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