 |
|
Reply
| |
Deeper Studies -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Philosophy. If the very mention of the word causes you to yawn, flinch, or make desperate excuses...don't. This is not a series of ivory-tower theses, with incomprehensible vocabularies and thoughts so dusty-dry that you'd need a gallon of water to even consider them. Hopefully, this will be accessible to anyone who has passed First Degree without being "dumbed down" or oversimplified. I'll be the first to admit that most Wiccans can live a rich life without ever cracking the cover of a philosophy book, but perhaps these theses can offer some richness that may have been missing before. A lot of people who have never studies philosophy seem to have some very strange ideas about it, and about philosophers. They seem to think that philosophy consists of sitting in a dusty ivory tower, contemplating the proper philosophical interpretation of a peach, or some such thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Philosophy is about living, and many schools of philosophy not only encourage enjoying life, but living large. In that respect, philosophy is a series of questions. What questions does philosophy try to answer? These are some of the fundamental questions that humanity has puzzled itself with since the beginning of recorded history. "What is real?" "What is right?" What is good?" "How do we know what we know?" "How does the world work?" "What is Truth?" If we had the answers to these questions, humanity would be in good shape, right? The first thing to remember about philosophy is that it's not primarily about getting answers: although answers are important, the questions that are asked are just as important. If you look for answers in and of themselves, you "short-circuit" the process of philosophical inquiry, and change a method of inquiry into a form of mental masturbation. It's my theory that this is where philosophy gets "boring" for most people, when some teacher tries to spoon-feed you his answers, instead of asking the questions and allowing you to develop your own chain of thought. The most serious problem with a systematic study of Wiccan philosophy is that, as with anything else, Wiccans are not all of a piece. The old joke comes to mind: Q: What do you get when you ask twelve Wiccans what they want on a pizza?
A: At least fifteen different opinions. In the light of such diversity, it seems that such a task as a "comprehensive" understanding of Wiccan philosophy is impossible. But it must be remembered that philosophy is not primarily a method of answering questions--the most important thing is that the questions are asked. For many Wiccans, the great philosophical questions never have been asked--at least, not in a systematic manner. Few Wiccans have considered how these questions interlock, and how the answers to one can lead to insight with the next. Before we look at questions, there are a few things we need to look at: one parable, a brief discussions of the parable, and some introductory explanations of some of the vocabulary and concepts that are going to be used in the rest of the book. The balance of this section will be treated like a series of "fireside chats." Take things slowly and simply. While I've tried to break each concept down into digestible blocks, it may be that one section is more than you can understand in a single reading: if so, take a break and come back later. If one section is too easy, go on to the next one. One other note: from time to time, I'll be introducing you to other philosophers, and to the arguments they made, or to the theories that they held, or argued against. If this were a full-fledged introduction to general Western philosophy, these names would be some (but only some) of the folks that would be discussed. While for some, this may make the reading more difficult, it must be understood that Wiccan philosophy did not develop in a vacuum. The philosophers that you will meet have also argued some of the same questions that we will wrestle with: some came up with answers that I happen to agree with, some I disagree with. Don't take my word for it: if you're interested in a particular philosopher, go beyond this book and start with that philosopher, and read. Develop your own answers. That's probably the biggest advice I can give you when you start this book. Like I said before, you don't "need" to study philosophy to be Wicca, but I feel that, for those who enjoy it, philosophy can add to the richness of the experience.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1997-2003 c.e., et seq., Justin Eiler. This text file may be freely distributed via computer, print, or other media, provided that no editing is done and this notice is included |
|
 First
Previous
2-8 of 8
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
Deeper Studies
The Six Blind Men and the Elephant -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings, my friends; be at peace. Settle in by the fire--it's a pleasant night tonight where I am, but it might get chilly in your part of the world. Come sit--be welcome, and be at peace. Tonight, I've come to tell you the tale of the Six Blind Men and the Elephant. This is a very simple story, and it won't take long to tell, but it's the foundation for many of the others. We shouldn't be here but just a few minutes, and for those of you who have heard it before...no snide comments, please. I first heard this story from a follower of Muhammad (peace be upon him), but have since heard version from Christians, Hebrews, Hindus, Neo-Pagans--it seems that this story is popular...which is odd, for it also seems that while everyone tells the tale, few learn from it. It seems that there were six blind men, leading each other thru the streets. And of course, as often happens in situations like this, they were in a terrible pickle. They kept bumping into walls, falling into ditches, and tripping over cats and small children--and of course, each time they tripped, they each blamed their fellows for their misfortune. "Achmed! You have led me into a wall, and I have hurt my nose!" "Ow! Mustafah! You have led me into a ditch, and I have scraped my knee!" All in all, they were truly a pitiable sight, but this is how they made their way in the world, begging alms and cursing each other roundly. Until one day they heard of a great wonder that was come to town: a great scholar of the law, the Mufti Shabaz, had come with a marvel that none in that no one in that town had ever seen--he had brought an elephant. Well, of course you know what came next. These six blind men heard everyone going on and on about seeing the elephant, so they decided that they, too, would go and find out what the elephant was like. So cursing and complaining to each other, the six blind men laboriously stumbled to the coffeehouse where the Mufti Shabaz was taking his meal, and following the noise of the crowd, they soon came to the elephant. One felt the elephant's leg, and said, "Wallah! See, this elephant is much like a tree, for it goes down to the ground, and up to the heavens, and it is covered with smooth, wrinkled bark! I know what it looks like, now!" Another felt the elephant's tail, and said, "Lo! It is much like a small snake, for it is thin, and I can easily hold it in one hand! I know what it looks like, now!" At the other end of the animal, one of the blind men felt the trunk, and loudly cried, "Nay! Not so! It is like a snake indeed, but such a large and powerful one as I cannot describe! It is so strong that, for a moment, it lifted me into the air!" One was under the elephant's belly, and feeling with his hands, said "My brothers, I am blind, but I am wiser than all of you! This elephant is not like a snake nor a tree, but like a barrel suspended off the ground!" And another bumped nose-first into the side of the elephant, and feeling with his hands, said 'No, you fool, not snake nor tree nor barrel at all, but very much like a wall--indeed, like the wall that Achmed led me into this morning, the insolent fool!' Another happened to grab the very end of the tusk, and said "You are all wrong, you blind fools! The elephant is very like a great spear!" Each one of them described which part of the elephant he felt, and was convinced that this was the totality of the elephant. They soon fell to arguing, and came to blows, while the elephant just walked away from them. They were all wrong .... and they were all blind. Hmph, how do you like that. I just get into my stride and the story up and ends on me. Just quits like that, it does. But it does illustrate several points. We have finite human minds: the Universe, while still finite, is a heck of a lot larger and more complex than the human mind can fully comprehend. And most religions that I'm aware of state that the Divine is "infinite"--try understanding infinity as anything but an abstract concept, and don't be surprised if you sprain your brain! While we cannot comprehend a finite (but really big) universe, and cannot even approach comprehension of an infinite Deity, we can understand a limited amount of either. We can learn about the stars and galaxies that fill the universe, or we can explore our concepts of belief and study our faith. Either path increases one's understanding. The problem comes in when you try to definitively state that your understanding is superior to anyone else's. Let's look at things logically: if we are prevented, because of our finite nature, from understanding an infinite God, then instead of any one religion being "right," it is entirely probably that all religions are equally "wrong!" Indeed, the most accurate religion in the world--the one that spoke most accurately of the nature of the Gods--would have to show only the very palest shadow of Truth. When faced with the Infinite, logic, reason, and human understanding are feeble reeds, indeed. But then someone could come along and say "But we know what the elephant looks like--for lo, the Elephant has told us in His book." Well, perhaps, that is so, but how am I to believe your Elephant Book over that one over there, or this one here, or the one they used a thousand years ago in some other place, or the one they'll be using a thousand years from now on a planet far away. But of arguments and disputes there is no end, so for now I think we'll let the story speak for itself. "He who has an ear, let him hear."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1997-2003 c.e., et seq., Justin Eiler. This text file may be freely distributed via computer, print, or other media, provided that no editing is done and this notice is included.
|
|
Reply
| |
Deeper Studies
The Book of the Elephant -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings, my friends: be at peace. Welcome once again to the story fire. The s'mores are ready, the cider's hot, and the rising moon shines a silvery glow around our circle here. When last we met, I told the tale of the Blind Men and the Elephant. But I also said something that we may need to consider more closely. And then someone could come along and say "But we know what the elephant looks like--for lo, the Elephant has told us in His book." Well, perhaps, that is so, but how am I to believe your Elephant Book over that one over there, or this one here, or the one they used a thousand years ago in some other place, or the one they'll be using a thousand years from now on a planet far away. But this ducking around and speaking of the "Elephant Book" is so much sophistry. Let us be blunt: I speak of the Christian Bible, and of the belief put into it. Now, it must be understood that I am not "picking on" the Bible, or those who place their faith in it. I feel that the Bible is a a book that contains much wisdom, when read wisely. But I am writing this website in English, and for most English-speaking people, the Bible is "The" holy book. Using the Bible as an example is not intended to try to "debunk" the Christian Scripture, or the Christian faith, but it is a readily understood example. When you hear a book being criticized, such as the Odyssey, or the Tain Bo Cuailinge, or the Mabinogian, most people in our Western Culture offer no defense for any lack of historicity. There are no long theses on why the bones of the Cyclopes, or the Sirens, have not been found; there are no archaeological digs to try to find evidence of the Battle of Cooley, or to find the head of Bran the Blessed, or the Cauldron of Ceridwen. This makes sense: the Odyssey, the Tain, and the Mabinogian are all myths--they are culturally significant, but none of them claim to be the inspired word of the Gods. Not so with the Bible: but the Bible is not alone in this regard. There are other books that proclaim themselves to be the Words of God, or at least to speak authoritatively about God/the Gods. From the Egyptian Book of Going Forth By Day to The Book of Mormon to the writings of the leader of the next "kool-aid cult" that splashes briefly across the headlines, we have documents clamoring for our attention, our acceptance, and our faith. How are we to decide which one speaks the truth? We could use tradition as our standard of authority. This is all well and good, but if tradition ruled all, we would still be worshiping the spirits revered by our tribal ancestors. Every single one of the religions extant in the word today was, at one time, a break with tradition. Christianity broke away from both Judaism, and from Greco-Roman Mystery religions and philosophy; Islam broke away from Judaism, Christianity, and the pre-Islamic Paganism of modern Saudi Arabia; Sikhism broke away from Hinduism and Islam; and the list could be carried on indefinitely. Even within a religion, one can have multiple schisms, separations, disagreements--hence the bewildering multiplicity of Christian denominations. We could go for subjective experience, and indeed, there are some religions that encourage this. I'm given to understand that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints states that those who are called to receive the word of God will feel a "burning in the bosom" when they read the Book of Mormon. Evangelical Christians often state that "you will know" when God lays his hand upon your heart--and while this is a common occurrence, it is still a subjective one. In Voudon, and some other Afro-Caribbean religions, certain practitioners are subject to divine possession by the Loas. In my own faith of Wicca, the possibility does exist for ecstatic vision, divine inspiration, or even divine possession (usually significantly less dramatic than Voudon), and we certainly have those who claim to have experienced one or more of these states. Yet while these experiences are subjective, each and every religion has its own set of subjective experiences...and each and every living religion has many, many adherents who experience the appropriate things. We could use logic to evaluate the various claims, but again, we are left with subjective evaluations. One person may decide to favor books based on historical accuracy, while another one may decide based on ethical parameters, and a third may decide based on perceived literary merit. As a tool of inquiry in matters of faith, logic is a feeble reed at its best. We are, then, left with chance, choice, and faith. We all were born into our various countries and cultures through what a secular view would call "random chance." (A religious view would say "Will of God/the Gods," but remember--we haven't even gotten far enough to decide which Book to read, much less which God to believe in!) We could have been born in Communist China, in which case there are very good odds that none of us would have even heard the names "Jesus," "Kernunos," or any other God-name. We could have been born in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, where Islam is the only faith taught, Witch-craft is forbidden by law, and Jesus is described only as a teacher.
