blog
I love Kant, the later Wittgenstein, Derrida, post structualism, postmodernism and the philosophy of language.
I am the first person to visit a distant and unseen planet called X.
Question: does the planet come into existence the very moment I visit it?
I leave this planet called X.
Question: does it cease to exist the moment I leave it because no remains to see it?
Warning: this video contains visually disturbing scenes.
Szczurolap (The Rat Catcher) is a 1986 documentary about the one of the few remaining rat exterminators in Poland.
The film begins with a scientist describing an experiment where a rat is shown to drown in a matter of 15 minutes when left alone. Another rat which was rescued by way of a plank but later returned to the water survives for 15 hours. The point is that a rat given hope will have the will to live.
In the rest of the film we follow the exterminator in his task at exterminating the entire population on a rat-infested farm. He describes how he needs to be patient. By using poison he could kill off perhaps only three-quarters of the population, leaving the stronger and smarter rats to survive and passing on their genes (and knowledge) to the next generation . But by waiting and gaining their trust he can exterminate a far higher percentage from the beginning. So much so that he will feed the rats, other rats will continue to eat his poison ladened or by hardening their stomaches with plaster, even when rats are dying around in front them all the while he stands there watching. The remaining rats are shot with an air rifle. The last surviving rat – the boss – is then literally lured out with bait on fishing hook then killed by smashing it against the wall.
The film ends with the exterminator revealing to his listeners that his real job is that of watchmaking.
The narration, while about rat extermination, is really a philosophical meditation of sorts. Very little information about this film exists in English. I highly recommend it. But it is definitely not for the faint-hearted.
Chomsky believed there were innate ideas when it came to language. But cannot the patterns (deep structures) of language explained by the limitations of probable choice and the tendency towards linguistic efficiency, rather than some kind of pre-determined given?
In some ways this is what Chomsky is saying. But somehow there is a gap between his understanding of the physical reality and the reality of his language.
Language is a physical property and should be treated as such, not as some mystery akin to religions and gods.
By simply saying, “God” does not bring God into existence anymore than saying “Harry Potter” will bring this fictional character into existence.
Human beings are very good at creating abstract objects. And indeed we treat ideas and thoughts as objects, often mixing them up with the real objects of the world.
Do absolutes exist? Or do they only in relation to relative things … thus making it relative. Furthermore, since absolutes are not affected by the relative things it is a constant. It also works in the opposite direction where it does not affect the relative. This suggests absolutes can be safely ignored.
The problem is not that God will not die, but that man will not let Him die.
The natural state of the world is flux. No matter what we do time marches on. It is one directional. Time’s arrow.
While it is nice to call time (Mr Parmenides) an illusion the static state of ideas is not that same as reality.
Or that things must come from the perfect ideas like “forms” is nice too (Mr Plato) but perfection and is something of seemingly of the mind, and not to be found anywhere in the world except for in the mind, or brain as it were.
No, universals were the creation of the mind, not the other way around.
Everything is in flux. And everything makes sense (has meaning) only as relative to all else. This includes God of which Man needs to define himself*.
*no apology here to Man since pretty much he is to blame.
What is so special about human beings? Are the only beings that think we are special ourselves?
For 13 billion years the universe has done just fine without us. The universe does fine with us now. And the universe will do just fine without us again after our extinction.
Our knowledge and existence is simply insignificant within the larger picture of the reality. It is only with humility that we can truly live a full life. We must make significance and relevance for ourselves and others around us now, not elsewhere and not in the past or future.
I clean my electric coffee grinder every time I grind beans. First I unplug it then I wipe it down. Then I wipe it dry with another cloth. I always unplug it. Even though there is little chance that I will trigger the grinder (it is sunk into the body) for safety reasons I will always unplug it lest I grind my fingers.
But if the reality does not conform to the way I see the world works then why I unplug the grinder. Without seeing the power I still know it is “there”. But how can I know it is there without being able to see it?
The truth is I do not know it is there. Only the fact that for the grinder to work it must be plugged into have the power for it to work. Unplug it and it will not work.
To put it another way it is only in horror movies that grinders “come to life”. In reality there is always an explanation including an explanation for movie magic (it is plugged in but you cannot see it).
The idealist project of that nothing exists outside of cognition of it serves no purpose for how we interact with reality other than the fact we use this knowledge to make interesting films.
1.
People ask how can the sensory representation of the physical world be relied upon. They ask how can I be sure that thing I see is there. The question is always framed through the visual sense.
Yet, all senses come into play.
The perceived thing visually will likely be accompanied by sound. If near enough I could probably touch and smell it. And if you are a baby you will likely want to lick (taste) it. In short, verification is never in a single sense dimension.
This kind of sensory triangulation is often forgotten. We do it so automatically that we take it for granted.
Yet the “what if the sun doesn’t rise tomorrow?” question should really be more precise like “what if the sun rises tomorrow and I don’t feel its heat?” The discrepancy between senses should trigger alarm bells.
It could be a dream perhaps. Or am I a man dreaming of being in a physical world, or a man in a physical world dreaming?
Silly question really.
For what elaborate reason would there be for creating this kind of The Matrix illusion?
Give me the red pill, please, and bring on the philosophical sentinels.
2.
The problem then with minds, souls, and spirits is that there is no triangulation other than hearsay. And when there is triangulation to the mind it is always through observation of a body-object.
There is no transference of The Matrix-like I-know-kung-fu data.
Nothing is there … or rather only a movie is there.
The imagination of the brain (not the mind) is what gives us The Matrix (literature and entertainment), Idealism (philosophy), the special theory of relativity (science), and God (religion).
Not only does the brain lead us to astray (as metaphors do), it also leads us sometimes back onto the right path (as metaphors do).
signature103 