Dear Three Amigas:
I hope you’ve enjoyed reading the first chapter of Breakfast with Socrates. Smith has a gift for making complex philosophical issues accessible to the uninitiated mind (I include myself among those non-philosophical types). However, since I have read a lot over the years in philosophy, mostly in aesthetics, the branch of philosophy that deals with questions of beauty (natural and artistic), I’d like to clarify and expand upon one section of the chapter to lay the foundations for a possible dialogue among the three of us (a “trialogue?”) on the larger issue of Reality and Truth.
I assume you’ve grasped the role that Descartes’ rigorous doubt has played in laying a solid foundation under the scientific attempt to come to unequivocal certainty about the world as expressed in one of the most famous of philosophical statements: “Cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am.”). It could have been better translated as “I doubt, therefore I am.” As brilliant as is Descartes’ paradoxical removal of the existence of doubt by doubting everything, it leads us to a more practical and convincing sense of how we perceive what’s around us, moving from whether we exist to what it means to exist. These kinds of questions belong in another branch of philosophy called Epistemology, which answers the question: “How do we know what we know?” which I find a lot more interesting and useful. As Smith writes, “Even if [Descartes’ conclusion] provides firm support for the idea that you exist, it can’t be trusted to bear the weight of your perceptions.” (6) Smith refers to Kant (b. 1804) in the next sentence, but doesn’t elaborate on why Kant matters in this discussion of perceptions, so let me briefly explain. John Locke in 17th-century England had come up with an appealing answer to how we know by suggesting that our brains at birth are like a blank sheet of paper, which he called tabula rasa, which means an “erased tablet” (a second important Latin phrase in philosophy). * On the face of it, Locke’s explanation seems logical and acceptable enough, but Kant didn’t buy it, and for good reason, because it didn’t go far enough. While it appears true that our experiences in life “etch” themselves into our brains through experience, they don’t just sit in there absorbing what’s out there. Certain a priori (a third Latin phrase) conditions (meaning they exist prior to our thinking) also help influence what we perceive, namely, space, time, and causation, which he claimed were three necessary relations. In other words, whatever the empirical laws of nature, they must conform to the necessities of space, time, and causation as we know them.** Therefore, part of what we know is planted in the brain by experience, but the other half of perception is governed by how that experience is altered by those three forces. Thus, perception is a two-way process: receiving sensa (bits of sense experience) into our minds and then our minds imposing a sense of time, space, and causality on what we experience. I find Kant’s contribution an indispensable contribution to the whole question of perception.
This conclusion is a perfect segue to an open-ended question about the relationship of Reality (how we perceive things individually) to Truth (the way things really are universally). Another way to ask this is: “If reality is defined by how we perceive things (and we all perceive things a little differently), how are things really (truthfully, universally)?” Can the two be reconciled or are they by nature different and thus irreconcilable? Just share some of your thoughts on this issue. Remember: no idea is stupid and every thought matters.
*This phrase clearly implies that there was something on the tablet previously to erase, which plays conveniently into the LDS belief in a pre-mortal existence that was “erased” by the Veil of Forgetfulness before we were born into mortality.
**I must add that Einstein’s early 20th-century Theory of Special Relativity (1905), which proved that time and space were interchangeable, rendered Kant’s conclusions false. But for our daily experience, they make sense and still contribute to explaining how we perceive things.
Annie’s Response: (May 10, 2011)
Dad, I liked your use of the word ' trialogue'! So I just finished reading Ch. 1. I'm enjoying this book. I wasn't a big fan of my philosophy class in college, but because of it these names and their ideas are all familiar to me.
Dad, I liked your observations. Your question is very provocative.
“If reality is defined by how we perceive things (and we all perceive things a little differently), how are things really (truthfully, universally)?” Can the two be reconciled or are they by nature different and thus irreconcilable? Just share some of your thoughts on this issue. Jon’s Reaction: (May 14, 2011)
You've written some probing questions. As for defining reality, I've concluded that it's the way things appear to individuals, like seeing through one's own special contact lens without being aware that it's modifying the way things really are out there. I think it's useful to play this definition of reality against the equally provocative definition of truth as the way things really are. Then, as you suggest, the dilemma comes with the question: "How can I see things as they really are?" Or as you ask: "So we need to remove our perceptions and judgments from life to be able to see truth????"
Not really. We just need to link up with a global view of things like God has. I'm reluctant to go there, but if you want a theological answer, which is the only way I know of where we can get out of our limited and distorted ("through a glass darkly") human perspective, I could give you some ideas if you're interested. I'm hoping Tara and Kristin will weigh in on the issue.
At any rate, I'm so glad you're enjoying the book. Smith's a good writer with an original slant on the topics philosophy loves to tackle. But, as I mentioned in my previous email, even philosophers admit that Truth is hard to come by. Plato, in the Seventh Epistle, said something like: "Words are insufficient to bring us to the truth as it really is." So then, I ask myself, what can bring us there? What would you say? His solution was to couch his philosophy in dialogue form and let the reader contribute to the closure. Not a bad idea.
There is a universal truth although most people aren't aware of it, deny it or pretend it doesn't exist. The reality we inhabit is, I think, comprised of thoughts, past actions, feelings, influences and desires that are either correct and truthful or, for lack of a better term, wack-a-doodle. The 100% of people in that cult who killed themselves were all 100% wrong in their view of reality just like people who are truly enlightened, logical and willing to test faith are, for the most part, living in true reality. I don't think it's a big mystery because of the knowledge I have of the gospel but then, as you wrote, it delves into religion which becomes a sensitive issue for a lot of people.
“Waking Up:” I really loved this chapter. I agree with Annie when I say that I'm really enjoying the book. However, I also really liked the philosophy I was exposed to in college. I remember reading about Descartes, in particularly discussing some ideas as a class. The most influential tidbit I received was on epistemology–the study of what we know and what we don't know. Descartes preferring the truth that we think and thus came the famous line, "I think therefore I am". I remember Dad mentioned once how he received his greatest inspiration when he would wake in the morning. I don't know if this is still true, but maybe that is when we are allowing the bed-fellows of truth and waking to enhance our own understanding of 'truth'. There's still quite a lot I need to digest.
No comments:
Post a Comment