Here in England and America, we have something that many nations cannot say: we have the freedom to choose what Gods we wish to believe in. In America, there is no state Church: in England, there is, but there are no longer enforced legal penalties for not joining the Anglican Church.
We have faith, which boils down to a very simple question: who do you believe in? Some take the song "God of our Fathers" literally, and follow a God or join a church "because Mamma and Daddy went there." Some closely evaluate what church will enhance their social standing, or will allow them access to other business people, or political power, or for any number of mercenary reasons. And some earnestly seek a church that speaks to them, and aids them in seeking the will of God/the Gods.
Ah, but for all that we have, there are several things that we do not possess.
We have previously discussed the historicity of the Biblical narrative: there are several points that are of disputable historicity. This is not the appropriate place to discuss specifics, but one thing needs to be made perfectly clear here: these issues of historicity do nothing to devalue the Bible.
And indeed, issues of historicity plague every faith, including my own religion of Wicca. In Wicca, much is made of the "history myth" of Medieval and Renaissance persecution of "witches," without also acknowledging that those accused "witches" have nothing to do with us.
We do not have extra-Biblical verification for many of the items in the Bible narrative. Like direct historical confirmation, this does nothing to devalue the Bible, especially since absence of evidence does not qualify as evidence of absence.
Again, Wiccan doctrine suffers this flaw in equal measure. Many of the specifics of our history myth are just that; elements of myth, with no historical basis.
Depending on your interpretation, we may have no clear moral authority--at least, by the moral and ethical standards of modern culture. There are a few points of Judeo-Christian ethics and myth that are of questionable morality, including: commandments to commit genocide (several citations, but see especially the book of Joshua); probable human sacrifice (Judges 11); punishment of innocents for the sins of one man (several, but see Joshua 7); and the entire concept of scape-goating, or substitutionary atonement (Lev. 16, or the entire "Jesus died for the sins of the world" doctrine). Now, all of these issues become understandable when we study the cultures that produced them: so the conflict with modern ethics and morals does nothing to devalue the Bible.
It must also be acknowledged that there are currently moral and ethical issues within Wicca that have not been addressed, much less resolved. On these issues--such as abortion, euthanasia, the role and responsibility of the clergy, and responsibility of Wiccans as individuals to a largely non-Wiccan community--the dialog is just beginning. This is not entirely to our deficit: Christianity has a two-thousand-year head start on these issues, and has still not resolved all of them.
Generally speaking, there is no objective standard for accepting the Bible over other books that claim to be the Word of God/the Gods. However, it must also be acknowledged that there is no objective standard for rejecting it. Each person has their own criteria for acceptance or rejection, and frankly most people would not change their beliefs no matter what contradictory facts were presented. The average LDS member is no more concerned that the cities of the Hebrew Tribes cannot be found in North America than a typical Christian is concerned with the absence of documentary evidence concerning Jesus, or than a representative Israelite is concerned with the lack of evidence of an Egyptian Exodus. All have chosen to follow their particular faith for their own peculiar reason...and there is no arguing matters of taste.
Now, as I said at the beginning, it is not my intention to "pick on" the Christian Bible, or on Christianity. All of the above objections to the "accuracy" of the Bible can be applied equally to any sacred book--including my own Book of Shadows. As an exercise, think about your own faith. What subjective experiences led you to choose the path that you follow? Don't describe the experience in terms of external phenomena; describe it in terms of internal feelings, in the sense of "I felt this...." I would be profoundly grateful if those who choose to do the exercise would share their experiences, but these were (and are) extremely individual, and may be very private, so if you choose not to share, I certainly understand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1997-2003 c.e., et seq., Justin Eiler. This text file may be freely distributed via computer, print, or other media, provided that no editing is done and this notice is included.
|
|
Reply
| |
| Deeper Studies
There Is So a Spoon! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah, hello my friends. Be at peace. Once again, we're here around the fire, ready to discuss, oh, "ships, and shoes, and sealing wax." OK, maybe not the sealing wax, but you know what I mean. Grab yourself a stick, get some s'mores going, and we'll get started. This part of the chapter will give people a very basic grounding in my own version of Wiccan philosophy, but since most people have not formally studied philosophy, I'm also going to have to include a heck of a lot of background. Frankly, the remainder of this series is on this vein--if this section loses you, then the rest will probably bore you to tears. For those of you who stuck around--brave souls--sit down and be comfortable. We're going to discuss things much deeper than the previous fireside chats, we're going to be covering a lot of ground, and we are going to be moving fast, so I may confuse people by what I'm saying. If I lose anyone, pipe up, and I'll do my best to clarify any confusion. As I said, we're going to discuss philosophy--specifically, the philosophy of Earthstar Wicca. Unfortunately, any discussion of philosophy is dry, technical, usually filled with jargon, and frequently makes reference to old, moldy authors who spent more time in ivory towers than experiencing the reality they claimed to be writing about. Many people find philosophy to be boring--but it's also one of the best ways to make a clear and distinct definition of beliefs, and to show in concrete terms where the foundations of those beliefs come from. Bear with me, and I'll try to make it interesting ... or, at least, bearable. Last time we were here, we discussed subjective feelings, and their relation with choice in faith. (We also discussed such things as random chance, but that is a side issue.) Now, with all the emphasis on "subjective experience," you might begin to believe that I view subjective experience as more important than objective truth. And nothing could be further from fact. OK, let's give a few basic definitions. When I say a fact is "objective," I mean that just about anyone and everyone can grasp that fact. The fact that the sky is blue is an objective fact. (Quibblers who mention night-time, weather, blindness, or other hair-splitting chicanery are going to get grounded from the s'mores. I mean it! ) I would hazard a guess that most of us are in agreement that there is such a thing as objective fact. We can all point to a phenomenon and say "This occurred: we perceive it by how it affected our senses." The occurrence is real, and so are the effects--or, in other words, when the tree falls in the forest with no one to hear, it does indeed make a sound: its reality does not depend on the mind that perceives it. Now, that point of view is usually called "realism." Realism is not universal: I know people, including one I work with several days a week, who believe that if they can change the way they think about something, then the nature of that thing is changed--its reality and nature depend on the consciousness of the observer (one definition of a philosophy called "idealism"). Generally speaking, Idealism, in one form or another, is becoming more prevalent today. Movies like "The Matrix" are not driving post-modern philosophy because they are popular; instead, they are popular because they reflect post-modern philosophy. In our contemporary society, there is a tendency to ignore the reality of the physical world. There is a greater tendency toward the conflicting aspects of existentialism, and--at its extreme--towards solipsism (informally defined). Oops, I think I lost some folks. OK, let's get some basics here. Existentialism: Among other things, Existentialism states that perceptions are private; what I perceive does not have any necessary connection with what you perceive. Existentialism is quite centered on the Self, but does acknowledge the existence of others.
"Solipsism" is the belief that "Nothing outside of my own existence can be proven." An "extreme" Solipsist believes that any thing that he perceives is not intrinsically real, but is only a projection of his own mind, while a "mainstream" Solipsist believes that anything outside of his consciousness has no meaning to him. While it is true that no great philosopher has ever espoused Solipsism, it is also true that much of philosophy from Descartes onward has taken an Ego-centered view of perception.
Postmodernism: Postmodern philosophy, briefly stated, asserts that there are no "meta-narratives." Sound like gobbledygook? It's not. What that means is that there is no over-arching "story" of people; more precisely, there are no over-arching "people stories" that legitimize knowledge and cultural practices. Post-modernism is the cornerstone to the "Me First" philosophical thought that has come out since World War II.
As the joke goes about the well: "It's a mighty deep subject, and sometimes quite dry." It's actually quite simple: existentialism says that "My reality can be different than yours." Solipsism is extreme existentialism, and states that "My reality is the only reality that I can attach meaning to." Post-modernism says that "Your ideas and concepts do not justify me changing my mind unless I want to." These are the philosophies of individualism, and though they had their roots before World War II, they gained a great deal of popularity as a rejection of the totalitarian philosophies of the World Wars.
