Yes, the lesson does continue once more! The good news is lessons are the very stuff that makes life compelling; the bad news is no matter how many lessons you put yourself through there will always be new questions...
You have asked the central question in philosophy in your previous mail: To what extent should one question life? How many philosophers have spent whole lifetimes trying to figure out the answer only to find out that it's a dead end?
Since I am not a professional philosopher, I will have to refer you to two great thinkers who asked the same question: John Locke (1632-1704) and David Hume (1711-76). It would of course be silly to think that I could succinctly sum up the vast philosophies of these two men here. I will attempt to give you only what is relevant to the question posed above.
Locke states that the only things humans are capable of perceiving are the contents of their minds. This means there are limits to what is knowable by us, and our mission is to find out what is knowable and what is not. As for what happens externally, we will never be able to apprehend it and should not trouble ourselves too much with it. The bottom line is our understanding of "reality" always comes from what has been experienced by our senses. This is my clunky summary of Locke's philosophy. How does it fit into the bigger picture? This line of thinking places great emphasis on the INDIVIDUAL experience, which means that no two men could have exactly identical experiences. That in turn tells us that you must experience "reality" for your own sake. If you wait for others to tell you what the "truth" is, you will forever be living life through the eyes of others.
Lesson: You must take chances in life and see for yourself what your senses "teach" you.
Hume, being an empiricist, is not far behind Locke. He claims that Man is “a bundle of sensations,” suggesting, very much like Locke, that there is no reality but that which has been created by our senses. We can never be certain of anything, whether it be the factual world, causality, or the existence of God. But does this mean we should just stop living because nothing is certain? Not really. We do not know why we fall in love, but that has not stopped any of us yet! He reminds us that as long as we remember "reality" is made up of subjective opinions/assumptions and is flawed, we will not be too disappointed when 'reality' fails us. He also famously says, “Reason is the slave of passions.” This tells us that when it comes to life, our passions always supersede logic.
Lesson: If you are looking for definitive answers to anything in life, you are bound to be terribly disillusioned.
Professional philosophers aside, I will give my dollar as an amateur on the same subject.
I mostly agree with both men - that we cannot know anything for certain because everything we know is acquired through the senses. The real nature of things has always eluded us and will continue to do so. But does this mean we simply accept nothing can be known and resort to indifference? No. The opposite is true: since nothing can be known, we must make it our life's main task to find out WHY nothing can be known. That is why they say a philosopher's job is never done. He is forever chasing his own tail, never quite arriving at the target he's set out for. Evidently, that is exactly how most of us feel. You are always setting out to find an answer to your question, but rarely do you return with a satisfying answer. In my own lifetime, I have sought answers to issues such as love, sex(uality), friendship, (in)justice, truth, and God. But nothing I have encountered so far is close to being an answer. In fact, the more I seek, the more kaleidoscopic the picture gets. It seems that there is not one answer. My suspicion is the answer is MULTI-FACETED, depending on which senses you have relied on to get to the that answer. Confused yet?
Take God for instance. A believer will tell you he knows without a doubt God exists. When asked how he knows, he will say he knows intuitively. (An intuition is a product of the senses and is therefore subjective.) A non-believer will say he does not believe that God exists simply because there is no empirical proof. In other words, he is looking for something impossible, for there is no such thing as a true "empirical proof." Suppose God, or some entity resembling God, should appear in front of the two of them. The believer would say, "See, that's God right there!", and the non-believer, "How can I be sure that's not some magic trick?" Conclusion: both parties would choose to interpret what they see in their own way. That means there is no objective truth, for we can only see the world through subjective glasses.
Another question you raised is "Will questioning and doubting take away the wonderful gleam that is life?" I think the answer to this one should be clear by now. No, it will not! In fact, you must. A life unquestioned is a life not lived.
But this does not mean you are free to do whatever your imagination dreams up in your quest to find answers. Hurting others, either physically or emotionally, is a definite no; doing things detrimental to your health is another. There are lots of people who conveniently misunderstand these philosophies. Just because you have only your senses to rely on, it does not mean you could swallow a bunch of ecstasy pills to heighten the experience! There will not be that much a life to question when you are stone-dead...
Your last question is: “Should i postpone my search for meaning in life and focus on my studies?”
No, the search for meaning is a perpetual act. Your mind should be questioning even when you are studying! So there you go, the search for meaning and focussing on your studies are actually inseparable.
Be adventurous, young philosopher!
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments are always appreciated! Do feel free to leave them or start a discussion.