Category: philosophy

Things, space, and time

Warren Tang2 Comments

There are things.

By “there are” I mean without understanding the nature of reality. That I encounter it whatever it may be. I simply do not know, at least at this point. This is how we encounter the world, also called the physical reality, or just reality.

A thing is there. It is there for you and me. The qualities of the thing is that it agrees with it is being there. Suppose that thing is a tennis ball. Suppose we know the rules of tennis, and we have all the necessary equipment and conditions to play a game of tennis, and know how to play the game from experience. As we play we understand how the ball will react in the world. The agreement makes for an enjoyable game for the both of us. The relationship of the ball between you and me, the space, response from the ball struck against the racquet face conforms more or less according to my skills. It is evidence of my knowledge of it as an object, and of how I may manipulate it in the greater world at large.

Again, I must point out, what I encounter are things, not space, and not time. This point must be made clear. You cannot sense space and touch space directly. You can only infer it from things. This is true of time also. What we can know of space and time comes necessarily from things. I infer from things the space. And I infer from the relationship of things in space, time.

It should be pointed out also, the existence of things necessarily infers the existence of space and time. Things, space, and time exist as one, as the entirety of the world. To use Hume’s words, it is visible and tangible. A game of tennis should be enough proof for the consistency of the world.

Timelessness has no basis

Warren TangLeave a comment

Timelessness has no basis except in the mind. Objects are easier to deal with if they are like a sitting duck. And often this way of handling objects lead to errors in judgement as time progresses. Something that is thought of as static, unchanging, eventually will change noticeably enough so as to shock the judge back into reality and out of her or his uncomfortable habitual mistake.

Two types of “sweaters”

Warren TangLeave a comment

Which type of “sweater” are you?

No, I am not talking about round necks and V-necks. I am talking about when it comes to souls there are the religious-type and philosophical-type.

Religious-types sweat when they hear someone say there is no soul. In fact, there is no single word for this except soulless, but that do not mean without soul, but without passion. Actually, the only religion that explicit says there is no soul is Buddhism. But neither do they panic when they hear people talk about souls.

Philosophical-types also sweat when they hear this. They often equate soul or spirit with mind. But like the religious-type not all of them sweat. Only a certain type – the idealists and rationalists – who have trouble explaining the mind. Gilbert Rule called this a belief in the ghost in the machine. Particularly, if one claims to be a materialist, physicalist, or empiricist one gets looks of incredulity.

The struggle then has always been how one can explain a being works without a soul and/or mind. But why sweat when either way the being has continued to work, live and survive. In other words, don’t panic, take off that sweater, wear a T-shirt, and carry on. Life continues no matter what.

An object is an object is an object; the world is the world is the world.

Warren TangLeave a comment

No matter what (pun intended) an object is an object. Be this a single atom, a group of atoms, a non-sentient cluster, a sentient cluster, or any other way an object can be.

I am not even talking qualities, but only existence or being. Unobserved, objects are just objects. The world (or reality) is just is, or simply, the world is.

I am not promoting anthropocentrism. But any differentiation discerned is done by a sentient (in the “sense” sense; again pun intended) object. We should neither privilege nor disparage it, because an object is an object is an object. I would be more than happy to let a rock philosophise. And I am sure a rock couldn’t care less that I can philosophise either. So let it be and let us get on with philosophy.

Critique of Idealism

Warren Tang9 Comments

In philosophy, idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Epistemologically, idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing. In contrast to materialism, idealism asserts the primacy of consciousness as the origin and prerequisite of material phenomena. According to this view, consciousness exists before and is the pre-condition of material existence. Consciousness creates and determines the material and not vice versa. Idealism believes consciousness and mind to be the origin of the material world and aims to explain the existing world according to these principles.

(Wikipedia entry for Idealism)

The problem begins with metaphysics. Is it possible to answer objectively the question of the nature of reality? Of course, knowledge of reality must necessarily begin with the mind perceiving. But this does not logically lead to the idea that only mind is necessary. A sensed reality is the only reality we have. The mind of a person is seen not directly, but always through her or his material. Idealism is correct in that knowing is a mental process, and that knowing does not mean access to the thing. But this does not mean primacy of the mind. The mind cannot exist without the body. Material determines the consciousness, not vice versa. Our knowledge of the science of neurology and the brain should be enough evidence for us to dismiss Idealism as a viable philosophical stance.

The World and its experiences

Warren TangLeave a comment

Regardless of who you are, where you are born, what religion you belong to, we can agree that there are things. We live by things being what they are. For example, a game of tennis can be played and enjoyed because we agree upon the nature of the world and its properties. Everything from not falling out of one’s bed to the exploration of the universe relies upon our agreement of the nature of the world.

From things we infer the properties of space. And from things and space we infer the properties of time.

From experience we understand or know The World, that is, things, space, and time.

Rationality is a process of a thing that experiences things, space, and time.

Sight, sound, touch

Warren TangLeave a comment

As I watch the clock move its second hand, I hear a corresponding tick, and feel a vibration from its ticking and movement.

Something will be amiss if any one of these senses were to be absent.

From experience this almost never happens. All three senses will be consistent to the process of the clock. And if one sense is consistently “missing” I can assume one of the sense organs is failing, rather than the reality is changing.

Reality has been consistent in my lifetime. It had been consistent in the past. Things we do now we’re done before. So there is no reason to think reality will change in the future.

The philosophy of “thrown in”

Warren Tang3 Comments

There are things.

When I say this I am more interested in the fact of knowing. I am confronted with things. I do not how I have knowledge of these things. But the fact that this the first act that makes me aware of something.

I am “thrown in” to this knowing, this act of sensing, perceiving, and conceiving without a choice. Only later through reflection that I will realise I cannot know things without actual sensation, perception, and conception.

This kind of process is specific to me being the being that I am.

Ghost stories, reality, and The Philosophy of Flawfulness

Warren TangLeave a comment

I love ghost stories, but I love ghost stories because they tell us something fundamental about being human – that we are imaginative.

Even if ghosts are real (they are not) they do not interact with us in this physical world, the reality. So we may remove or dismiss them from the equation of reality.

But when ghosts interact with this world then there is trouble. The rules of reality no longer hold true. Things do not behave as expected. We cannot predict what will happen because there is something else in the equation of reality.

If ghosts do exist and things move accordingly their interaction then we must take into account their influence. And when that happens then that will then be the reality.

As long as we account for everything in the equation then we can predict what will happen. This is even true if there are ghosts.

I love ghosts and ghost stories only because they tell us not the truth about reality, but a truth about how we, the human being, flawfully see reality all the while being in the reality.

I can hear you now: “Flawfully isn’t a word!” Sure it isn’t. But the word flawfully is as necessary as ghosts are to being human. We are imaginative creatures. I would argue that the meaning of flawfully (to create and use something imperfect deliberately) is a necessary part of being us. It is also what separates us from other animals. You can perhaps even call this philosophy, the philosophy of flawfulness.