Individualism has its place, and it is in individualism that Neo-Paganism found one part of its beginnings--one "root," if you will. Yet it is also with individualism--especially extreme individualism--that we see the advent of destructive, nihilistic systems of thought: among them the destructiveness of "Absolutist Capitalism," that form of Capitalism that recognizes no ethical limits to profit; the moral and ethical bankruptcy of "Absolutist Existentialism," which denies any objective basis for right and wrong; and the intellectual sterility of "Absolutist Pluralism," which states that all ideas must be respected equally, regardless of ethics, accuracy, or even of usefulness. Note the common ground: "absolutist." It seems to be a truism that any single idea, followed absolutely, leads only to ruin. Human experience does not seem to be amenable to the black-and-white world of absolutes: instead, we seem to do much better with a give-and-take relativism that can adjust for changes in circumstances. But even with the relativism of human experience, we find certain recurring questions that occur. Is there such a thing as absolute right and wrong? Is there even such a thing as objective right and wrong? Well, so far we can't answer that. We haven't yet defined what is "real," much less what is right and wrong. The first we can begin to do here, and the second will wait for a later fire. (Believe it or not, all of that was back-ground!) What is real? Most Wiccans and Neo-Pagans take a very hard-line view of Realism: the world is not only real, it is also Sacred (as in "sharing or possessing Divine nature"). We come to that conclusion because of our belief in the manner that the Universe was created. Before Time, there was the One -- and the One was All. And the One beheld Itself in the curved mirror of Nothingness, and loved Itself, and the one became Two -- Male and Female, separate, but still One. And the Two (who are One) came together, and loved, and as they sang in their love Time was created, to hold the meter of the Song. And Space was created, to contain the bounds of Their Love. And as Their song of love became cries of pleasure, of Their joy and love for each other was born all that is, spun of the very essence of the Two (who are One). The great galaxies that spin, and the stars within them; the planets and moons that revolve and turn, each in its own path; and all of Creation sang back the Love of the Two (who are One). And of their love was born all things that live, spun -- like the Universe itself -- from the very substance of the Two (who are One). And thus all Life was born in Love. For we are all from the One, who is Two -- created in Love, born of Love, and returning to Love. And thus was everything made that was made. Now we need to make a distinction. Is the above story an accurate, scientific view of the creation of the universe? Of course not--all jokes about the "Big Bang" to the side.... The story above is one version of a Wiccan Creation Myth--a culturally significant story that explains (among other things) our relationship to the Gods, and the nature of reality. It is "religious Truth," not scientific fact. And as religious "truth," it illustrates many points of Wiccan belief. We believe that the Universe is real, because we believe that the Gods are real; the above myth, or any other creation myth (of any religion), has far more to do with how that religion perceives the Gods than it does with how the world was actually made. Metaphysics: The Investigation of Ultimate Reality
It sounds so pretentious, doesn't it? Metaphysics is somewhat of a tempest in a teapot: philosophers can argue all day on what is real, what is ultimate reality, and still go home to supper without worrying if their meal--real or imaginary--will fill their bellies. By itself, metaphysics is a relatively unimportant study: it only becomes truly important when it is used as a basis for other segments of philosophy.
This is the real importance of metaphysics: our understanding of what is real is the foundation for how we react to the world around us. If the world that we sense is not real, then we are reacting to projections of our own awareness, our own sensations, or even of our own illusions and delusions. If the world is real, then we are reacting to something that has substance -- and we, as part of that world, have substance. Our concepts of the reality (or lack of reality) of the world around us have profound implications on our understanding of learning, and on our values, especially ethical values. If the world that we see does not have a fundamental 'reality" to it, then ethics becomes much less important: why should we behave in an ethical fashion to something that, on many levels (as some argue), does not exist? I cannot speak for your understanding of the basic "reality" of the Universe--such is beyond my ken, unless you choose to share those views with me. But I can state that, if the Universe has an innate reality and we treat it as if it does not, then we run the risk of devaluing something that is real. If, on the other hand, the Universe has no innate reality, and we treat it like it does, we still interact with a universe that reacts consistently to the stimuli that we observe, or initiate. That sounds a lot deeper than it actually is: basically, whether or not the Universe is innately "real," it behaves as if it were. Or, in other words, a hammer dropped on your toe will still cause pain. This concept--that the universe is real, and that it has innate value--is the foundation for understanding other branches of Wiccan philosophy. If we accept the Universe as real, then our senses are perceiving real things. And if we are perceiving real things, then we are gaining knowledge....and it goes on from there. And it's probably time for us to close for the evening. We've covered a lot of ground, and you need time to think and reflect on what I've said. You may find yourself disagreeing--if you do, tell me. I may learn from you, just as you may learn from me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1997-2003 c.e., et seq., Justin Eiler. This text file may be freely distributed via computer, print, or other media, provided that no editing is done and this notice is included.
|
|
Reply
| |
Deeper Studies
The Limits of Knowledge, and the Boundary of Faith -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello my friends, you made it. Be at peace, and be welcome by the fire. The cider is well mulled, and this time we have a fruit plate for snacks...what's that? "Give me s'mores, or give me death?" Well, you're no Patrick Henry, but if you want virtual s'mores, you've got 'em. "Virtual" s'mores around a "virtual" campfire. Yes, it's a quaint conceit, but it illustrates a point: the Internet is a tremendous way to transmit data--including numbers, words, information, pictures, graphs, charts...or whatever--but it does little to transmit Knowledge, and even less to transmit Truth. Oh, I can tell you what I have learned, or what I believe. I can show you my experiences, or describe my vision. I can even make an analysis of facts, or a statement of Faith; but none of these will either inform or enlighten you, unless you take that data and experience it yourself, in some form or another. So we can have an amusing mention of "virtual" s'mores, but if you have never had one, do you know what they taste like? Of course not, unless you've tasted one. And that brings me to my first point: knowledge has limits. But before we start discussing what the limits of knowledge are, perhaps we'd better define our terms. What is Knowledge?
For to see Mad Tom of Bedlam
Ten thousand miles I've traveled
Mad Maudlin goes on dirty toes
For to save her shoes from gravel.
Chorus: Still I sing bonnie boys, bonnie mad boys,
Bedlam boys are bonnie.
For they all go bare, and they live by the air,
And they want no drink nor money. We probably all agree that it is possible to know certain things. Where we get into trouble is assuming that we all accept the same sources of knowledge as having equal value--or that what you call "knowledge," I refer to by the same term. Perhaps we'd better start by getting some common definitions going. Here are some words, and the corresponding definitions, as I use them. These definitions may not match your own understanding, or what is in your dictionary: that doesn't mean that your definitions are wrong. Dictionaries tend to include all of the meanings for a word, and you're left with a word that's rather like a sledgehammer--it hits a large target. Because of the nature of what I am writing about, I have to use these words with a great deal more precision than is usual for English (which is frequently a very sloppy language), so I'm trying to make these definitions very narrow and specific. This list gives you a convenient "translation table" for the terms as I use them. Definitions, Part 1: Fact: a discernable, objective, and quantifiable piece of information about the Universe, a person, or whatever.
Discernable: Able to be observed by human senses, or by human-made instrumentation.
Objective: Able to be discerned by all humans who possess the appropriate senses.
Quantifiable: able to be measured: light is quantifiable by how bright it is, and by what frequencies are present.
Knowledge:
A person's aggregation of facts that they possess.
Theoretically, the sum total of facts discovered by humanity.
Science: A method of inquiry that deals with discovering, discerning, and quantifying information about the physical universe. Science deals solely with fact.
Scientific method: The Scientific method is the methodology of inquiry in science, involving several steps.
A person notices an occurrence, or sees an event, or wonders "What if...." This is the idea: it's not formally part of the scientific method, but this is where everything starts.
The person thinks about this idea and develops a falsifiable hypothesis. This is a general statement about his idea that can be tested and disproved--not "tested and proved," and the distinction is very important, but we'll get to it in Chapter 3.
The person tries to prove himself wrong. He uses every test he can think of--or that anyone he can get interested in his idea can think of--to try to disprove the hypothesis. If the tests succeed in disproving his idea, he discards his hypothesis and goes back to step one: if not, he has a theory. Briefly stated, A theory is a hypothesis with proof behind it.
He publishes his idea, and the scientific community as a whole tests the idea. If an idea cannot be disproved, and other scientists develop other theories on it, it may be established as a scientific law.
OK, from this first part, you can see what I mean by "narrowing" the definitions. The dictionary definition of the word "fact" does not care if the statement being evaluated is quantifiable or objective, but for our purposes both aspects are important.
One other thing about the word "fact"--what is considered a fact today may be disproved tomorrow. Facts are not permanent--they are only facts as long as they are not contradicted by new data. Sounds fairly reasonable so far? Any problems? OK, let's go to part two of the definitions: Definitions, Part 2: Opinion: A subjective statement that deals with a person's own preferences, prejudices, likes, and dislikes.
Belief: A profoundly important subjective statement that deals with some segment of a person's world-view.
Faith:
(n) The aggregate total of a person's individual beliefs;
(n) The possession of a belief, or of many beliefs. ("So-and-so has faith in the validity of Capitalism." and "So-and-so has faith in the power of the Goddess" both reflect definition B of Faith.)
(n) A method of inquiry or investigation into areas that are already believed ("deepening" one's faith), or into issues not already covered by one's beliefs ("broadening" one's faith). Faith deals solely with belief.
Here, possibly, is where the argument starts, because the way I have these words defined, opinion is a "sub-set" of belief. Both are subjective statements, and the only difference between the two is relative importance. Don't believe it? Imagine talking to one of your co-workers who happens to be a fan of a particular baseball team.
Whether it happens to be the Atlanta Braves, the Houston Astros, or the Chicago Cubs, you probably know someone who would rather watch their favorite team than eat when they were hungry. Would you care to define the line between "opinion" and "belief" in that case? It's important to understand that, though we make a distinction here between things that we know (knowledge, fact, and science), and things that we believe (opinion, belief, and faith), this distinction rapidly disappears when your dealing with people and the way that they think. As people, we normally don't bother separating knowledge and belief when we're dealing with the world around us. Indeed, we often attach emotional meaning to both our knowledge and our beliefs. We'll discuss the difference between knowledge and belief, and how they affect understanding, in a later section. Let's get back to the definitions--hold on tight, 'cause now we're going to the tough ones: Definitions, Part 3: Worldview: The combination of a person's culture, education, and learned values that affect a person's evaluation of the world around him. Worldview can affect a person's choices, actions, ethical decisions, beliefs, and even their interpretation of facts.
