NukeBan wrote: ↑
May 3rd, 2020, 8:09 am
True. Everything is one. However, oneness does not render difference and separation moot.
Greta, how would this strike you? Could we say that reality is neither unified, nor a collection of parts, but both at the same time? As example, space can not be said to either exist, or not exist, but instead seems to inhabit some realm which encompasses both definitions.
To the degree this is true, perhaps it reveals that while the neat and tidy, black/white, yes/no dualistic definitions that thought creates are useful, they are not really an accurate description of reality? If this is so, or to the degree it is, it might explain a good bit of what goes on in philosophy?
As example, the God debate assumes that a God either exists or not, yes or no, one or the other. There is remarkably wide, nearly universal agreement that this is how the question should be posed, even among passionate partisans who vehemently disagree about nearly everything else.
What if our mind's built-in inclination to create neat and tidy conceptual divisions is so out of step with the nature of reality that it often causes us to frame such poor questions that the competing answers game becomes somewhat meaningless?
As example, does space exist or not, yes or no? Does such a question so misrepresent the nature of space as to make either a yes or no answer largely useless?
To what degree is the nature of thought imposing a pattern of division distortion upon our observations of reality? To what degree are the divisions we see a property of reality, and to what degree are they a property of the lens through which we observe reality?
If the price tag for the power of thought is the introduction of some level of distortion, this would seem to be a matter meriting closer inspection. Any distortion that is introduced could form a very compelling illusion, given that both the philosopher and their philosophy is made of thought.
Yes, both unified and a collection of parts. I have much sympathy with your view.
The issue is that we conduct abstract inquiries about the nature of reality using "equipment" (ie. brains) that had only evolved through its ability to help us survive and reproduce, not because it may uncover deeper verities. So we tend to define "the Earth" as being a planet with an atmosphere rather, not that its atmosphere is part of the planet, like the geosphere and hydrosphere. Thus we describe the planet's size as being the extent of its solid components. This is a view that is biased by the level of solidity that humans need to survive and breed. For instance, the smallest insects are known as fairy wasps. They are so small that they float on the air as if it is a liquid and, thus, their wings are shaped like paddles.
The biosphere too, being a relatively "recent" development, is often seen as not being part of the Earth but a growth upon it. Many, in fact, see humans as separate even from the biosphere, let alone the planet - a virus, a parasite, a destructive outsider. In truth, we are as much a part of the planet as mountains, rivers, or the Earth's core. The human mind, and other minds, are in fact the Earth thinking. That parts of the Earth do not believe that they are not part of the Earth at all suggests that the planet's capacity for thought is fragmented like a newborn baby's thoughts, where there is a confused sense of self. (To eventually "mature" as a super AI in the future?).
So, this fragmented domain of human thought becomes a battleground for supremacy, with memes (as in Dawkins's definition, not photo cartoons).
Confidence is a highly successful evolved trait, resulting in many "roosters" in cyberworld and elsewhere, puffing out their little chests, asserting that their view is right and that any who disagree must be dimwits. A schoolyard situation, again suggesting a more mature future ahead.
Based on the above perspective, the meaning of life would be to act as a link in the chain that could potentially lead to life forms that are ever less inclined towards savagery, short-sightedness and instability. But wouldn't that also be the same situation for such future advanced beings? So we also need to embrace the present, with all its shortcomings, too. Acceptance and humour would seem important in context.