Looking Forward

[RCSaunders]

Philosophy Now attracted me by these words in the "For Authors" section, describing how articles should be written, "in a lively, readable and non-technical style," with a minimum of jargon. I appreciate that especially because I am convinced the greatest harm to the field of philosophy has been done by professional and academic philosophers. Philosophy is a branch of knowledge, perhaps the most important branch, but is of no value if it is not accessible to anyone of reasonable intelligence.

Having studied and written philosophy for over three quarters of a century, I hope to help make philosophy accessible to anyone interested in it, and perhaps answer questions about philosophy others might have. I have no interest in convincing anyone else regarding any specific philosophical views. Philosophy is not about winning arguments, it is only about learning the truth.

Like all knowledge, I regard the purpose of philosophy as the means of that kind of knowledge required to live successfully and happily in this world, which is, after all, one's reason for living.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If that is anything to go by then I look forward to reading more from you.

[Harbal]

Having studied and written philosophy for over three quarters of a century,

Or 75 years, in ordinary language. Wow, you must be pretty old.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Ha! I missed that. He must be at least in his mid nineties.

[RCSaunders]

Or 75 years, in ordinary language. Wow, you must be pretty old.

I am!

[RCSaunders]

Ha! I missed that. He must be at least in his mid nineties.

Err, not quite. My whole life has been the study of philosophy. I didn't start writing about it until my early teens, or about sixty plus years.

Randy

[Harbal]

I am!

Therefore you think.

[Dontaskme]

I am!

Therefore you think.

You is a thought and thoughts can't / don't think.

.

[bahman]

Welcome to this forum.

[Walker]

Ha! I missed that. He must be at least in his mid nineties.

Err, not quite. My whole life has been the study of philosophy. I didn't start writing about it until my early teens, or about sixty plus years.

Randy

I have heard truth in your words.

I am grateful that another Old One has come to share in the wisdom earned through contemplating personal experiences, personal observations, and through the understanding of what others have said and written and expressed rationally and irrationally.

In this walk you lead and I dance backwards on the same glide path.

Rest assured that I will carefully consider your knowing when I don’t understand what you write, which will require assumptions made from my sense of order which after all, isn’t really all that much different than anyone else.

This means I’ll find a rational way to make sense of what doesn’t sound sensical from you, and when I do find the sense in it, seek confirmation from you, and bear as my responsibility any lack of subsequent understanding. In other words, no feedback either means you're making perfect sense, or I haven’t read it, or I haven’t thought deeply enough about what you wrote.

Not saying that should be everyone’s view, but it works for me when the aim is objective, rational dialogue.

[RCSaunders]

I have heard truth in your words.

Thank you! Reality, and the truth that describes it, is my only ideal.

I'll appreciate comments or criticisms, and will answer any questions anyone has. I personally do not believe the purpose of philosophy (or any other knowledge) is to win debates or convince others. Nevertheless I do enjoy a good rational discussion.

If I can provide something of value to others, that will be my reward.

Randy

[HexHammer]

99.999% of all phi ..eh cozy chatters are completely unsuited for philosophy.

I've had my wars with the cozy chatters who sat and made utterly useless cozy chat about sub basic matters, like defining simple words ..people would be fired from any serious business if they can't make a simple correspondence if they constantly asked the other part to define simple words.

No one really reads up on science, but ask fellow glaringly ignorant people and expect them to come up with an fulfilling answer.

Cozy chatters will indulge in the same topics over and over, running in circles chasing their own tail.

....one has to rule the cozy chatters with an iron fist, else you will get exactly nowhere!

[Lacewing]

Reality, and the truth that describes it, is my only ideal.

Hi Randy.

Considering how many different perspectives and experiences there are, is it possible to arrive at singular/ultimate and unchanging conclusions about reality and truth? Or, are such concepts actually part of a vast and changing landscape of many layers/facets, within which we seek to make some sense (and see some direction) for the unique and momentary experiences and paths that manifest for us?

Also, how do we explain/reconcile our quest to establish/build our understanding/knowledge of reality/truth, considering that one of the ways to free ourselves from illusion -- and to see "broader" reality and truth -- is to question what we think we know?

[RCSaunders]

Considering how many different perspectives and experiences there are, is it possible to arrive at singular/ultimate and unchanging conclusions about reality and truth? Or, are such concepts actually part of a vast and changing landscape of many layers/facets, within which we seek to make some sense (and see some direction) for the unique and momentary experiences and paths that manifest for us?