Reason: the ability to understand, evaluate, and extrapolate from known facts, within that individual's worldview. Because it is seemingly impossible to completely separate a person's worldview from their ability to reason, Reason is NOT an objective process.
Truth: A statement is true if it reflects or accurately models reality in some manner. To be true by this definition, a particular statement (statement A) must fulfill all of the following statements:
Statement A cannot contradict a known fact (though it may not necessarily reflect a fact); if it does, either the known fact, or Statement A, is wrong;
Statement A may, or may not, be objectively verifiable;
Statement A may, or may not, be understandable by human beings.
In other words, Statement A can be true, and yet not be known or understood by any human being.
By this definition, all facts are true: A true fact does not contradict other true facts;
Facts are objectively verifiable;
Facts are understandable by human beings.
However, not all truths are factual--by the definition above, a statement may be true even if it is not discernable or objective.
Think about that last statement for a moment. Whatever religion you follow (if you follow one at all), you have certain beliefs concerning the nature of Deity. Whatever your beliefs--whether you believe in Jesus Christ, or the Wiccan God and Goddess, or even if you believe that there is no God--if your statement of belief accurately models the reality of the Divine, then your beliefs are true. The problem comes in with the fact that your beliefs cannot be objectively verified: the Gods will not step on a scale to be measured, and we have no objective basis that will convince all people of the same beliefs--yours or any one else's. If your beliefs accurately model the reality of God, then your beliefs are true, but because of the lack of objective verification, your beliefs (by the above definitions) cannot be considered facts. Whew! OK, if you made it all the way through that, congratulate yourself. Take a break for a few minutes, and then come back to the fire and we'll continue. Applying the Definitions
Remember in our introduction, we stated that most Wiccans believe that the physical universe is (a) intrinsically "real," and that (b) it shares in Divine Nature. It is my belief that the first statement is fact, and the second is truth. By the definitions above, fact and truth cannot contradict each other. What's that? I see some hands...did I lose you? OK, then let's look at an illustration. Here at the "fire" I don't have much in the way of visual aids, so we'll have to make do. I went down to Satan's kitchen
For to get me food one morning
And there I got soul's piping hot
And on a spit a-turning. My staff has murdered giants,
And me bag a long knife carries,
For to cut mince pies from children's thighs
And feed them to the faeries. Ew, those are some graphic images! Seriously, the above quotes come from an old folk song, variously called "Tom o'Bedlam," "Bedlam Boys," or "Mad Maudlin." Although the song is a rather tongue-in-cheek look at a crazy beggar, it illustrates a point: the human brain is capable of imagining some really weird things. If you want a more modern example, look at George Lucas's "Star Wars." Wow! Talk about an epic...the good guys are really, really good; the bad guys are really, really bad; and the garbage pit really, really smells! Yeah, I know, what's your point? The main point is that the human mind can imagine, create, or fabricate an amazing variety of things--images, plans, philosophies, goals, or what have you--but that imagination by itself cannot change the universe. The Universe is a real place. Does that mean that George Lucas's imagined places, people, and events are real things? Unless you're talking about the sound stages, actors, props, and scripts, they are not! Imagination is wonderful--but imagination is not fact--it's not real. OK, step two. Let's look at some statements about George's science fiction movie, Star Wars. 1: The first movie, Star Wars, was over one hour long. Well, yes, that is a fact. 2: The cast of Star Wars included Mark Hammil, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, and Alec Guinness (among others). Well, yes, that's a fact, too. 3: It was the greatest movie ever made. Says who? OK, obviously the above statement is an opinion. It's a subjective statement that states a personal preference for some people, but not necessarily for other people. You may think that Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon, True Grit, or maybe The Cat In The Hat are far better movies, and for you, that statement above would not be accurate. I could make the same point about beliefs. Beliefs are not "facts," nor are they "truth." Beliefs are subjective opinions that you, or I, hold without objective evidence. They are important opinions, but they are only opinions. This also fairly puts paid to the concept of a priori knowledge. A priori is a term that identifies knowledge that is gained independently of, or "prior to," sensory experience. Many faith-based arguments are based on a priori knowledge, but by the definitions above, knowledge cannot be gained without sensory experience. Faith-based arguments rely on one's beliefs, not on what one knows; we'll discuss faith in further depth at the end of this section. The Limits of Knowledge
I now repent that ever
Poor Tom was so disdain-ed
My wits are lost since him I crossed
Which makes me thus go chained
That of your five sound senses
You'll never be forsaken,
Nor wander from your souls with Tom
Abroad to beg your bacon! Well, we've talked about what facts are, and we've talked some about knowledge, but we've not mentioned the limits of knowledge--and I can hear it now.... Wait a minute...limits of knowledge? But I thought that we humans could know everything that there is to know, right? We can discover every fact that there is to know, gain all knowledge, and learn everything that there is to learn. I mean, can't we? Hardly! OK, let me clarify that. Theoretically, human beings are fairly amazing, as an aggregate whole. Sure, it was individual human beings who made a machine that could fly, wrote the Odyssey, discovered penicillin, etc.--but none of these discoveries was made in a vacuum. Every single item of knowledge that you learn in school (or out of school) is built on a foundation of other knowledge, and the first brick placed in that edifice was probably the guy who discovered fire. By the same token, however, human beings have also "discovered" that the Earth was flat; that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that all other planets revolved around it (including the Sun); that worms came from horse's hair dropped in water; that medicinal bleeding was therapeutic for anything from gout (somewhat effective, actually) to epilepsy (not at all effective) to infected puncture wounds (highly ineffective, and likely to make the infection far worse). We are human beings: we all have the capacity to misinterpret the sense information that we receive, to reach the wrong conclusion through our ability to reason, to choose an unethical course of action--in other words, to be wrong. And while all of these (and many other) errors start out at the individual level, they all affect the aggregate. So it's the individual person that counts, far more than the aggregate. As individuals, we're not "all that and a bag of chips." Oh, we're not completely helpless--remember, it's us individual humans who make up that amazing aggregate of humanity--but as individuals we're fairly limited. We only live seventy years or so, and that only if we're lucky. Here in America and in England, most of us go to school for twelve to fourteen years--more if you're truly fortunate. After school, most of us are in jobs to support our families, and we don't have too much time for indulging in pure discovery just for the fun of it. Add to that the capacity (or lack thereof) of the human brain, the acuity (or lack thereof) of human senses, and the perspicacity (or lack thereof) of human reasoning...and you're not left with a very flattering picture of the capabilities of the individual human being. The problem with our finite capacity for knowledge becomes worse when we consider the issue of God. Scientists study the Universe as an aggregate, and they share their knowledge and resources to do so. They publish their findings, and other scientists repeat the experiments to either help prove or disprove what gets published. This is humanity as an aggregate--and remember, we said that humans in the aggregate can be pretty amazing. But when we consider the nature of God, we do so as individuals. We cannot, with our finite minds, understand everything there is to know about Deity, even if we--with our finite senses--could gather all the information. Further, we cannot (with any degree of uniformity) get a large number of people to agree on what they discover about Deity. Worse still, we cannot have objective, experiential, quantified knowledge of Deity, because the Gods will not step on a scale to be measured. So the Gods cannot be studied by science--and by the definition above, science is the method of inquiry for facts and knowledge. We cannot, in that sense, have any "knowledge" of the Gods--at least, not by the definitions above. We can--and many of us do--have subjective experiences that we choose to interpret as the hand of the Gods in our lives. We can even have objective experiences that do not seem to fall into the limits understood by science. The problem is we are very limited in how we can transmit that kind of experience to another person. Words don't work all that well for certain experiences; furthermore, my experiences don't do a thing for you. I may believe--I may have faith--but my faith does nothing for you. So, What is Faith?
I know more than Apollo
For oft while he lies sleeping
I see the stars at mortal wars
And the wounded, welcome, weeping. By knight of ghosts and shadows
I summoned am to tourney.
Ten leagues beyond the wide world's end--
Methinks it is no journey. Following the example of the unknown author of the book of Hebrews, most Christians define faith as "The substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen" (Heb 11:1), and never realize the play on words that the author was engaging in. For something to be considered "evidence" in a Hebrew court of law, it had to be seen (and therefore had to be visible)--yet faith gives evidence for things unseen. It's a paradox. In that sense, faith is the ability to accept as "real" assertions that have no provable basis in fact. But faith can't do everything. By itself, Faith cannot allow a person to violate physical laws--no matter how firmly I believe I can jump on a broomstick and fly off my rooftop, if I rely solely on faith to make it happen, at best I'm going to wind up with a sore head, and a divot in my front yard. So any belief that I can, by faith alone, fly on a broomstick is obviously not truth--it attempts (unsuccessfully) to contradict fact. Faith has its limits--but those limits are not necessarily the ones defined by cold, pragmatic materialism. Any Theist worth their salt can tell you of the power of prayer, and most Wiccans also have magic in their arsenal of things that are not necessarily within the bounds of accepted "fact." The boundary of faith cannot be quantified, because faith itself cannot be quantified--and if you say "So what?" you're closer to the point than you know. Remember that in the definitions, we said that science deals solely with facts, and that faith deals solely with beliefs. Do the things that you believe in fall outside of commonly accepted fact? They can still be true. Where we run into possible trouble is when we believe things that explicitly contradict known facts--like the scene earlier with the broom and the rooftop. If the fact is true, then your belief is false--or vice versa. And if you believe something that is manifestly untrue, most people tend to look at you funny--at the very least. There is also a third option: your belief may contradict a known fact, and both your belief and the "known fact" may be false. Ain't logic wonderful? A General Summary
With a host of furious fancies
Whereof I am commander.
With a flaming spear, and a horse of air
Through the wilderness I wander.
For to see Mad Tom of Bedlam
Ten thousand miles I've traveled
Mad Maudlin goes on dirty toes
For to save her shoes from gravel. Several points to remember for later: As human beings, we can "know" something--but because our knowledge is finite, we can be wrong. Our knowledge is limited.
