SCIENCE!
I'm supposed to be doing my homework, but I'd rather not (c'mon, you guys, I have a Chinese midterm, give me a break :P), so instead, I'm going to write about evolution. One of my classes this year is an upper-division biology class, Experimental Ecology & Evolution (E3, for short, and I love it more than any class ever), which is giving me uppity ( Read more... )
Your previous post seemed to set free will as equivalent to being, which is why I characterized your paradigm as "Being is [free will]" rather than "Being is [because of free will]." It wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth. Similarly, if effects are latent in being, and if free will is also (latent in?) being, it did not seem entirely unfair to characterize it as a cause, albeit the only cause of any action. Would calling it something like a necessary and sufficient condition be more accurate?
I do apologize for insulting you regarding gravity. I was just getting frustrated because you said we don't know what gravity is (and mischaracterized it as a force, which it really isn't), I told you what gravity is, and you responded, we don't know what gravity is. But I think I understand what you were getting at a little bit better now - to you, it is that (and here I may be misunderstanding you again) we can't know what gravity is.
I would contend that if we can say that something exists, it is because we have observed it, and its definition is the sum total of our observations regarding it. The scientific theory, while not necessarily perfect, functions as a sort of shorthand for that definition, much as I would say "a^2 + b^2 = c^2" rather than showing you data regarding every right triangle that has been observed.
And I would have to show you data, for the simple reason that I can't show you every right triangle. Even if I could, the moment you make an observation about those triangles, you've separated it from the things being observed, because now it's taken the form of electrical signals in your brain. So, gathering and transmitting data is the only way we have of communicating our observations to others, and to draw conclusions from an observation is to do so by examining data.
Of course the data isn't the thing itself. Of course it's an approximation. But as I said earlier (the bit about solving for x and all) when we go and do further observation, the conclusions we have drawn from those approximations hold true. Thus, they are useful for understanding the world around us.
So, the scientific paradigm might be more like "That which we can observe exists." Science describes the things observed, and the manner in which they exist, which, according to observation, includes causation. If cause/effect was not strongly implied by the data - if any apple in the history of falling apples had ever fallen up - science would not assume causation. Observation comes first. The only thing science assumes is that we can draw conclusions from our observations, which I don't think you're disputing.
With the statement "Being is," there's nowhere to go from there, but maybe that's your point. (On a related note, how is "Being is" not a tautology? I'm not trying to insult you, I'm honestly curious.)
I guess my main question at this point is, if you reject causation, how can you accept evolution, as you said earlier that you do? How can you accept any scientific discovery that has ever been made?
Re. materialism and morality: just as you may find the cause/effect paradigm to be useful, even while rejecting it (did I just answer my own question?), so it is with materialists and the idea of free will. And morality is not a joke, if only because it acts as one of the constraints I mentioned previously. I don't deny that pain and suffering exist, nor do I consider my belief in determinism to be sufficient reason to ignore them, or not to attempt to ameliorate them.
Reply
I'm just trying to say, existentialism is not magic, as Rachel seems to have construed it again. (And frankly, I don't want to get into that argument with Rachel. We'll just both end up calling each other lunatics and yelling a lot, as we seem to have done already. It's not constructive.) I am willing to accept materialism as a possible and internally valid ontology, however, I also believe existentialism is a possible and internally valid ontology. Thus for me, it's a choice. Do I want to live assuming free will or not? And seeing as that very choice is a choice, the choice for me is clear.
As to why "Being is." is not a tautology, you've in fact come close to the matter, you just need to take it a step further. It's a dialectic. Dialectic functions on the formula of thesis + antithesis = synthesis. Then the synthesis becomes a new thesis. etc. Now, this is different from a scientific hypothesis because the synthesis still contains the thesis and antithesis within itself. They form a whole. The best way I can depict this is graphically, so I wish I could draw it for you, because it's easier to understand that way. I'll try to describe the drawing. You have 2 small circles. One is thesis and the other is antithesis. Connect their centers with a line. The line represents the relation between them, when one meets the other and they fight it out to be valid. Now, draw two more lines from the center of each circle that meet at a point outside the circle, so that the 3 lines form a triangle with 2 corners at the center of each circle, and one corner outside it. Now, the connection of those two points outside thesis and antithesis is the center of a larger circle that contains both circles and the triangle. That bigger circle is synthesis. It's the result of the conflict between thesis and antithesis. Now, you can continue this process forever outward and forever inward. The big circle becomes a new thesis. Draw yourself a new antithesis circle beside the big circle etc.
The best way I can explain dialectic is with the idea of self-consciousness as an example.
Now, the following is how Hegel explains self-consciousness.
Ask yourself what happens when the self becomes aware of itself? You, the self as subject, reflect upon yourself as an object. Thus you artificially separate yourself into subject and object, but keep in mind, both are the same self. Now, think of subject as thesis and object as antithesis. Self is the synthesis. When the subject reflects upon the object, for an infinitely small instant they are separate before the subject realizes that it IS the object it perceives, and thus they collapse back into each other as 'self'. But, in order to be self-conscious, you must reflect upon the self, therefore an instant later, they separate again. In this same way, you perceive other beings and come into conflict with them. In this same way, you perceive Being and come into conflict with it. And you are constantly forming ever expanding syntheses.
Thus the statement "Being is." isn't tautological. It isn't a circle. It's more like a spiral.
Reply
Reply
I also want to clarify that I didn't come to these conclusions overnight. In highschool, I was a materialist. I remember the first encounter I had with existentialism was in a grade 12 philosophy course. I wrote an essay refuting Jean-Paul Sartre's idea of free will with an argument supporting determinism. I used all the arguments that both of you have used.
It was only after another 3 years of reading dozens of books and a few hundred essays from a myriad of perspectives that I slowly came around to existentialism as my world view. I don't expect to convince anyone of anything overnight. In fact, I guarantee I can't. But once again, I would beg of you to read some philosophy. You don't necessarily have to agree with any of it, but I think it's important to understand a range of views beyond the one you or I take for granted as our own. I would ask that you dismiss nothing offhand and that you don't condemn logic as superstitious nonsense.
Reply
Devon, I understand that you are feeling a little bit frustrated, but - in service to an argument utterly unrelated to science or existentialism - I would submit that the only reason your discussion with Sarah hasn't descended to this point is that she is being exceedingly polite and careful in her points, while I am replying in the same tone that you are using with both of us. Do consider what this says about your own manner of argument.
I'd finally like to say that I'm tired of arguing, so I'll respond to questions if either of you need something clarified about my ontology, but I won't quibble over which ontology is more valid.
Fine. Pray return, then, if you don't mind, to your points about science in society, which I personally found a far more interesting and useful discussion than whether or not causality exists. (You may have picked up on this. ^^) Since that was the topic at hand initially, I'd appreciate it if you'd pick it up again!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment