Don’t ever let anyone tell you how to discover philosophy; it’s a personal journey and only you can decide which path you are going to take. You may wish to take the path of least resistance, and this may the one most likely to take you where you think you want to go. That said, if something is challenging but it feels like it is worth the challenge, then there could be a fork in the road. Trust your instincts:
Is instinct the most powerful of all human attributes? Whether we believe in the innateness of knowledge or that this knowledge is acquired through experience, it seems that instinct operates at a level of uncertainty between the two, in that it raises the possibility of innate knowledge.
Instinct is that which requires the operation of thought or action at a level “below” what we might classify as consciousness. This is sometimes referred to as gut-feeling, gut-instinct, gut-reaction – the inference being that what has occured is out of our conscious control – i.e. it bypasses our mind. But this simplifies the issue, as this would imply that reflexes are instinctive, when they can operate outside of the central nervous system.
If we accept that instinct is in fact a function of the mind, then we have to consider how it comes about, and how it effects us as human beings. A good way of understanding this is to look at the behaviour of, so-called, lower creatures. In all fairness we cannot say whether fish, reptiles or even other mammals have the facility for conscious thought. The make-up of the brain seems to suggest that only certain parts of it are capable of this, and these parts are less obvious or even missing in certain creatures. The behavioural traits of reptiles, for instance, seem to suggest an absence of conscience, at least of a type we are familiar with. In other words, reptilian behaviour seems to be largely instinctive.
Humans, in the other hand, are much less willing to behave instinctively. Whether this is due to genuine conscience affecting our actions, or that the brain is constructed in such a way as to filter our instinctive actions before carrying them out (this may in the end be the same thing), humans do seem to have acquired the ability to “consider”. But is that consideration necessarily a good thing, or is instinct in fact simply a short cut to utilising acquired knowledge.
Western society tends to consider those who act instinctively as “thoughtless” or acting amorally, but if instinct is actually capable of utilising acquired knowledge, wisdom, morals etc. then this is fallacious. In other words, a person may be acting morally, even though they have not consciously thought of their actions.
There were three books that I used to introduce me and help me decide where I wanted to go.
The first one I picked up at the local library was The Oxford Illustrated History Of Western Philosophy. This was a bit heavy on Kant – in fact anything about Kant tends to be a bit heavy! – but it was while reading this that I wrote my first piece, in the previous posting, and the one you have just read.
The weird thing was that this had nothing to do with what I was reading about; it just happened, as though something I had been reading had opened a door to somewhere that had been hiding from me. I suppose I was letting my instinct do its work.
Whilst browsing the section on Neitzsche I must admit, as with many points during the book, and something I have always done, I fell asleep. Being my morning train into London this never matters as I get off at the end of the line – but in this case I woke up again and immediately wrote this:
Humans are created to strive and evolve in the model of themselves. Those who excel are, in the Darwinian sense, most likely to continue the race, or at least that part of the human race that is thriving. Of course, modern society has created the facilities for those who would not naturally thrive, and this is only in basic survival terms, to at least continue as part of the human race. With advances in medicine, genetic modification and IVF techniques, this will inevitably lead to a human race which would be far less likely to survive should these techniques suddenly cease to exist.
Whether this is a problem is open to argument. From Nietzsche’s point of view, this would be considered a “weakening” of the race (it is, in pure evolutionary terms), although the potential may still exist in certain people to obtain “Ubermensch” status. From many other points of view – Marxist, utilitarianist and similar, the general depression of survival ability will lead to an overall depression of the survivability of a society; a negative outcome. This survivability can be offset by furthering of the above techniques, as well as other means of making society more “survivable”.
So, in fact, society may need to re-advance, not in technological terms, which is the current trend, but in evolutionary terms. The aspiration to excel, to use the “will to power”, still remains necessary, not just to prolong survivability, but also to provide the human catalysers for societal advance; the great politicians, economists, scientists, activists and thinkers all spring from the remaining potential in the gene pool for greatness. But only when combined with a will to power, can these potentials achieve greatness.
This leaves us, then, with a huge ethical polarisation. Do we continue developing society so that everyone, regardless of whether they lack the potential to advance society, can achieve that potential; or do we encourage the advance to greatness of those with great potential to the detriment of those without it? Without striking a balance between the two, we face the possibility of either a truly equitable society with declining potential, or a society where only those with potential for greatness (and who has the right to decide?) are given the opportunity to achieve it. The balance we strike may, in fact, be the optimum outcome, both ethically, and evolutionary.
I have always tried to see all sides of an argument, but in this case I was drawn to the idea that a great many people – myself included, being short-sighted – have benefitted from technology that allows me to thrive in a society that years ago I may not have been capable of surviving in. For this I should be deeply greatful; but also aware that we are fighting nature by being more than we naturally are. Something that is shown, more than anything else, by our disregard for the natural world.
The second book I used was the beautifully written and intriguing Sophie’s World which was lent to me by a friend at work. More like a novel than a philosophical text book, it describes how Sophie (also the name of my oldest daughter) is taken on the aforementioned journey by a mysterious philosopher, to discover as much about herself as about thought. After all, philosophy is really about understanding ourselves – why we are here, what our place is in existence and how we should spend our time wherever we happen to be.