As human beings, we can "believe" something--but because faith cannot contradict fact (and remember--we can be wrong on our understanding of fact), our faith is limited.
It sounds like we're in pretty sad shape, doesn't it? Believe it or not, even with these limitations, we can do quite a bit. We just have to remember the limitations, so that our reasoning doesn't run aground on them later.
OK, we've covered a lot of ground, and I'm afraid that the previous fires were barely a warm-up for this week's discussion. And we're still in the foundational work. Think about what you've read here, and I'll try to have something ready next week--but in the meantime, keep those questions and comments coming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1997-2003 c.e., et seq., Justin Eiler. This text file may be freely distributed via computer, print, or other media, provided that no editing is done and this notice is included. |
|
Reply
| |
The Foundation of Knowledge -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings my friends! Well, I see you made it back--I'm pleased, because the last chapter was kind of difficult. Unfortunately, things don't get easier from here--at least, not yet. This week, we're continuing our discussion of knowledge, and it can get deep in here. Bad jokes to the side, the question of "How do you know that you know what you know" is an important foundation to the balance of this part of the website. Be at peace, my friends. Sit by the fire and relax. Help yourself to the s'mores and the cider--I brought extra cider, because it can get pretty dry from here on in. Why Not Metaphysics?
For those of you who have studied philosophy before, it is obvious that the first area that I'm tackling is epistemology (the study of knowledge), rather than metaphysics (the study of the nature of reality). At first this seemed strange, but it's really not--unless you define what knowledge is, you cannot define the nature of the reality that you may or may not know about. Of course, there's a problem here as well--you cannot define knowledge unless you define whether or not your knowledge reflects reality, and we haven't defined what is real yet.
It's a Catch 22, but there is a way out of it. If we accept that, as human beings, we cannot know everything--if we accept that our ability to acquire knowledge has limits--we can then accept that we work with what we are able to learn from our perspective. One of our limits in acquiring knowledge is perspective. As finite human beings, we cannot truly "step outside" of the ways that we think--and not all of us think the same. Psychologists have noticed the differences in ways people think, and they have various (usually contradictory) theories on why this occurs. The full scope and import of psychological theory is well beyond the scope of this website, but I highly recommend that any prospective Wiccan clergy get a basic understanding of the subject. Just as we cannot step outside of the way that we think, we also cannot step outside of the universe, or of our assumptions about the universe. All of the major metaphysical models--and there are several--are based on an internal viewpoint. We look at the universe "from the inside, as it were, just as we look at knowledge from "inside" our assumptions. Any metaphysical theory is going to be deeply influenced by a person's world-view, and remember, we defined world-view as "the combination of a person's culture, education, and learned values that affect a person's evaluation of the world around him." Remember when we discussed the scientific method in the last chapter? Metaphysics is not, and cannot be, an objective study. There is no way to develop a falsifiable hypothesis. No matter what metaphysical model you choose, if it is a workable model, the universe will seem to conform to your chosen idea. Do you follow Platonic Idealism, or Aristotelian Materialism? Either way you go, it makes no difference: the universe acts in a manner that conforms to your basic assumptions. Yeah, I know--I just lost those of you who never studied philosophy. We'll discuss the specifics of Idealism and Realism in Chapter 5, but for now it will suffice to understand that these are two metaphysical models that are mutually contradictory. So instead of knowledge of the nature of the universe, we deal with assumption, belief, and world-view. Now, that doesn't mean that we step completely into subjective experience, but it does mean that we deal with what some philosophers consider "dangerous territory." We deal with basic assumptions, so it is important to understand what those assumptions are--in this particular case, Wiccan assumptions. What Are Assumptions?
It sounds like a simple definition: assumptions are basic statements that a person takes for granted--statements made without proof, and without the need of proof. But if it's such a simple concept, what's the problem with using them as the basis of a philosophical system? The foundation of a building is the part that supports the rest of the building; well, yeah, obviously. If the foundation fails--if the materials are not strong enough, or if the foundation was shoddily built, or if it was built in an unsuitable location--then the building will fail, usually catastrophically. So if the foundations of a building are important, then the foundations of one's philosophy are also important--if the assumptions contradict known facts, or if they only reflect a person's prejudices, then the philosophy that rests on those assumptions is not going to accurately reflect the universe. We all make assumptions. Some of the assumptions are soundly based in logic: to continue an analogy from the last chapter, if I jump off of the roof of my house with my broom, I can safely assume that I'm going to suffer a painful fall. I assume that gravity is in effect, and that the ground is hard. In that case, my assumption matches known facts about gravity and impact. Assumptions that directly contradict known facts cannot be true, and therefore are not a good foundation for philosophy. But what happens if we are trying to work from an assumption that cannot be correlated to a known fact? I could assume, generally speaking, that magic works, or that prayer is a good way to get in touch with the Divine, but with no scientific way to verify these assertions, I cannot correlate my assumptions to fact. In that, assumptions can be a type of belief. Belief cannot contradict fact, but not all facts can be known. We saw that we cannot step outside of our universe to get an objective understanding of it, so if we want to base any ideas on our understanding of the universe, we have to base them on assumption, rather than on known fact. Our assumptions may or may not be true--that's rather ambiguous, since we're working with things that cannot be known as facts. So why assume anything? If many of our basic assumptions are not verifiable as fact, why do we bother? Seemingly, humanity feels the need to know--or, at least, to think that we know--what makes the universe tick. The basic questions of "Why are we here?" and "What is our purpose on earth?" have been asked at least since Socrates--probably before then, but Socrates was one of the earliest recorded people who asked that question. They're important questions--at least, they're important in certain contexts. Our base assumptions of the nature of reality affect the way that we react towards that reality. Someone who views the universe as the creation of the Gods is going to treat it as he thinks the Gods want him to, whether he calls the Gods "Kernunos and Aradia" or "Yahweh" or "Allah." Someone who views the universe as a product of random chance may treat the world as if it had no importance beyond that randomness, or may treat it as a miracle of probability--the one place in the Universe where we know, without a doubt, that life evolved. Assumptions are basic not only to our understanding of the universe, but to how we behave towards it, and towards the people in it. So our assumptions are the basis of our ethics: to one degree or another, our assumptions dictate how we act. Therefore it is important that our assumptions model, as accurately as possible, what we know of the world around us. Wiccan Core Assumptions
Wiccans assume (there's that word again) that the world is a real thing, and that the world shares in Divine nature. At the same time, most Wiccans accept the Big Bang theory of cosmology. Now, it sounds like I'm getting into metaphysics, but I'm not, yet--we're still talking epistemology, the study of knowledge.
Most Wiccans view the world as created by the Gods, not necessarily for a specific purpose, but out of an act of love for each other, and for the world that they were making. We've already taken a brief look at the Wiccan Creation Myth in the last part of the introduction, but let's think through the ramifications for a moment. If the world shares in the nature of the Gods, then getting to know the world is getting to know--at least by approximation--the Gods. We'll discuss this in greater depth later in the chapter. Most Wiccans also accept the Big Bang theory of cosmological origins. Now, it sounds like that should fall under the category of knowledge, not assumption--and it does, sort of. But remember what we said about facts: facts can be refuted by later discoveries. In a large sense, factual knowledge of the Universe is beneficial and helpful, but because of that impermanence, it is not "ultimate" knowledge. The scientific model of the universe is an attempt by finite humans to understand a finite, but immensely large, Universe--but as humans, we cannot attain all knowledge. The scientific model speaks solely of the mechanics of the universe: this is "how the car runs," as it were. The Wiccan theistic creation myth--like all other creation myths--speaks of the One who turned the key. The problem with these things is that both are human attempts to understand something that is fundamentally outside of human understanding. As the Christian scriptures state: "Now we see through a glass darkly...." We can understand in a limited fashion the universe around us, and we can believe or assume certain things about the purpose and origin of the Universe, but we cannot really know the truth of these issues. The Wiccan Creation Myth
We've already seen this once, but rather than go back to that page and have to flip back and forth, let's look at it again:
Before Time, there was the One -- and the One was All. And the One beheld Itself in the curved mirror of Nothingness, and loved Itself, and the one became Two -- Male and Female, separate, but still One. And the Two (who are One) came together, and loved, and as they sang in their love Time was created, to hold the meter of the Song. And Space was created, to contain the bounds of Their Love. And as Their song of love became cries of pleasure, of Their joy and love for each other was born all that is, spun of the very essence of the Two (who are One). The great galaxies that spin, and the stars within them; the planets and moons that revolve and turn, each in its own path; and all of Creation sang back the Love of the Two (who are One). And of their love was born all things that live, spun -- like the Universe itself -- from the very substance of the Two (who are One). And thus all Life was born in Love. For we are all from the One, who is Two -- created in Love, born of Love, and returning to Love. And thus was everything made that was made. OK, here we have the Universe being created in an act of love--or, if you prefer, a sexual act. While we will discuss several issues relating to this myth, including the sacredness of sex, and the ethics of sex, in later chapters, right now we're discussing knowledge. This is one of the primary myths of Earthstar Wicca, and as such it is foundational to our philosophy. Now, as I said before, we believe that Creation shares in the Divine nature, and that learning about nature helps us learn about the Gods. But what does that mean? How does studying rocks, weather, or human nature help us understand the Gods? The Creation Myth shows a Universe born--literally "given birth"--by the Goddess. If the Universe is the product of the Gods' reproductive act, then creation shares in the nature of the Creator--just as a child shares in the nature of the parent. We are the children of the Gods, in that we are part of the Universe that is also the child of the Gods. This relationship to the Gods cannot be abrogated. Many Christians view mankind as being in a state of separation from God: this comes directly from the cultural roots of Judaism, the predecessor to Christianity (as well as a viable religious path in its own right). Judaism developed in a culture where Gods were viewed as kings, and kings were literal despots. Their word was law, and if you were banished from their kingdom, you stayed banished. A king was to be appeased with gifts and absolute obedience--similarly, the God was to be appeased with worship, sacrifice, and absolute obedience. Wicca developed with different concepts of the Divine: we do not accept the concept of sin--a state of separation from God. We believe that while one can anger or even dishonor the Gods, one cannot deny or break the relatedness between Man and Divine, any more than one can abrogate the connection between Man and Nature. Our concept of the Gods is quite parental: even if parents are angry at us, they still love us, unless something is really wrong with the relationship. So if we are connected to the Gods, and we are connected with nature, then the Gods are also connected with nature. What does that tell us about knowledge? It means that if we can learn about nature--if we can take steps to understand the Universe around us--we have a closer understanding of the Gods. True, this understanding is at one remove, but even so it illustrates the concept. We cannot experience the Gods in an objective manner, but we can experience their greatest work: Creation itself. Science, or Faith?
