I went to a philosophy of religion lecture the other night at UCL where an astute atheist philosopher presented some mutual absurdities shared by both humanists and believers alike (concepts such as free will, the self, and to a lesser extent, love). He made the point that although these are logical absurdities, we can and have no choice but to muddle through these concepts because they are fundamental and essential to human beings in society (i.e. we have to believe in them despite their ultimately irrational nature to function). The idea of God can be discarded because it has been proven that society can get along just fine without "God." Point taken. It is a good argument against the necessity of God in society but let's be sure to point out that it is utterly useless as an ontological argument against the existence of God... since it isn't one.
Anyway, the point of this post is actually not related directly to these questions. The issue I want to discuss deals with a question this particular philosopher raised in his presentation which is, "what do we care about?" He was referring to commonly shared values in society such as health, education, etc. Sure these things are important, we do "care" about them. But this question led my mind down a much different path, one that I've gone down before. The idea that we "care" in general requires a more careful examination. We need to look deeper than this because human care or concern is one of the most indispensable and unexamined aspects of our existence.
Before I continue, a clarifying linguistic distinction. I will refer to "care" as "concern" both because I think it is more exegetic than "care" but also to eliminate those fluffy, adorable thoughts the word "care" might induce (we can talk care bears some other time... ... any time). Before we think about concern however, it follows that we should first think about ontology. Philosophers have for years pontificated over the idea of consciousness. Arguments have gone back and forth, but we can all agree that we are in possession of some device that allows us to observe both the external world as well as reflect upon our own thoughts (some are better than others at this... yet we all have this capacity). So what is the nature of this consciousness? Is it possible to conceive of consciousness in and of itself? Take a minute and ponder the idea "consciousness." You getting anything? This experiment is quick to show that "consciousness" as a stand alone concept is quite different than the concept of, say, a chair. What we can say then is that in order to understand consciousness, we must add something to it. In language we say we are "conscious of" something. This sheds light on the nature of consciousness for all consciousness is consciousness OF something (sounds simple, but the implications are crucial). We really cannot detach one from the other. In other words, when you think of consciousness, you think of being conscious of the physical world. This is what experience is - the synthesis of the knower (consciousness) and the known (objects).
The implications of the idea that "all consciousness is consciousness of" are quite vast. Suddenly, the distinction between a world of objects external to us seems at best irrelevant and at worst impossible. I'm not trying to say that there is no such thing as an external world that exists without a mind to perceive it - clearly this is possible. To illustrate what I'm after, try this thought experiment with me. Think of a world with no minds to perceive it. Fine, we can do that, I've got a picture in my mind of a barren world with no "perceivers." So there you have it, it is possible that the external world exists independent of any human perceiver right? I say, not quite so fast. Ask yourself the question, "how is it possible that I can conceive of such a world?" The answer is obviously because you have a conscious, perceiving mind. Remove this mind, and you cannot even conceive of such a world. In other words, consciousness is an absolutely primordial, and required prerequisite to even thinking about a world void of perceivers. Does this idea get you worked up? Keep thinking about it for a moment. Our relationship with the external world is inextricably connected through consciousness. Take away the external world and you have nothing. Likewise, take away consciousness and you also have nothing. They cannot be separated.
Why is this so important? Think about your ordinary life. Think about the way you view the world. My guess is that you have always just assumed that there is an external world out there that is completely detached from you. We can (sort of unfairly) blame science (and Descartes) for this dualistic view. We think that since we have conducted all of these scientific experiments that have proven certain laws about the universe that therefore it exists independent of us. But I'm not so sure that science has really made any claims specifically about this. Let me reiterate my point, how is any science even possible in the first place? It is only because of human consciousness. Human consciousness is primordial to any science whatsoever. Take it away, and there is no science, there is no external world. So for you in your ordinary life, the question shouldn't be, "is there an external world?" The question should be, "what is my relationship to whatever is out there?" If you take my proposal, your paradigm should shift from an alienating universe of cold hard absolutes to that of your own consciousness as the primary existential- a perceiving human subject, the interpreter of that which is before you. In this light, you are in perfect harmony with the external world - I see this as tremendously liberating.