Also, how do we explain/reconcile our quest to establish/build our understanding/knowledge of reality/truth, considering that one of the ways to free ourselves from illusion -- and to see "broader" reality and truth -- is to question what we think we know?

Thank you for the question, Lacewing. I'm afraid the whole answer to your question would be an entire philosophy, which I'm sure you're not expecting, and though I could provide just that, I obviously couldn't in a brief comment. Just let me answer some of the specific things you addressed to see if you want to go further.

is it possible to arrive at singular/ultimate and unchanging conclusions about reality and truth?

First of all, truth is not a thing. There is no "single-ultimate" truth that is the answer of all things. Philosophically truth is a quality that only pertains to propositions that assert something about reality. A proposition is true if what is asserted is really the case. A proposition is not true (false) if what is being asserted is not really the case.

A long time ago I wrote an article, "Basic Ideas." The article was actually a defense of individual autonomy in fundamental terms. In it, addressed the questions of Reality, Truth, Reason, Knowledge
and some other concepts at a very rudimentary level. A fuller answer to you question would require an exposition or metaphysics and ontology to explain what reality is, epistemology, to explain what knowledge is.

From the article, "Basic Ideas:"

By reality we mean all that is the way it is.

Reality is what is so, whether anybody knows what is so or not. Reality includes everything that is and excludes everything that is not. It includes everything, not as a random collection of unrelated things but every entity, every event and every relationship between them. It includes fictional things as fictions, hallucinations as hallucinations, historical things as historical things, and material things as material things. Reality does not include fictions (such as Santa Claus) as material or historical facts. It does include the fact that Santa Claus is a common fiction used for the enjoyment of Children at the Christmas season.

By truth we mean that which correctly describes reality or any aspect of it.

The following illustration demonstrates both the meaning of reality and truth.

Suppose you are very thirsty and find a bottle containing a colorless, odorless liquid. The liquid in this bottle is either water or a deadly poison. If you choose to drink the liquid one of two things will occur, your thirst will be pleasantly quenched or you will suffer excruciating pain and die.

Reality is what the liquid in the bottle actually is. Truth is whatever correctly describes that liquid. If the liquid is poison, only a statement that says the liquid in the bottle is poison is true. If you believe the liquid is water and drink it, if it is poison you will die. If you take a vote of everyone who has an opinion about what is in the bottle and they all say it is water, if you drink it and it is poison, you will die. If you feel very strongly that the liquid is water and drink it, if it is poison you will die.

Truth is not determined by belief, consensus, or feelings. It is determined by reality. It is determined by what is so, no matter what anybody believes, feels, thinks, or knows. In this case, the truth is determined by what really is in the bottle and only a statement that correctly describes that is the truth.

By reason we mean the mental process of non-contradictory identification and integration of ideas.

It is a mental process because the faculty which carries it out is the mind. It is not a chemical process, like digestion, or an emotive process, like the feelings, but an intellectual process carried out at the cognitive level of consciousness.

An example of a mental process is reading to yourself. You see the letters of the words or the words themselves directly, but as you read, it is your mind that supplies the meaning. You see the letters r e d, but it is your mind that supplies the meaning of red, and you might even mentally visualize a patch of red. Then you see the letters a p p l e, again it is your mind that supplies the meaning apple, and you might even form an image of an apple in your mind. The supplying of meaning and the mental images are both mental processes. Cognitive means pertaining to knowledge, so only the supplying of meaning part of the reading process is at the cognitive level. The mental visualization of red or an apple is imagination.

The process is non-contradictory because its object is truth, that which correctly describes reality. No aspect of reality can be self-contradictory. The liquid in the bottle is either poison, or it is not.

It is probably obvious why the process is non-contradictory, since a process that results in contradictions, "bill has a black mustache therefore bill is a vase of flowers," is simply absurd. [The usual example of "something cannot be both a and non-a" which while true, lacks something. Identification is the process of isolating (mentally) entities (or classes or collections of entities) by virtue of the qualities that distinguish them from all other things. Integration is the process of joining or connecting (mentally) entities to each other and all other things by virtue of qualities they share or their relationships to one another.

Like all other faculties, the mind can be used incorrectly, resulting in all those kinds of contradictory notions, superstitions, hysteria, paranoia, and so-called mental disorders that dominate our society. While these incorrect uses of the mind are sometimes called "reason," they are not reason at all. Reason cannot hold any contradiction intentionally and conclusively. (Contradictions can be held tentatively while the process of reason is attempting to establish what is true, but only as a stage in the process, not at the conclusion of it.)

