility, but we should never us the term “nothing” when speaking general and intelligibly about the universe, where it is impossible that nothing should ever exist in its absolute form(complete non-existence).
(Footnotes: These thoughts are definitely in need of more evidence and more proofs. But as far as logic is concerned, I perceive such principles to be a adequate start.)
These principles are said to be the laws of thought, but whether they pertain only to thought, or to reality itself, seems to me to be a trivial matter, as I can not think past my own thoughts. Is it possible to know anything without it passing through one’s thoughts? Even our subconscious presents itself to us from time to time, in dreams or moments of enlightenment. All knowledge must be that of actual objects, or ideas in one’s mind.
These laws have left me with this argument concerning the universe, or the extent as to what our minds are able to comprehend.
1. Non-existence can not exist.
2. Non-existence contradicts existence.
3. Everything in existence, and everything in our minds, existence in some space at some time.
4. Non-existence doesn’t existence in any space nor in any time.
5. Therefore non-existence can not exist.
In my mind there could never be such a object or presence as absolute nothing. A thing may be able to not exist in a certain place or in a certain time, but there is something in every point of existence. I think people throw the term “nothing” around very often, and it does serve a utility, but we should never us the term “nothing” when speaking general and intelligibly about the universe, where it is impossible that nothing should ever exist in its absolute form(complete non-existence).
(Footnotes: These thoughts are definitely in need of more evidence and more proofs. But as far as logic is concerned, I perceive such principles to be a adequate start.)
Thursday, May 3, 2012
On Evil
“Some art of mensuration is required in order to show us pleasures and pains in their true proportion. This art of mensuration is a kind of knowledge, and knowledge is thus proved once more to be the governing principle of human life, and ignorance the origin of all evil: for no one prefers the less pleasure to the greater, or the greater pain to the less, except from ignorance.” ~Plato
Evil Is normally understood by most people in the context of the biblical representation of badness or wickedness, in other words, evil is equivalent to sin or the devil. This is of course a very vague way of identifying evil, as sin and the devil are not innate representations in the mind. The closes representation we have to identifying or relating to evil is our notions of pain and pleasure, as most people would consider pain, either physical or mental harm, to be the expression or representation of evil. For, other than the Bible’s notion of evil, we have other myths and doctrines that present their own idea of evil, but all lead back to our notion of pain and pleasure.
If life were purely pleasant, i.e. all affections on the brain resulted with pleasure, then there would be no way of identifying evil, wickedness, deficiency, inadequacy, imperfection, harm to the body, degradation, etc. and the like. For instance, if the happening of losing an arm resulted with a pleasant sensation, lets say every animal had a feeling of bliss from what we presently consider as pain, it is impossible, for me at least, to imagine animals not willingly doing harm to themselves for the mere sake of receiving pleasure. Much of a living thing’s actions are dictated by pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, and even the more intelligent creatures must start with this demeanor. Death itself would be but a joke to all living things without pain, which we perceive it to be the opposite. We would not be able to say that killing another living being was a terrible act without pain; because there would be no discomfort to either the victim nor to anyone who valued the victim’s life, nor any hope of empathy from the murderer. Clearly, whatever moral doctrines are presented to the mind, must find their foundations in the innate mental ideas of pleasure and pain.
Yet, good and evil can not be merely viewed as a pursuit of pleasure(being good) versus an avoidance of pain(being evil). The reason being that other animals do base their actions on a pursuit of pleasure and an avoidance of pain, yet it is only with ourselves that we label certain actions as moral and others as immoral. If a lion kills another lion, it is viewed simply as the actions performed by an animal, but if a man kills another man, it is murder. Now without going too deep into detail, I can only perceive the most significant difference between a lion and a man to be that of intelligence, which was probably not so clear during ancient times, but is undeniably obvious in today’s world, with our clear advances in technology and the unmistakable environment which a man lives in compared to that of other animals. Thus, like Plato, I believe morals and ethics begin and end with knowledge. For it is also clear that other intelligent creatures have some notion of ethical actions, as shown by science.
No one is innately evil, every being is a product of their circumstances, this is a notion i believe is extremely important. It sickens me that many religions would have humans believe that they are not in control of their own actions, they are incapable of performing virtuous actions through their own abilities, and that everyone is evil who does not comply with their particular group. We are born with innate abilities, but not innate intentions, notions, and ideas. No human has shown an inborn disposition to do evil, whom has not also shown a pathological incapacity, which indicates an imperfect and undeveloped mind or brain. However, instead of an opposition to that which is undoubtedly evil, religions manage to put good people in conflict with each other, as the human race is no longer separated into those who can do and those who need help, but into those who comply and those who do not. What is good and evil is quite ambiguous, it is our relations with each other that give these ideas concreteness. Those who put themselves above all others, but not due to more beneficial and efficient notions of the world, rather through dubious and problematic traditions, are committing a great evil.
