|
| quote: | | Why do you say there is a "problem" in the first place? We are made as great information processing / problem-solving machines. Seeking out problems is in our nature...even problems that don't exist... |
It depends on how you want to define "problem". If we define a problem as being an "unanswered or unanswerable question" then the nature of human existence in the capacity of a "being-in-the-world" is definitely a problem: we have posed the question, it has not yet been answered and it may never yet be answered. If you want to define "problem" in some other fashion then you may be able to explain this particular problem away, but I don't think it's that simple.
Sadly, as with virtually all other philosophical issues, semantics here have a large part to play. :-/
| quote: | | Excellent point -- let's extend it a little: who is to say that us with our "technology" are any more Right than they were? We just have different tools and different explanations, different justifications rather -- but we can't prove anything either. |
Exactly my point. For all our self-contented pomposity, we still have stone-age brains. Our neural structure - and thus, one can only presume, our fundamental method of "thought" - have hardly changed in 50,000 years.
Now this may seem unnecessarily complicated, but bear with me:
Humans differ from every being we know of in that we possess reflexive self-awareness. Not only are we aware of ourselves as a being (as I'm sure many "higher" animals may be self-aware in this sense), we are also contextually aware of ourselves as "beings-in-the-world" (that existence "exists" beyond our own being - if you see what I mean) and - beyond that - aware of our own self-awareness (hence the term "reflexive" - our consciousness is able to consider itself as an "object" of inquiry in the same way it may consider any other given object external to it). As a result of this reflexive awareness, in the same way that we are able to "step outside ourselves" in a sense and direct our consciousness upon our own consciousness, we are able to step outside the phenomenology of our own immediate being and - using our awareness of "existence" beyond our own existence - attempt to understand the nature of a being external to our own being by, metaphorically, "placing ourselves in its shoes". In moral terms - the interaction of two or more human beings - we would call this "empathy" but in epistemological and ontological terms the phenomenon is a little more complex.
Take, for instance, the nature of a tree. Without the abilities I spoke of before, we would simply view the tree as a part of "our world" and would be unable to comprehend the fact that the tree possesses its own "existence" quite separate to our own. Without these abilities, when we turn away and the tree no longer remains in view then, apart from our memories of it, so far as we are concerned the tree no longer exists. However, the fact that we are aware that the tree is a being-in-itself and that our own immediate experiences do not constitute the totality of "what-is" we can then think "beyond" our own immediate existence and consider the nature of the tree as it is - that is, a "being" in, of and for itself. Now the implications for logic and reasoning here are very important: take for instance the natural result of the nature of our particular forms of logic and reasoning - that of problem-solving, which I'm sure you'll agree is an exercise (regardless of the nature of the problem) in logic and reason.
Say, for some reason, we need to see a long way into the distance - this constitutes the problem. Now we spot a tree and recognise it as a separate being. By recognising it as a separate being, we are then free to assess its essential facticity - namely, the sum total of all the properties it possesses. Our "lower" faculties (basically our senses - our sense of sight, touch, smell, hearing and taste) do not really help in solving our problem - they observe that the tree is green and brown, its bark is rough and so forth, but little else. Our "higher" faculties, however, help a great deal. Once we recognise the tree as a separate being, we are then able to assess the nature of its "extention" in space (Kant described our comprehension of spatiality, as well as that of temporality, as the basis for all our knowledge of the world around us) and in doing so we recognise that as a being relative to our own being, it possesses a great deal of height. Once we recognise its spatial extentions relative to our own we can then use our reflexive awareness to project ourselves onto the tree - that is, attempt to infer, based on what we understand of the nature of the tree, what the tree's perspective may be (taking into account the fact that we understand that the tree, as a separate being, would have a different perspective to our own). From here we are able to realise that the view from the top of the tree would allow us to see a greater distance than our current view nearer to ground level. Thus, problem solved.
However, our ability to direct our consciousness onto things other than our immediate phenomenological experience isn't something that can be switched on and off, it becomes a way of viewing the world. By continually seeing things "from the tree's point of view" we may in time begin to believe that the tree itself is capable of perception. That is, we so consistently - and almost subconsciously - cast our consciousness out onto the world in order to understand things from beyond our own direct experience, so much so that we may begin to believe that the world inherently possesses the properties we use and cast upon it to understand it with.... which is where all this ties in with what I was saying before.
It is human nature, now as it was at the dawn of civilization, to understand the world in this way: by recognising seperate being and using our ability to "project consciousness" to understand it. At the beginning of civilization our projection of consciousness led us to believe that the natural universe itself was actually governed by consciousness: that there was a conscious god or gods who dictated the behaviour of all things. We were so used to viewing beings-in-the-world through our displaced consciousness that we began to believe that these beings actually possessed an indirect consciousness of their own, via the conscious will of the gods. The concept of God has changed over time, but our inability to view the universe as something that contains no inherent consciousness, direction or order hasn't: what they then called "religion" we now call "science" - the organised, empirical approach to understanding the "logos", the natural and concise order - the set of laws - governing the behaviour of other beings. What we fail to recognise, though, is that our original conception of the logos itself is merely an inevitable result of our method of thinking! We can't help but see the universe as possessing consistent and comprehensible laws, yet we must rememebr this: the nature of the universe is not bound by the laws we have created, the laws we have created are bound by the nature of the universe - it's an important lesson in causality. The universe contains no order, direction or consciousness other than that which we are willing to assign it. There is no "inherent" order to the universe though, and to believe that the universe is bound by a set of immuatable "laws" is fallicious.
I'm not suggesting, mind, that science isn't a more meritorious appraoch to understanding the universe, because it quite demonstrably is. What I am saying though, is that it is a slightly different manifestation of the same phenomenon that gave birth to religion several millenia before it. So to answer your question, Alccode, while our endeavours to understand the world have become infinitely more sophisticated since way-back-when, we still suffer from the same inescapable anthropocentric view point than our ancestors did. So, to cut a long story short, no we aren't necessarily "any more Right than they were". 
| quote: | Again, who is to say that maybe for "God", we should be destroyed? Maybe "God" thinks that species are meant to be created then destroyed, not to be "helped." Again, "helped" is based on OUR concepts and what we think is right... no one can really say that "God" isn't laughing in our foolishness right now. Maybe Blowing the Earth Up is the path to "God's heaven"? Maybe all the "do-gooders" and all the "pious" people in this world are the "Real Sinners"?
No one can be sure of anything like this... hence I say there is no point in even discussing "God" and "heaven". They are not! |
Well, like I said, it all depends on how you want to define God. If it's the Abrahamic god (the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) then yes he does have a lot to answer for as he is supposedly a "compassionate" God with virtually infinite power and knowledge. If he is "compassionate" why does he allow us to suffer? Is it not a moral outrage to abandon your sentient creation in this way and then send people to hell for not worshiping you firstly when you are not worty of worship and secondly when no-one can actually be sure of your existence due to your notable absence?
If it isn't the Abrahamic God we're talking about, though, then you're right in saying that our human conceptions of justice needn't apply to such a powerful deity. But then you're going to have to specifically "define" this God for me otherwise it's a moot point.
Occrider, it's too late to answer your points now, but I promise I will do so tomorrow. 
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
|
"God, you have a lot of explaining to do!" This is really funny; I don't want to be offensive for those who are religious, but this "Abrahamic God" is utter b-s IMO. Who came up with this "God"? People did! Someone sat down and made it up. Or, more likely, the concept of this "God" evolved from earlier gods. In any case, it's a human-designed concept that, again, does not exist in reality...