By knowledge we mean the product of the process of reason by which reality is understood and, on the basis of which, correct choices can be made.

Knowledge is the product of the correct use of the mind. The integration of all that reason identifies into a non-contradictory hierarchy of concepts (ideas) that enables us to understand the nature of and the relationship between various aspects of reality is knowledge. Each new concept is learned (integrated) by identifying its relationship to all other knowledge by its place in that hierarchy.

The mind is actually comprised of two interdependent faculties, rationality (the ability to reason) and volition (the ability to make conscious choice). Because we are rational beings, to live, to act at all, we must choose to act. Even to do nothing, for human beings, requires a conscious choice. To fail to choose and, therefore, to fail to act, means death. But to choose, there must be some criteria, some means of preferring one possible action to another. That means is knowledge.

Only if we know what the result or consequence of an action will be can one action be preferred to another. Only if we understand the relationships between the elements of reality in which we live, (understand how they interact and behave), can we project the consequences of any action. Only if we know what is in the bottle can we choose correctly to drink or not to drink. If we don't know but guess what is in the bottle is water, and we are wrong, we will die. While not always this obvious, for human beings, knowledge is always a matter of life and death.

The simple answer to your question is that we can certainly have a correct understanding of the nature of reality and our own nature as human beings. That does no mean we will ever know everything the is to know, or that there will never be any more question; it means having the kind of knowledge necessary to continue learning all we need to learn and answer the questions we will need to answer.

Randy

[Lacewing]

Thank you for your response, Randy. Hopefully my response will not be exasperating for you -- such as, if I ask something that you think you've already answered/concluded. I have a lifetime of seemingly naturally thinking philosophically about all sorts of things... yet I've never studied philosophy academically (I'm resistant to adopting any particular views). My questions are heart-felt and authentic... and a way of sorting through various concepts, and how they are understood and used. Over the course of my life, it has become my nature to question what we think we know... continually... as it, perhaps, continually evolves/expands. I do not think there is an end-point to this questioning. I guess it's like an ongoing dance of awareness, which ebbs and flows, ever vast and unfathomable in potential. And it's entertaining to ride the tide.

Philosophically truth is a quality that only pertains to propositions that assert something about reality.

So, a theist asserts the existence of a god (perhaps even a particular god), which is reality for the theist. Whereas that is not reality for the non-theist. So, what are we really dealing with in philosophical discussions if the truth/quality varies dependent on the varying realities? In other words, we have MANY philosophies because there are MANY realities, yes? So if we say that we use philosophy to seek the TRUTH of things, we're actually just talking about "truth/reality" as it makes sense to us (and those who think as we do)... rather than any all-encompassing truth, yes?

Reality is what is so, whether anybody knows what is so or not. Reality includes everything that is and excludes everything that is not. It includes everything, not as a random collection of unrelated things but every entity, every event and every relationship between them. It includes fictional things as fictions, hallucinations as hallucinations, historical things as historical things, and material things as material things.

Is reality static? Does it evolve or shift or expand? Is today's reality... the reality of always?

By truth we mean that which correctly describes reality or any aspect of it.

So there are many truths, yes? Does this defeat many/most philosophical discussions?

The following illustration demonstrates both the meaning of reality and truth.

Suppose you are very thirsty and find a bottle containing a colorless, odorless liquid. The liquid in this bottle is either water or a deadly poison. If you choose to drink the liquid one of two things will occur, your thirst will be pleasantly quenched or you will suffer excruciating pain and die.

Reality is what the liquid in the bottle actually is. Truth is whatever correctly describes that liquid.

That's a good example. Please know that I'm not trying to be contrary here... I'm simply trying to acknowledge "more" potential: I have heard of people who are actually able to ingest powerful substances without being affected by them -- SO, philosophically, this inspires me (again) to question reality and truth, AS WELL AS our CAPABILITY of manifestation and what we do with that.

For example, philosophically speaking, if we create walls for ourselves (mentally/physically/does-it-matter?), and imagine/perceive ourselves to be defined by and within those walls, and everything we do is limited and directed by those walls, are those walls any less real for our experience? Or perhaps others try to erect walls for us, but we may not acknowledge them as walls, and we move through them. Our INVOLVEMENT seems to be a DYNAMIC role in reality and truth as we manifest and experience it.

What do you think?