So was the Universe actually created in a divine act of reproduction? Scientifically speaking, of course not--but remember, science cannot comment on the existence or nature of the Divine. Science deals solely with fact, not belief. The Wiccan Creation Myth is a mythico-religious metaphor, not scientific theory.
On those points that science speaks, however, the Myth is certainly compatible--or, at least, there is an analogy. Science states that the Universe, before the Big Bang, was compressed into a single point. There was no time, no space, no existence: the entirety of what now stands before us was compressed into a singularity (similar to a massive black hole). All of Creation resulted from that singularity. In one sense, the "Big Bang" could be seen as the actual moment of birth. Again, the scientific model speaks of how the car runs: the theistic myth speaks of who turned the key. The Basis of Knowledge
So our theory of knowledge is based on the assumption that the universe is real--that it is intrinsically and fundamentally existent, outside of human experience. We believe that Creation is the basis of the reality that we experience on a day-to-day basis, and we further believe that our experiences more-or-less accurately reflect that reality. These three statements are fairly simple, but they are the core of the understanding of knowledge.
The Universe is Real
As I said earlier, the assumption that the Universe is intrinsically real is not universal: there are people who believe that the nature of reality is based on their perceptions of it, or on their beliefs. While I believe that perception and belief can be powerful tools for changing the Universe, this does not disprove the basic reality of the Universe: if your beliefs are going to change something, it has to be there to be changed.
There are those who say that the world that we see around us is not real, but is the product of illusion. This world-view asserts that what we see of the universe is a self-imposed deception: we have an unfalsifiable assertion, so we cannot use science to gauge the correctness of the assertion. The problem comes because no matter what test one would apply to see if the world is real or not, the illusion would make the test occur in a predictable fashion. If the illusion is actually that accurate, it affects everything, including the senses that one would use to try to pierce the illusion and see reality. For my own part, I believe that the world that we see is real: it existed before I did, and will exist after I am gone. The Universe will not last forever, but it will last a lot longer than me. The problem with this assertion is that it is also unfalsifiable--I cannot tell, from my point of view within the Universe, if I am interacting with real things, or with illusion: my statement that the Universe is real is a statement of faith, on my part. The Universe is the Basis of The Reality of Our Sense Experience
With that one statement of faith, everything else in our Wiccan assumptions follows logically. When we sense something, we are not getting some form of "feedback" from our imagination: the images we see, the sound that we hear, indeed all of our senses are reactions to physical events. Philosophy used to be quite interested with the actual mechanism of sensation. Well, science has taken over that particular study: as students of philosophy, we don't need to know as much about how the light affects the appropriate cells in the eye, or how sound vibrates the eardrums, or how heat, cold, or contact affect the nerves of the skin; we don't need to know how the nerves relay this information to the brain; we don't need to know the biochemical changes that occur in the brain when these sensations take place. Most of us are familiar enough with the basics of anatomy and physiology to have at least an awareness of these things. At the same time, our assumption that the universe is the basis of our sense experiences is directly based from the science. Our senses are not some form of projection of our conscious mind: this information comes from the outside, and the process of light, sound, or touch physically affecting our sense organs demonstrates that this is the real world acting on our physical bodies to produce these sensations. We see because the light is there to be seen; we hear because the sound is there to be heard. Now, that doesn't mean that what we sense is everything there is to the world: but more on that in the next section. Experience (more or less) Accurately Reflects Reality
Our sensory experience accurately reflects the status of Reality--more or less. That "more-or-less" is important: we already know that, as human beings, we cannot learn all that there is to know, but what we can learn is significant and important.
The reason for the disclaimer is that our senses are not perfect: they can be deceived, and the information they provide can be incorrect. We see the oar half-way in the water, and it looks bent: is the oar actually bent, or is it just the water that causes it to be so? Well, we know that light "bends" when it hits water at an angle, so rationally we "know" that the oar is straight, but it looks bent. Sensory information is not perfect. At the same time, it is useful--when used with due caution. Because we are aware that our senses can be deceived, or can miss information, we can make allowances for these things. We can make tools to make our senses stronger, or more reliable: cameras, telescopes, microscopes, all of these (and many more) are tools to improve our eyesight, or to preserve the memory of what was seen. Even here, these tools will not show what is not there. A camera cannot take a picture of something that is not visible: telescopes will not show what is not there. So when we see the universe around us, we see something with its own reality, and therefore with its own value. What's that--I hadn't mentioned value? You're right: I haven't yet, and we'll get into the concept of value more in Chapter 6. So what does all of this mean? Among other things, these assumptions put paid to the philosophical riddle about the tree in the forest: If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? By our view it does, because the tree (and the forest that it is in) are real things. Even if there is no human being around to sense the falling tree, the tree crashing into the ground makes noise. Of course, this does not answer all of our questions about knowledge, much less about the nature of reality. We'll talk more about knowledge next week, and about reality later in the series. For now, it's time to bank the fire, and head to our beds. This has been a deep chapter, and we're not through all of the hard material, but this is one of the most difficult. So if you've made it this far, I congratulate you: you're through most of the worst of it. Rest well, my friends, and be at peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1997-2003 c.e., et seq., Justin Eiler. This text file may be freely distributed via computer, print, or other media, provided that no editing is done and this notice is included.
|
|
Reply
| |
Deeper Studies
What Is Knowledge? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings my friends. Be at peace. I hope you're well, and I hope that last week's chat didn't lose you completely. This week, we're going to discuss knowledge: what is it, how does it work, and what it can do for us. Yes, I know that we've been discussing knowledge for a few weeks now, but at this point we're finished with the introductory material. Settle in by the fire, help yourselves to the s'mores and the cider, and we'll see if we can't clarify some things that may have seemed confusing. What Is Knowledge?
So we've talked about knowledge, but we really just talked around the topic: we haven't really found out what knowledge is. We've discussed some things--such as belief and opinion--that are not knowledge, but that are sometimes confused with knowledge. And we've discussed that knowledge has limits--there are certain things that we cannot know.
It sounds, so far, like I don't count knowledge as terribly important. This is not the case: knowledge is critical--so critical, in fact, that it is central to my understanding of my place in the universe. It is so critical that making a distinction of what knowledge is, and is not, is vital to understanding anything. That sounds oxymoronic: how can we understand knowledge? Don't we have to know in order to understand? Remember that list of definitions I gave in Chapter 1? I never defined understanding: let's do that now: Understanding is a subjective interpretation of fact or belief that is emotionally or logically satisfying. Understanding does not necessarily have a connection with fact, and contrary to the assumptions of most people, understanding has little to do with knowledge. I know--that's not the definition that's given in your dictionary, but remember that we need to use some words more precisely than the dictionary uses them. I can hear the protests now: "Wait a minute! Understanding is comprehension!" That's the dictionary definition, but think for a minute: for us to understand something, we have to correlate it to other knowledge that we already have. But as human beings, we don't usually separate our knowledge from our beliefs. For us to understand something, we also have to correlate it with our worldview, and this can affect our interpretation of facts, or even cause us to accept as fact things that cannot be proven, or to reject facts because they don't fit our world-view. Human "Understanding" is imprecise, but necessary. Without understanding, we cannot correlate the facts and knowledge that we have into a more-or-less unified whole. Understanding is the bridge between knowledge and belief, and helps us balance the two in proportions that we can accept--proportions that satisfy both our emotional desire for a "comfortable" Universe, and our logical drive for knowledge. Reason
The foundation of understanding is Reason. Reason is our ability to evaluate data, correlate facts, and compile knowledge: reason is also our ability to discern based on faith, belief, or opinion. It is by our ability to reason that we have the ability to understand the Universe around us, but like other human traits, reason is not perfect: it is also by our ability to reason that we can, if we choose, reject facts in favor of our beliefs or prejudices.
Reason is unavoidable: as humans, we all reason. At its best, reason can--and has--produced such wonders as the Sistine Chapel; the Space Shuttle; and the Civil Rights Movement. At its worst, reason has produced such atrocities as the Cold War; the 18th, 19th, and 20th century pogrom against Native Americans; and Mein Kampf. But reason is not restricted only to grand artistic endeavors or hateful politics. We reason in our everyday activities. Think back to the analogy of me on the roof with my broomstick--it is by my ability to reason that I know that jumping off the roof is a really bad idea, unless I want a headache. It is because of our ability to reason that we can correlate experience, make projections based on past knowledge, and extend our--again that word--understanding of the universe around us. One other benefit of reason is the ability to ask "What if?" Because of that ability, reason is one of the foundation of science. Because we can make projections based on previous experience, we can use the scientific method to evaluate our ideas. Reason is also the foundation of belief--much for the same reason. We can ask ourselves "What if?" about non-factual issues, even though we cannot evaluate them scientifically. This does give a new differentiation between types of knowledge. We can have experiential knowledge: knowledge based on what we have seen, heard, or experienced. We also have theoretical knowledge: knowledge based on reason, without direct experience. Fundamentally, knowledge is information that I possess about the world around me. Knowledge just lies there--without Reason to apply it to life, knowledge is useless. It is Reason that allows us to evaluate our actions, to apply our knowledge to new situations, and to understand the world around us. Far more important than the study of knowledge is the study of Reason. How Do We Gain Knowledge?
Experience
Experience is the "gateway" to knowledge. Sensory experience is how we gain data from the world around us. The process of experience begins on the day we are born--more practically, it begins when our brains develop to the point that we are actually evaluating the information that our senses give us. We learn many things through experience: we learn that hot things can hurt us; we learn that water is wet; we learn that falling hurts.
