Maybe those who say philosophy is a futile waste of mental energy have a point when it comes to the big questions conventional philosophy has consistently failed to resolve. Consider, for example, that there has been little if any progress in figuring out the relationship between body and mind. Can such a question really be treated like some complex mathematical equation that simply lacks its yet-to-be-discovered solution? When it comes to tricky philosophical questions, can we really expect some eureka moment to one day arrive and forever put them to bed?Continue reading “Sound Philosophy is Never Confused”
The world – the universe, if you like – evidently exists.
We perceive it to exist – assuming everyday ideas about reality are correct.
We are told that when ‘witches’ believed mouldy cheese could treat certain ailments they were mocked by the scientific community, but that it eventually became accepted that these witches were in fact correct; mouldy cheese contains what are now considered medicinally-useful antibiotics. But what is to be learned from the apparent conceit of the scientific mind that it could mock such a correct idea?
The idea that facts are somehow core to reality and cannot be altered by emotions leans heavily on the idea of a knowable objective world – a world that can be fully, or at least accurately, described by facts. But does such a world really exist? Or if it does, is it one that is accessible to the human mind in the manner those who habitually advocate prioritizing facts over emotions like to imagine? Is it clever to dismiss the role of emotions as if facts were intrinsically of more value?
Cognitive division of reality is effectively the basis of all abstract ideas.
This is largely hidden within everyday thinking, but our ideas are inherently based on the mind dividing, categorizing and labeling the world. No conceptualizations of reality would be possible without such cognitive acts – albeit they are so deep within the mind’s operations that they almost never surface as conscious thoughts. Even the idea of their existence is possibly nothing more than the outcome of conventional reasoning; it seems likely that we have never consciously reflected on the matter, having uncritically assimilated cultural perspectives of reality since birth.
The problems of human cohabitation on this planet can largely be seen as the ruthless exploiting the gullible. Those who know how to manipulate the minds and actions of others are busy justifying such exploitation under the guise of nationalist, religious, political and other ideological value systems.
When the gullible fall for these ruses they often fail to figure out exactly why the world turns out less wonderful than promised. But keeping people confused and quarreling over such issues is actually a tactic in itself for their further exploitation.
Nothing is currently holding the evolution of the human race back as much as a largely unseen constriction within human culture – namely the idea that human thought is extraneous to evolution.
But when thinking from within that constriction, any credible role for mind appears odd; modern culture with its belief in the value of science sees evolution as only a biological or genetic process. With mind being effectively banished from accepted theories of evolution, any notion that cultural ideas could hold back evolution has no intellectual framework.
By mainstream evolutionary theory, developments generally aid survival within prevailing conditions, and there is no reason to imagine human cognition should be any different in this respect. Logically, we should have improved our survival chances by better understanding the world in which we live. But this is too simple: survival does not necessitate our human abstract form of understanding, and such understanding does not guarantee survival.
It is easy when looking at NOR (Non-Objective Reality) to assume the value of conventional intellectual thinking is being negated. But this is false and would be ridiculous in any case; we humans would never have evolved abstract thought and the objective view of realty had such things not been advantageous.
Human engineering has very conspicuously achieved a lot. From expansive bridges and undersea tunnels to space stations and complex urban environments, copious evidence testifies we know what we are doing. No doubt our ancestors would have viewed the modern smartphone as nothing short of magic.
However, achievements are less startling in the arena of organic life. Here we have engineered little or nothing from scratch; instead, we try to fix what we perceive as problems. Illness, injury, aging and even death and genetics have been addressed, but results are patchy at best. For example, many drugs only treat one problem whilst creating many others euphemistically termed side effects.