This brings me back to the idea of concern. A necessary byproduct of consciousness (if we can call it that) is concern. If "all consciousness is consciousness of" is the first rule of primary existence, then concern would have to be the second. Out of human concern, we seek knowledge, life, and existence. There is nothing that we do not show concern about in some way. Think about it for a second, any activity, even sitting and doing nothing is a result of a form of concern. Human existence by definition is not static, and what motivates our actions is concern. In order to survive, we have to interact with the world. This requires interpretation. Another way of phrasing this interpretation is that we "humanize" the world. We show concern for objects as they relate to us as human beings. We interpret a stick in the woods in terms of its possibilities (i.e. as a tool, a weapon, an walking aid, a tent pole, a fishing rod, and so on). We are concerned about the way the world relates to us therefore we are concerned about our relationship to the world. From this structure of concern, we are motivated to interpret the world and relate it to ourselves in terms of possibilities.
Given what I've said, I find it interesting that so many of us proceed to give up our own possibilities for our lives. Somehow we are quick to hold to our safe little closed worlds and we forget about the immense number of possibilities we have as human beings. If you agree with anything in what I've said, then this amnesia is a negation of what fundamentally makes us human. Within these possibilities, we find a way to create a meaningful life. If I have to blame someone for the way the modern world misunderstands this, I would have to point to those who have made us believe that the external world and the consciousness are somehow separated (Descartes and inadvertently, modern science). From this very small distinction, we get dramatic results. I think it is of paramount importance to shift the paradigm to the consciousness of the human subject - for in this harmony, a human being is liberated to construct his or her own meaningful life from a near infinite number of possibilities. Thoughts? Comments?
Many of my ideas in regards to this subject have been shaped by Heidegger and to a lesser extent Kant. If this is an interesting idea, check out Heidegger's Being and Time, or Kant's Critique of Pure Reason - be warned however, they are not exactly "page turners" - Kant in fact was critisized by philosophers for being too didactic and boring - by philosophers!!
Sunday, 26 October 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You managed to get through that whole post without referencing the tree that falls in the forest with no one there to hear it. Thank you :)
First, I'm glad to note some British spelling, even if you're not going to gain an accent, at least you'll gain the grammar. :)
Second, maybe you should start a Mark Pingree book club, because I liked what I've read of the Critique of Pure Reason, but it just needs dialogue to accompany it, for the very reasons you mentioned.
Third, I've found this idea of consciousness interesting for a long time, particularly as it relates to a belief in God (which you kind of left hanging -- knowingly, but still). To leave that topic floating around a little longer, I don't know what I think about people "limiting" their possibilities. Clearly, my mind can concieve of a world in which I'm a 6 foot super model, but that doesn't mean that concieving it will make it reality. Or that I even have that possibilty. Sound a little like "The Secret." (How's THAT for getting under your skin? Hee.) That's a banal example, but perhaps you can see how that would apply in other conceptions of the human mind. Maybe?
i have to disagree about this sounding like The Secret (although, i see what you're getting at). The Secret is all about the Law of Attraction and actually says things as crazy as this:
"To lose weight, don’t focus on 'losing weight'. Instead, focus on your perfect weight. Feel the feelings of your perfect weight, and you will summon it to you."
or this:
"It is helpful to use your imagination and make-believe you already have the money you want. Play games of having wealth and you will feel better about money; as you feel better about it, more will flow into your life."
or my favorite, THIS:
"You cannot “catch” anything unless you think you can, and thinking you can is inviting it to you with your thought. You are also inviting illness if you are listening to people talk about their illnesses."
yes, germs are all make believe. and viruses too. any illness i suppose. so i think we're all good. as long as i focus on the idea that cancer can't affect me, or listen to other people talk about their cancer, i will never get it! i wish i'd known this earlier!
The Secret does have one thing good about it, in that i think people who read it (and actually buy into it) are motivated to set goals and try to make something of their lives. i think there is a lot of importance in positive thinking and believing in yourself. however, The Secret goes waaay beyond this and promises far too much by suggesting you can have anything and everything simply by thinking it.