Finally, and taking me back down to Earth, was the excellent Philosophy : The Classics, by Nigel Warburton. A helpful guide that, along with Sophie’s World, told me that my next stop should most definitely be Plato…
Keith
www.theearthblog.org
www.reduce3.com
And Proud Member Of The Sietch
Dear friend,
allow me the indulgence of calling you friend, for, although we have never met, I feel that you are a kindred spirit. You pose some interesting questions. Did you know that a famous Greek philosopher once said that the only thing he knew was that he did not know anything? It seems like the more knowledge we gain the more questions we have. How does one fully comprehend the infinity of the universe? Did you know that the ancient Spartans killed their disabled children? How can this innate knowledge hold the vast secrets of the universe? How can something so infinite be forced into something so finite? It is true that we are made from the universe, an evolution of the universe which has become concious and self-aware. Perhaps we are the ultimate evolution of the universe – having evolved from atoms, to gas, to solid particles of dust. But isn’t that true of the other animals of this earth? And do we not still contain within us “star dust”?
Satan once tempted God by saying “God, if You are so omnipotent the create a rock so big that not even You can lift?
Supposedly, philosophers have pondered that question for centuries.
My answer is simple, if I were God I would say the following: “Lucifer, I AM the rock!”
P.S… Do you have spell check on this thing?
Keith is british, they use a lot of extra u’s
I do like a good Q&A, Leo, so I will try and do my best:
Did you know that a famous Greek philosopher once said that the only thing he knew was that he did not know anything?
That would be Plato. If we assume that to “know” is to have absolute confidence in our understanding of something then he was probably right.
It seems like the more knowledge we gain the more questions we have. How does one fully comprehend the infinity of the universe?
Humans cannot comprehend infinity. We are (in a conventional sense) finite beings, just as we are spatially 3 dimensional beings. We cannot comprehend, in practical terms, a fourth spatial dimension because we do not exist within it.
Did you know that the ancient Spartans killed their disabled children?
More than that, Plato was a tentative supporter of infanticide as a means of strengthening society. It raises many questions, like the ones in my second quotation.
How can this innate knowledge hold the vast secrets of the universe?
Some people believe that as we are products of the universe then we hold something within us that is a direct imprint of the entire universe; we just need to unlock it. It depends which model of the universe you believe though – and as models are continually unfolding then it would be a brave person to attempt to unlock these secrets based on a supposition. My feeling is (and I have just thought of this, so it may be rubbish), that although the consciousness that we are aware of (call this Consciousness A) can only perceive directly the aspects of the universe that match the image of ourselves we are aware of, then why should we not exist beyond what this image is aware of? The only problem is that we can never reach any state of consciousness that is aware of more than Consciousness A is because that would be logically contradictory. However, if Consciousness A did expand such that it could become aware of more, then how could we communicate this? I think I need to think about this a bit more – I have never really thought about that issue! Thanks Leo.
How can something so infinite be forced into something so finite?
Who says the universe is infinite? Only the definition of “universe” demands infinity. Could our “universe” be just one in an infinity of “universes” (“universe” simply being the boundaries of what the laws of physics will allow to exist; don’t forget, other “universes” may have different laws entirely)?
Keep reading. I never promised to solve the mysteries of the universe, but I might give you something else to think about.
Interesting response.
Have you ever heard of string theory?
I think that it is possible to perceive the universe beyond our own “image” or Consciousness A. Case in point: (a) psychic ability (if you believe in it) (b) “sensory intuition” – being in a classroom, then suddenly turning your head around to see another person, all the way at the end of the room, looking right into your eyes (and I am not talking about love at first site here). (c) I am sure that we can think up many more examples.
“May the force be with you”….
I can get my head around anything (which has caused my head to spin on more than one occassion – and no I am not possessed) but my mind stops at infinity. That is how I use the word “universe”. How can we exist? We came from something – God, Universe or whatever – but what did that something come from? It is the “chicken and the egg” syndrome. How can something just exist and have no limits… and if it does have limits then what is beyond those limits and what is beyond THOSE limits, etc… all the way to infinity. I think that is where GOD exists – if he / she/ it exists at all!
Don’t think too much… you start to get a brain freeze after the 10 th dimension.
Leo.
Regarding Neitzsche:
I think that he was partially right. In the early stages of “humanity” the survival of our race depended on physical ability – I am talking over 10,000 years ago. However, what kept us going was our ability to invent weapons, make fire and comprehend the world around us. Thus technology was born and that brought us to our second phase of evolution. Unfortunately, we have still not been able to fully evolve from our original state – that agression or animalistic state of physical power, coupled with technology, has created the monster of modern day warfare. This technology has been both good and bad, but the particular state of affairs depends on us, our nature.
I believe that in order for us to survive as a species we have to enter into our next stage of evolution, which I believe is both emotional and spiritual (spiritual here being defined as intellectual wisdom and perceptual understanding beyond the physical). Some attempts have already been made at that: philosophy, Budha, Jesus Christ, Stephen Hawking (who could not have existed in ancient Sparta).
Lets see if I remember this correctly: did you know that the human genome is made up mostly (I think it is about 90%) of DNA “junk” material? This DNA apparently was thought to be of no use – since it didn’t do anything – but recent developments in the understanding of our biology have geneticists thinking that it could be a mechanism for mutation or evolution, depending on your point of view. Can you imagine what the world would have lost if Einstein did not exist? We would not have had “Dr. Who” (I love that series – especially the older episodes).
Alas our technology has also failed us. We have warmed the planet to the extent that in a few years we won’t have enough food or water to survive… and even if our technology does manage to save us I believe it will just delay the inevitable demise of the human race — unless we CHANGE and evolve, unless we realize that we are better off being brothers rather than enemies. As the Christians say, “we have to find salvation” or wait till the next Ice Age – whatever comes first!