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
