\JEL-id\, adjective:
Extremely cold; icy.
~~~~~~~
Where does reality come from?
Well, as discussed in class, it could very well be our own minds. Understanding that our brains are not hard-wired to coincidence with oft-referred-to objective reality leaves the door open just enough to slip in billions of theories--notably that the world could be our own construction, regardless of whether or not we retain the ability to alter it with the minds persistently constructing it.
However, the very foundations that make most of these theories plausible also lie at the heart of science, in severe skepticism, but I feel as if far too often they flounder in such skepticism and neglect other possible alternatives, as well as weighing such alternatives fairly.It is not a stretch to reason (or, as a radical skeptic might say, take a leap of faith) that our sensory experiences are not some massive delusion (as I've never seen anyone, ever, walk through a wall because they de-constructed it will their minds--nor have I ever heard of anything similar ever occurring), and accept humanity's ability to feel out reality that it exists (as well as believing there is something to feel out in the first place).
Without this first step, we are lost, and will forever be lost (chasing Cheshire Cats, perhaps). If that's the case, so be it--but skepticism almost always only disproves, not proves.
However, with this first step, the universe unfolds (unwillingly, of course). If reality does indeed exist, and we are aware it exists, then more likely than not we (as humans) are able to combine our perceptions of it into cogent theories (provided human logic is capable enough, which on some, but far from all occasions, it is). With reality existing beyond and among our minds, even if the best we can manage is reflection on that reality, there is hope--we line up the mirrors for as long as we live and do our very best to make our minds' images match up with what's outside. And even more--we not only line up the mirror, but pick it apart and analyze it, understand how and why reality works, so as to better coincide our understandings with it.
Thus, we have a chance at figuring out where reality comes from. How reality works. Who (if any) began it. I do not reject some major tenets of idealism because they are defeatist to human curiosity--it still may very well be the case that our minds are insufficient computing machines (or, even, insufficient to create sufficient computing machines) to understand the complexity of the universe. It may still be that we are too fallible, too young, too impulsive or too foolish to understand what actually exists objective. I reject idealism largely because there is good reason to do so, and it's my fondest hope that most of such understandings would be founded on nothing less.
There very likely exists an objective reality.
In that circle is all of humanity's wisdom.
5 comments:
I would say that few things outside the absolutes of logic are more likely.
But what exactly do you dislike about idealism?
(This comment is left with the intention that who I understand to be Derek Anderson is in fact you)
In class I made a comment about the extinction of humans. To my curiosity, you came right back with "unless we evolve." Further human evolution is a thought not many dwell on. "Where can we go from here?" is a possible thought of many. I only assume that we as a species will die out before we can evolve much further, if at all. However, it is a wonderful topic to think about. With this evolution, do you believe we can evolve superior senses? Able to sense that which we cannot even understand now? How do you feel about psychics? Do you think any human with the, no matter how muddy, ability to predict events is an example of further evolution? In your idea that there "very well exists an objective reality," would that mean a life-from...be it human or not..could come to understand this objective reality. If it is an objective reality, then there seems to be nothing to contradict the idea of psychic.It would simply be a beings ability to fully understand the objective reality. surely knowledge of the future will aid in the survival and over-all well-being of life-form.
My comment tears open a very, very large topic regarding free-will, pre-determination, fate, etc. Do not feel as though you must address all these topics in one response. Rather, I would like to discuss these ideas further.
Well, if by psychic you mean the ability to accurately predict, we're already psychics. Science makes many, many predictions, and many, many of them indeed come true (also many of them don't). Psychic most often means someone able to supernaturally perceive the future, but in the case you describe, where one would understand reality so well as to accurately and consistently predict the future, I am dubious. Knowledge is and will always be a game of guesses, no matter how incredibly accurate those guesses can be--the only true way to have knowledge is to recognize both what one can and cannot know. There will always be unforeseen occurences (or I hope so, anyway, being psychic in such a manner seems horribly dull).
In terms of evolution, I touch on the subject here and there, but I think it unlikely, barring major ecological disaster (which is plausible, of course) that we will evolve. By definition, something evolves because it must--because it will not survive otherwise. We can metaphorically and poetically attach this to mental evolution (such as minds upgrading themselves to the technological revolution), but in terms of genetics getting stronger, we're not quite there yet, and when we get there, it'll likely be by our own doing rather than evolution's fickle hand.
In response to your query, I love physics and I think it the necessary basis of all other understandings.
I will answer Professor Johnson in the next comment because this one is too long.
My problems with idealism, once given due credit for its plausibility (as I should hope I do not discredit a theory on predilection alone), are its implications.
The thought that our thinking both literally constructs, can alter, and is the basis of reality is even more ego- and athropocentric than what most religions prefer. It rather literally makes each human (in some interpretations, anyway) the center of the universe!
Idealism can, but need not, of course, work toward crushing curiosity and meaningful intellectual investigation on the basis that our feeble grasp on knowledge undermines the search itself. While at times it most certainly can, far too often it can tap right into the intellectual insecurities of people and discourage them from believing there's actually anything solid out there to observe at all.
I truly believe there is, and I truly believe satisfaction can be gleaned from picking it apart (even if it is in a subjective fashion). If I am wrong, and ideas alone are what exists, then sooner or later, I suppose I will be convinced (will this 'reality' itself do the convincing? Who knows!)
I need to know the truth, even if it is that there is no truth, and if that's the case, next time I leave your classroom it will be through the wall. Then I will imagine I'm in an objective reality and that human reason can draw good reflections about it, so that I can live the rest of my days in the happy delusion-without-delusion (it's my reality, nothing's a delusion!) seeking the truth of things.
I agree that (objective) idealism is an errantly anthropomorphic metaphysical view; and subjective idealism is even in worse shape.
Post a Comment