If a God was the one to dictate universal rules, it should be impossible to break them. This seems to be the case for life in general, that no being can go against the rules dictated by logic; such as the rules that guide physics, biology, and chemistry; though we are still working on these concepts. Actions that are logically impossible can not be performed, no matter how much we wish or will illogical actions to be done. Yet, immoral actions can be performed merely by us willing these actions. Why would we be incapable of performing actions that are logically impossible, when we willfully want to perform them, yet have unenforced laws opposing particular actions that can still be performed regardless, even though no sane person willfully desires immoral actions? If a God exist, it is certainly preventing particularly extraordinary and supernatural actions by force from being actualized, such as a human beings having the ability to move faster than the speed of light using only our legs. If such a divine being is allowing immoral/evil actions to be done, but is punishing those who do it, even though clearly no immoral action is done willingly(because an insufficiency in the mind or circumstances of a creature always leads to an immoral action, but no immoral action is done for the mere end of doing evil itself; it’s always to avoid pain or pursue pleasure), such a being would be completely unreasonable and unjust. I can not believe in a world where an unreasonable ruler reigns over all, especially since science and logic demonstrate a rather justified and principled existence.
Evil Is normally understood by most people in the context of the biblical representation of badness or wickedness, in other words, evil is equivalent to sin or the devil. This is of course a very vague way of identifying evil, as sin and the devil are not innate representations in the mind. The closes representation we have to identifying or relating to evil is our notions of pain and pleasure, as most people would consider pain, either physical or mental harm, to be the expression or representation of evil. For, other than the Bible’s notion of evil, we have other myths and doctrines that present their own idea of evil, but all lead back to our notion of pain and pleasure.
If life were purely pleasant, i.e. all affections on the brain resulted with pleasure, then there would be no way of identifying evil, wickedness, deficiency, inadequacy, imperfection, harm to the body, degradation, etc. and the like. For instance, if the happening of losing an arm resulted with a pleasant sensation, lets say every animal had a feeling of bliss from what we presently consider as pain, it is impossible, for me at least, to imagine animals not willingly doing harm to themselves for the mere sake of receiving pleasure. Much of a living thing’s actions are dictated by pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, and even the more intelligent creatures must start with this demeanor. Death itself would be but a joke to all living things without pain, which we perceive it to be the opposite. We would not be able to say that killing another living being was a terrible act without pain; because there would be no discomfort to either the victim nor to anyone who valued the victim’s life, nor any hope of empathy from the murderer. Clearly, whatever moral doctrines are presented to the mind, must find their foundations in the innate mental ideas of pleasure and pain.
Yet, good and evil can not be merely viewed as a pursuit of pleasure(being good) versus an avoidance of pain(being evil). The reason being that other animals do base their actions on a pursuit of pleasure and an avoidance of pain, yet it is only with ourselves that we label certain actions as moral and others as immoral. If a lion kills another lion, it is viewed simply as the actions performed by an animal, but if a man kills another man, it is murder. Now without going too deep into detail, I can only perceive the most significant difference between a lion and a man to be that of intelligence, which was probably not so clear during ancient times, but is undeniably obvious in today’s world, with our clear advances in technology and the unmistakable environment which a man lives in compared to that of other animals. Thus, like Plato, I believe morals and ethics begin and end with knowledge. For it is also clear that other intelligent creatures have some notion of ethical actions, as shown by science.
No one is innately evil, every being is a product of their circumstances, this is a notion i believe is extremely important. It sickens me that many religions would have humans believe that they are not in control of their own actions, they are incapable of performing virtuous actions through their own abilities, and that everyone is evil who does not comply with their particular group. We are born with innate abilities, but not innate intentions, notions, and ideas. No human has shown an inborn disposition to do evil, whom has not also shown a pathological incapacity, which indicates an imperfect and undeveloped mind or brain. However, instead of an opposition to that which is undoubtedly evil, religions manage to put good people in conflict with each other, as the human race is no longer separated into those who can do and those who need help, but into those who comply and those who do not. What is good and evil is quite ambiguous, it is our relations with each other that give these ideas concreteness. Those who put themselves above all others, but not due to more beneficial and efficient notions of the world, rather through dubious and problematic traditions, are committing a great evil.
If a God was the one to dictate universal rules, it should be impossible to break them. This seems to be the case for life in general, that no being can go against the rules dictated by logic; such as the rules that guide physics, biology, and chemistry; though we are still working on these concepts. Actions that are logically impossible can not be performed, no matter how much we wish or will illogical actions to be done. Yet, immoral actions can be performed merely by us willing these actions. Why would we be incapable of performing actions that are logically impossible, when we willfully want to perform them, yet have unenforced laws opposing particular actions that can still be performed regardless, even though no sane person willfully desires immoral actions? If a God exist, it is certainly preventing particularly extraordinary and supernatural actions by force from being actualized, such as a human beings having the ability to move faster than the speed of light using only our legs. If such a divine being is allowing immoral/evil actions to be done, but is punishing those who do it, even though clearly no immoral action is done willingly(because an insufficiency in the mind or circumstances of a creature always leads to an immoral action, but no immoral action is done for the mere end of doing evil itself; it’s always to avoid pain or pursue pleasure), such a being would be completely unreasonable and unjust. I can not believe in a world where an unreasonable ruler reigns over all, especially since science and logic demonstrate a rather justified and principled existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)