Experience, however, isn't the be-all and end-all of learning. Intrinsically, experience has its flaws: our senses are not perfect. We can be fooled (or can fool ourselves) into seeing or hearing things that are not there; we can fail to see all of an event; or we can be absent from an event and not experience any of it. It must be understood that sensory experience is not knowledge: before it becomes knowledge, sensory experience must be evaluated by reason. However, knowledge without some form of experience is impossible: as an example, because no human being was present at the creation of the Universe, it is impossible to definitively "know" about its physical origins. We were not around to experience it. We can, however, correlate what we can experience of the universe that we can experience today, and extrapolate current conditions backwards to get a theoretical idea of the origins of the universe. This is also "experience," of a sort, but we could not make the jump from experiential knowledge to theoretical knowledge without reason. Reason
We then evaluate our experiences with our reason--and it's at this point that things can go spectacularly right, or catastrophically wrong. The process of interpreting our experiences means that we seek to understand them--in other words, we seek to "fit" our experiences into a context where the experience fits comfortably with previously held knowledge and beliefs. Reason is important in the Scientific Method. It is by reason that we can generate that first Idea: that "what if" that leads to discovery. It is by reason that we can devise tests to disprove our ideas--or failing all attempts to disprove them, it is by reason that we can extrapolate further ideas from the thesis that we make. I said I'd discuss why the Scientific Method seeks to disprove the hypothesis, rather than to prove it. Let's look at gravity: Isaac Newton first proposed the hypothesis that mass attracts other mass--legend says he got the idea by watching an apple fall from a tree. Obviously, if the apple fell, he could use this to "prove" that it is gravity that causes this attraction--but that is only a restatement of the original sense experience. Instead, he (and the other scientists over the centuries who have worked with the theory) worked to disprove it. In doing so, he and others have not only quantified how gravity works, but have discovered other principles that allowed us such wonders as powered flight and space travel. Our process of reason on any specific issue that we experience depends on our world-view. If we experience something that has little or no emotional or psychological impact to us, then we might simply accept it and go on. If we experience something that dramatically conflicts with our worldview, we might change our worldview (a much more difficult proposition than this brief sentence makes it seem), or we might reject the information (yes, it happens, more frequently than some of us would like to admit). Accept or reject: It sounds like a relatively simple proposition, but it isn't. It's even less simple when we consider the myriad conflicting messages we get every day. Back to the analogy made in the introduction: we have the elephant before us, but we are blind. Our brothers--blind like us--all seek to make us believe that their understanding of the elephant is the "correct" one. Reason is how we choose: do we follow someone else's understanding of the elephant? Do we reject all understanding, and say that there is no elephant at all? Or do we develop our own understanding? Even then we must do our best to be certain that our understanding of the elephant is as accurate as possible, or we fall into error. Worldview
Reason is based on our worldview. If our worldview is conservative Christian, then we base how we view the world as a product of the Fall. If our worldview is atheistic, then we see the world as empty of Gods. If our worldview is Wiccan, then we see the world as born of the Gods. Worldview is informed by our religious views, but religion is far from being the only component of our worldview. All that we know, and all that we believe, affects our worldview: indeed, our worldview stems from our knowledge and our faith. Worldview affects the way that we reason: if we receive information that contradicts our worldview, then we either change our worldview, or we reject the information. Reasoning Critically
This potential for error is why critical reason is so important. Critical reasoning is the ability to discern fact from error. Critical reasoning is not perfect: we all have the ability to ignore or reject facts that do not fit in with our worldview, but critical reasoning--when accurately used to assess the world around us--is the best tool that we have to gain a correct understanding of the Universe. Imagine, if you will, a television set. The television can receive signals from many different stations, but since the stations are competing, you're going to get different information from all of them. These messages are very different--some are well-crafted commercials from professional advertisers who use any possible argument to try to sell the viewer just about anything you can imagine; some are earnest attempts to persuade the viewer to a certain point of view; some are mindless entertainment with no attempt at a plot; some are educational programs on a myriad of subjects. The viewer can change the channel--we can choose what information we pay attention to, and what information we ignore--but the power switch is broken. The TV stays on all the time that the viewer is awake. As the "viewer" in the analogy above, we have the choice to reject, or to accept, incoming information. This information can take several forms--sensory input, conversations with a friend, the songs we listen to, the books that we read, classroom instruction, religious training, political speeches, or what have you. We choose what to accept, and what to reject. Most of those choices go on unconsciously--we don't have to be told that a television program is fictional, or that a news program is (putatively) real, we simply assume that they are. The optimal use of our capacity to reason is to model truth as accurately as possible. The biggest obstacle to that is uncertainty: we are uncertain of many of our facts (due to limits of human perception), and we are--so long as we are honest with ourselves--uncertain of the objective veracity of our beliefs (due to the subjective nature of belief). Among other things, critical reasoning is the ability to detect logical errors. Now, we'll be covering logic to a greater degree in Section 4 of this part of the website, but for now let's take a brief look at it. If I were to tell you that all politicians are honest, you could no doubt point out some classic examples of dishonest politicians. On the other hand, if I were to take the position that spinach greens were bad for your health (simply because I don't like spinach), you could easily point out the health benefits from eating greens. These are trivial examples of critical reasoning: you are using your knowledge to criticize my statements. Critical reasoning must be based on fact. If you attempt to use opinion or belief as the basis of your critical reasoning, then you fall into the error demonstrated above by my arguing against spinach. But critical reason is informed my our beliefs and opinions. I can tell you (honestly) that I despise spinach greens--that's an opinion. I cannot truthfully tell you that they're bad for you--they're not. But I can tell you--truthfully--that spinach has a bitter taste. Critical reasoning deals with both objective and subjective experience. Well, my friends, we've covered quite a bit of ground with this chat, and we still have one more section to go that deals with knowledge--to be more specific, we have one more section that deals with reason. Next week, we'll talk more about critical reasoning. Keep those comments coming, but between now and then, be at peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1997-2003 c.e., et seq., Justin Eiler. This text file may be freely distributed via computer, print, or other media, provided that no editing is done and this notice is included.
|
|
Reply
| |
Deeper Studies
Reason and Metaphysics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings, my friends! Be at peace, and be welcome. The fire is burning, the cider is mulled, the marshmallows are ready. Ah, but are we? Well, ready or not, let us sit down and begin. Last week, I told you that while I quite agree that the study of knowledge is important, the study of reason is far more important. But what is reason? Is it possible for people to live without reason? Is reason infallible? And if it's not, how do we reason correctly? Reason
I'm typing this from home, so of course I have one of my cats in my lap (he's correcting my spelling ). Now, I love my cats: they're wonderful creatures--loving animals that always know what they want, and they want it NOW! Do cats reason? Well, cats can be trained to do tricks, and they can solve simple problems, but we normally don't think of cats, say, sacrificing their time to lay in a sunbeam to clean the kitchen. Currently my cat is trying to lay across my arms--this interferes with my typing, so I'm more likely to pet him. Cats and other animals live for the moment, and they do not plan for the future in a constructive way: they do not reason--at least, they do not reason as human beings do. Humans do plan for the future--well, let me rephrase that. Human beings have the capability to plan for the future: we do not always exercise that capability. The capability to plan for the future involves making choices. I could choose to go ahead with my typing (and thereby disappoint my cat), or I could choose to pet him--or I could choose to get up and do something else entirely. Which is the right choice? More precisely, since none of these choices would be "wrong," which is the best choice? "Right" and "best" are terms that we use when discussing ethics, and while we will not get to a full discussion of ethics until Section III, we can look at how to reason properly from a strictly utilitarian point of view now. Strictly speaking, reason is the ability to evaluate our selves, our world, and the relationships between the two. This evaluation covers both time and space, since we can think not only about different places, but about the past and future. The Importance of Reason
It is reason that allows us to correctly interpret the world around us. Now, the word "correctly" can also be used in an ethical sense, but this time we're just using it in the sense of accuracy. If I am not accurate in my reason, I could do myself some severe damage: if I did not use my reason to understand that fire is hot, I could put my hand in the fire, instead of my marshmallow, and get severely burned. Avoiding things that can hurt us is only one use for our faculty of reason. But we also have other choices where reason comes into play where the situation is not immediately dangerous. If I spend all of my money on marshmallows and cider, and have nothing left for my house payment at the end of the month--not to mention what all those marshmallows would do to my weight--then the situation that I have placed myself into is not immediately dangerous, but it is still not good for me. That is one advantage that we, as human beings, have over, say, my cat, who only wants the demands of that moment met--we can plan for the future, and we can decide to forgo a momentary pleasure for a larger purpose. Human reasoning gives us the capability to either accept, or to reject, incoming information. Because of reason, we know (or we believe that we know) the difference between fact and fiction. If we watch a movie, or read a novel, we may choose for the time being to temporarily suspend that distinction, but we understand that the two are not the same: this ability to separate what is true from what is not true is also part of our ability to reason. This ability do make a distinction between reality and falsehood can be fooled. Stage magicians do this all the time--they deceive our senses to make it seem that coins can appear from thin air, or train cars disappear from the tracks. Stage magicians deceive our senses as a form of entertainment: we know that the seemingly impossible things that are happening on the stage are actually tricks, but we enjoy the tricks, and we reward the skillfulness of the magician by buying tickets to their shows. There are others who attempt to deceive our senses, or sway our ability to reason, whose motives may not be so pure. People who write advertisements attempt to entice the audience to purchase their product, or at least to accept their point of view. Political speeches are written to persuade the audience to vote the way the candidate desires. People who write political or social propaganda--everything from the Elder Protocols of Zion to Mein Kampf to some of the anti-Communist screeds of the 1950s and 1960s--attempted to persuade their audiences that their social views should be followed. These are all examples of persuasive writing, and it should be remembered that there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" with persuasion, in and of itself: the ethics of persuasion lie in what you are attempting to persuade your audience to do, as well as in your methods. We will discuss ethics of persuasion in more depth in Part Three, but for now it is enough to realize that not everyone who tried to persuade you to accept their point of view is honest. We use our ability to reason to attempt to make a distinction between honest and dishonest writing, television shows, speeches and discussions. This is, however, one area in which we can get into problems: our reason is influenced by our worldview, and our worldview is not based solely on fact: if our worldview is not based on how the world really is, we not only have a greater chance to be deceived by others, we have a greater chance of deceiving ourselves. "Deceiving ourselves?" Yep. Because our reason is based on our worldview, if our worldview is factually incorrect, then our ability to reason is affected. If someone truly believes that people of Hebrew or African descent are evil, they will be more likely to believe Mein Kampf, or books with a similar philosophy. If someone feels that rock music is of the Devil, then they may believe that every ambiguous or suggestive lyric is part of a "diabolical plan" to influence the young. Deceiving ourselves is a serious possibility for anyone, so it is imperative that we use our reason to reject those components of our worldview that do match reality. The Problems With Reason
