Doublethink, Or, Hypocrisy's okay if you really mean it.
Pondering things today on my worldview, or distinct lack of a coherent one thereof.
For someone who ascribes to logic the utmost importance, I don't respect it much when it comes to thinking about gelling views together. An example:
I was talking the other day to Sean about his "nth-wave" philosophical idea. At it's core, more or less, it says that "Just because you can't think of any argument that refutes a claim at knowledge doesn't mean there isn't one." Now, I pretty much agree here. (An interesting aspect of this is that it in itself doubts itself.)
However, I was then talking about the way you have to ignore this for some things. Sean's recently been disillusioned by science, Physics in specifics, I suppose because of this basic problem of knowledge and proof. But I, regrettably, see no problem here. I see the two thing on completely separate levels: OK, yes, we can't prove anything. But let's pretend we can. What then? And so on.
I feel I have failed somewhat to fully set out my feelings here. Essentially, viewing the world in this way, layered, not caring about the implications of the foundations being non-existent and continuing to pretend as if they do exist, and are made of granite: it takes a certain detachment from the world. Is this healthy? I'm not sure... it's fun though!
I think the best metaphor I have for this way of thinking is like viewing the world as a toy. Like a Rubik's Cube, but every face is a different puzzle, and they're all fractal-shaped- you can get lost in the intricate details of one part while ignoring the rest of the whole- or, if you choose, you can regard the whole. Does it even exist? Can we prove it? No matter- the toy is fun anyway.
So yes... that's pretty much what I think. As you can see, it's a little incoherent. But then, that's how I began.
For someone who ascribes to logic the utmost importance, I don't respect it much when it comes to thinking about gelling views together. An example:
I was talking the other day to Sean about his "nth-wave" philosophical idea. At it's core, more or less, it says that "Just because you can't think of any argument that refutes a claim at knowledge doesn't mean there isn't one." Now, I pretty much agree here. (An interesting aspect of this is that it in itself doubts itself.)
However, I was then talking about the way you have to ignore this for some things. Sean's recently been disillusioned by science, Physics in specifics, I suppose because of this basic problem of knowledge and proof. But I, regrettably, see no problem here. I see the two thing on completely separate levels: OK, yes, we can't prove anything. But let's pretend we can. What then? And so on.
I feel I have failed somewhat to fully set out my feelings here. Essentially, viewing the world in this way, layered, not caring about the implications of the foundations being non-existent and continuing to pretend as if they do exist, and are made of granite: it takes a certain detachment from the world. Is this healthy? I'm not sure... it's fun though!
I think the best metaphor I have for this way of thinking is like viewing the world as a toy. Like a Rubik's Cube, but every face is a different puzzle, and they're all fractal-shaped- you can get lost in the intricate details of one part while ignoring the rest of the whole- or, if you choose, you can regard the whole. Does it even exist? Can we prove it? No matter- the toy is fun anyway.
So yes... that's pretty much what I think. As you can see, it's a little incoherent. But then, that's how I began.
Labels: detachment, epistemology, foundations, incoherance, logic, nth wave, philosophy, physics, science, toy, world, world toy
You might want to look up foundationalism for more on this sort of thing. Which didn't come up on my philosophy exam today.
Posted by
Sean Whitton |
23 May 2008 18:09