sorry, i know i'm on a tangent and that no one was proponing the secret. anyway, i think the point is not that we have EVERY possibility and that nothing is impossible. but we still have infinite possibility. i don't think those are the same thing. to use your example, i could never be a super model. i'm not thin enough, i'm not tall enough, i'm not pretty enough. so no, this possibility is not open to me. and not because i'm limiting myself. it's just how it is. but there are still literally an infinite number of paths i could choose for my life and i think it's true that we do limit ourselves. to bring religion into this a bit, i believe "this amnesia is a negation" of what God hopes for us. to move out of "our safe little closed worlds" and realize our potential. our immeasurable possibilities that we don't believe ourselves capable of due to fear, or insecurities or whatever it may be. let's face it, in the moments when i really think about what possibilities i have my head explodes and i no longer feel safe. I think the God's hope is for His children to have this realization in order to make the most fulfilling life possible for them. man is that he might have joy, right? the ironic thing is that i think that the LDS culture also breeds this kind of "amnesia" you speak of. you have these expectations of go to school, go to church, go on a mission, go to college, get married, have babies, continue going to church... you get caught up in this routine, in these expectations of you since birth basically. and all of these things are, of course, good things. But I think we often forget that we can do them all in addition to a million other things that will make our lives more fulfilling.
blek. i don't know. i am clearly rambling. and i suppose this is just my interpretation of what you said. sorry for such a long and disjointed comment.
also, my verification word was reergi.
I read your post a couple (a few? I am no good with numbers) of times before posting. I'd click Comment each time, and the CAPTCHA was unappealing to me so I wouldn't even begin typing. Now it says 'laing'
Time to move forward?
I think I was contemplating your post longer than usual for this reason:
There's a denouement but there is really no climax. It is as if a wilting, furtive copemate gently skitters away as he imparts a nugget of hard-earned wisdom; it's wise, sure, and useful - it's just not satisfying.
In the end I believe I want more at the end (or near it) of your "blog" entry. You spent more time in your entry defining "care/concern" than you did positing a round (hell, even a square) answer. I think at the end (last 2 paragraphs here) you picked up some nice steam but ultimately I felt unfulfilled by your analysis.
Now, I will take an opposite stance briefly. This is, in a sense, an open forum. Answers are not to be given freely. The path to the answer is what is more important. Maybe it's possible that you left something out on purpose; maybe you're just lazy; maybe your steady diet of Englische Browne Hamme has left your body weak, caused paroxysms of abdominal abhorrence, and you had to wrap things up real fast. (As an aside, aren't men horrible at wrapping things?)
Sorry, for a minute there, I lost myself.
At any rate, I meant maybe it was intentional. I'll give you that.
Now that I've past my scathing and astringent commentary, I think it's time to talk about what I agree with. Most of the first 60% I don't really care one way or the other (it's just epexegesis). The meat (and I am definitely a carnivore) is what I was all into boyeeee.
The connection of concern and interpretation was wonderful. I imagine I've always known this, but it was one of those nice epiphanies I have from time to time. I think these types of epiphanies are better because I've always known the answer, but when I really truly understand it, it becomes so much more meaningful.
(I do enjoy digressions: One recent such epiphany was discovering what "fingers" of liquor were. As an avid "lover of life" (re: alcoholic) I've been enjoying the fineries of libation for quite some time, but never really knew what a "finger's" worth of the substance was. A "finger" of liquor is enough poured to equate one human finger parallel to the bottle of spirits. One of my favorite postprandial activities is 2 fingers of Laphroaig and a hand-rolled. Try it some time -- aged at least 10 years for the Laphroaig)
I thought I disagreed slightly with your idea of people missing the possibilities of life, but then I realized I do agree, I'd just probably word it differently. People have cares about all sorts of (to me) useless things in their life (I won't list them here). However, what they care about is their own issue and I've no reason to have judgment on them. What if their "useless" concerns are what make their life meaningful? It may not have the same gravity for my own life, but that's individuality in'it?
You're saying though that because we are conditioned to view the existing world and our own consciousness as separate, it is restricting. I agree.
Hee. What comment was deleted? How curious...
And Becky, I wanted to say thanks for some of your feedback to my response: I now know a little more about "The Secret" to life (which in fairness I hadn't read) and I was able to process my thoughts a little more fully. I was interested in some of what you were saying, too: I wonder if it's fair to blame LDS culture for the tendency toward "amnesia." I don't know that I've ever been told that list is ALL I can or should do, or that those are the answers to a fulfilled and successful life in entirety. If anything, being LDS makes me, personally, seek for MORE possibility. If that's forgotten, I think that's more a device of modern society -- perhaps shown in a specific culture, but not BECAUSE of that culture, if that makes sense. Thoughts?
Post a Comment