This potential for self deception stems from many sources, but the common thread is that we all have the capability to use reason to "explain away" things that we do not wish to include in our worldview. Most of us form an emotional attachment to our worldview: we do not like it when someone criticizes our understanding of the world around us, and we tend to defend our views emotionally. This is true even if our worldview is accurate (or is accurate to the best of our knowledge)--we often react passionately when criticized. Passion is important, and can be a useful tool, but when we try to defend our worldviews with emotional arguments, we end up spouting far more rhetoric than logic--and we also tend to get as stubborn as the proverbial Missouri mules. Let's take sports as an example: I lived for a while in the Chicago area, and was nominally a Chicago Cubs fan. This was back in the late 1970s, when it seemed that the Cubs could do nothing right. Now, it must be understood that I don't particularly care for baseball, but I would root for the Cubs if it was an important game. Yet I have seen Cubs fans who were so passionate about their preference in baseball teams that--even if the team was particularly awful that year--they would go on and on about how good the players were, and that this was "their year." If people can be that passionate about sports teams--and remember, the term "fan" comes from the word "fanatic"--imagine how emotional we can get about our religious beliefs, or our worldview. The fan's attachment to their favorite sports team is a milder example of the emotional attachment that many of us form for our worldview. It's a bit more profound than the adherence of a fan for his favorite sports team, but we form an emotional attachment to our worldview, and we gain comfort from it--if nothing more than the comfort of understanding, or believing that we understand. Even an atheist, who believes that Deity does not exist, gains the comfort of believing that they understand how the universe came to be, and their place in it. This "comfort of understanding" can lead to what I call "easy believe-ism." The emotional discomfort that we go through when our basic assumptions are challenged can be traumatic. The strain of searching the universe, and our own souls, for the answers to those basic questions can lead to doubts, anger, fear, or any number of negative emotions. How much easier, for most of us, to simply ignore the questions? For Wicca, "easy believe-ism" is a real problem. Many Eclectic Wiccans are encouraged to believe whatever suits them, so long as it fits within the (extremely) broad parameters of Wicca: if you can wrap your concepts around the basic theology of the God and the Goddess, most Eclectic Wiccans won't blink twice at it. Many basic Wiccan books currently on the market have all the intellectual depth and clarity of your average bowl of mud. Most humans don't like their basic beliefs to be challenged by other people, and many don't bother to challenge their beliefs themselves. As a species, well, we're lazy: most of us want to do nothing more than what we have to, and then we want to relax in the comfort of our lives. Truth to tell, it's a bit more complicated than that, but laziness does play a part in the process of reasoning. Thinking about philosophical questions can be a lot of work: separating our assumptions from our facts, sorting through what we know, what we believe, and what we're just guessing at. Heck, it's not just philosophy--look at any academic subject, like mathematics. While I do know some people who enjoy advanced math--sick and twisted souls that they are--I know of very few who would prefer doing math homework to, say, relaxing with a loved one. Laziness gets its appeal because reasoning--applying rigorous thought to the situations in our lives--is plain, hard work. Reason requires work: to reason, we have to be willing to look at all of the available evidence; we have to be willing to properly gauge the information coming to us from our senses, our education, and our worldview; we have to be able to properly and accurately decide what information is correct, and what information is incorrect. One example is the web-pages that you're reading: this took a lot of work to write and revise, and I had to question my basic assumptions rigorously. And I cannot even guarantee that this work is accurate. That's the biggest possible downfall of our human ability to reason: when we reason, we have the potential to be wrong. In part that's because our understanding is finite; in part, it's because we have the ability to reject incoming facts; but in part, it's the human potential for honest error. Because our reasoning is based on our worldview, and our worldview is based (at least, in part) on our current education, experience, and beliefs, what happens if we honestly accept as fact something that is incorrect. Don't say it hasn't happened to you--I know it's happened to me. To be perfectly honest, it's a good thing I don't claim to be wise--I have so much evidence to the contrary. So Why Use Reason?
So, if reason is subject to error, why do we use it at all? Well, besides the fact that as human beings we cannot stop reasoning, reason can be a useful tool. That's not to say that human reason has no flaws, or is infallible: our ability to reason is like fire--a useful tool, but one that you must make sure that we use properly. Reason can be an effective tool for discerning and understanding facts, but only if used in an effective manner. Let's say that you're sitting in front of your television. If a commercial comes on about a product you're interested in, you use your reason to evaluate the information presented in the commercial. If it sounds too good to be true, or if the claims made in the commercial are not reasonable, you're probably going to reject the assertions made. If the claims are reasonable, and you like the presentation, you may accept the assertions. You've just used your reason to evaluate the commercial--but wait a minute. What happens if you've reached the wrong conclusion? In that case--whether you rejected good information, or accepted bad information--you failed to use your reason effectively. Reason can be a useful tool--when used for useful purposes. That sounds a bit odd, but think about it for a moment. I like Babylon 5, the science fiction television show. If I use my ability to reason to temporarily set aside my knowledge that the show is fictional, that's a useful purpose: I get an hour's worth of entertaining television. But if I use my ability to reason to try to rationalize the thought that Babylon 5 is actually true, then I've used my reason for a purpose that is not useful. Believing that Babylon 5 is real is not going to help me in my life--indeed, if it interferes with my life too much, I'm likely to get locked away somewhere with padded wallpaper. In the same way, there are people who use their reason for any number of purposes that are, frankly, not useful. OK, I see some hands--what is useful? Well, we'll cover it in more depth in Part 3, when we talk about ethics, but one definition of "useful" is that it helps me live my life and be happy. Now, that doesn't mean I have to always use my reason to think deep, philosophical thoughts about life. Heck, I'm talking about a television show. There's nothing wrong with entertainment, so long as I use my ability to reason (there's that word again) to know when it is appropriate to watch TV, and when it is appropriate to do something else. The problem comes in because we are all capable of using reason for good purposes, or for not-so-good purposes, or even for purposes that can only be considered evil. Reason can work for us, or against us: that's why it is important that our understanding of the world match the real nature of the world as closely as possible. Reality
So what is the world? What is reality? Metaphysics--the category of philosophy that deals with the nature of reality--cannot be completely separated from epistemology--the category of philosophy that deals with the study of knowledge. We cannot know about the nature of the universe without knowing about knowledge, and we cannot study knowledge without studying the universe. Truth to tell, all philosophy is connected, and discussions in one segment of philosophy lead, invariably, into discussions of the other areas, but these two are especially closely related. So what does our ability to reason tell us about the universe? If we remember that reason relies on both external information (sensory input) and on internal information (worldview), then we are aware that reason does not completely rely on objective fact, but it is a useful tool for discovering fact. Order
With our ability to reason, we can see patterns of order in the Universe around us. We can see that things have structure, and that their structure defines what they are. We can observe that there are regular occurrences in our universe, such as gravity, and we can classify those occurrences. Because the universe has order, we can try to understand it. Ah, yes, we discussed earlier that "understanding" also has an emotional or subjective component, but there is also an intellectual component: we can attempt to understand the mechanics of the universe by looking at the patterns. True, our understanding is limited because of our finite nature, but we can strive to understand as much as possible within those limitations. But order is not the be-all and end-all of the universe, just as understanding is not the be-all and end-all of human knowledge. There are things in the universe that break the patterns of order that we can experience. Surprise
The universe has patterns of order in it, but with our ability to reason, we can observe breaks in those patterns. It is the breaks in the pattern that tell us that our understanding is incomplete. The patterns that we observe are human-based understanding of the universe. That sounds like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm really not: for us, as human beings, to understand creation, we have to classify and order our observations in our own mind--we use reason for that. But while the patterns that we see are important to our understanding, the universe is not constrained by that understanding. How many times have you seen something in the world that surprised you? You might as well ask "How many times have you seen things that defied your understanding?" This concept of incomplete understanding becomes very important when we consider metaphysics, but we'll get into specifics in the next section. Chaos and Entropy
One of the patterns that we can see is entropy. The universe is decaying: patterns of organization are falling apart, and one of the physical patterns that we can see is called entropy. Entropy can be illustrated in a simple match. Imagine lighting a match: it produces light, heat, and smoke, but the match itself burns. While it burns, particles from the match are dispersed into the atmosphere. The match is in a less "organized" state after lighting than before. No big deal, right? Our sun--our entire universe--is going through a similar process. No, it's not going to "burn up" in our lifetimes, but eventually--millions of years from now--the universe will be a burnt-out, used up husk. We will not live to see that end--but entropy also affects us on a local scale. Metals rust, stones erode, wood dries out and rots, living things age and die. Even on a local scale, the world around us is on an inevitable slide towards chaos. Entropy can be resisted--on a local scale, and temporarily. While it would be impossible to re-gather all the smoke from the match and make a match again, there are things that we can do to resist the slide towards chaos. However, choosing to resist entropy or to assist it is more a matter for ethics than for epistemology, so we will discuss it in further depth in Part 3. Opening the Door Science teaches us the physical, knowledge-based structure of the universe around us; faith teaches us the non-physical, belief-based purpose of the universe. Philosophy teaches us how to combine the two. Well, my friends, this brings us to the end of our discussion of epistemology. It's been a rough road, but hopefully we've set the foundation for the remaining areas of study. Go out and practice what you have learned. I hope you will give long with these principles and they will help you in your Path of theWise.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 1997-2003 c.e., et seq., Justin Eiler. This text file may be freely distributed via computer, print, or other media, provided that no editing is done and this notice is included.
|
|
|
First
Previous
2-8 of 8
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to Third Degree