In the previous essay, we discussed the essence of philosophical inquiry and "what we can ask". In this essay, we will be looking more toward "what we should ask" on one hand and"why we do ask" on the other.
Biruni and his pupil Avicenna were discussing. A silly dervish came to Avicenna and said, "let us see how clever Biruni's students really are. Do you study philosophy, young man?"
Avicenna nodded.
"Tell me, if you are wise, why is fire hot?" he asked the philosopher.
Avicenna said that he did not know.
The silly dervish jeered. "Your students are not as bright as yourself," he said to Biruni and asked him the same question.
Biruni said, "Why don't you ask Avicenna?"
"I did," said the dervish.
"Let me ask him. Avicenna! What happens when you rub your hands together?"
"They get hot, master."
"Very good. Now, tell me Avicenna. How do you make fire?" asked Biruni.
"By rubbing two flint stones against each other, master."
"Exactly - and just as our hands heat up, fire heats up."
"And the faster we rub," said Avicenna, "the hotter it gets. Therefore motion must be the reason behind heat."
"Very good Avicenna. You see," said Biruni to the dervish. "He knows."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above fiction points to one of the key issues in Philosophical Inquiry. What should we inquire about?
As mentioned in Essay -1- , there is an infinite number of subjects to inquire about and since an infinite number can never be completed, it is necessary for our own convenience that we filter out the unimportant subjects and instead focus on the more urgent ones.
It is for this reason that different philosophical fields have been studied: Metaphysics as the study of reality, Epistemology as the study of knowledge, Ethics as the study of good and bad, Aesthetics as the study of art and beauty, etc. These fields are the most central to human understanding. These fields are the most controversial in human thought.
So, how can we distinguish what is important and what is not?
1. By applying the three basic questions to ourselves.
2. By applying the three basic questions to others
So, the questions would be:
a) What am I? b) Why am I what I am? c) How am I what I am?
d) What is it? e) Why is it what it is? f) How is it what it is?
The "what" questions are asking about the "substance" of an object are called substantial questions.
The "why" questions are asking about the "reason of an object's existence" and are called logical questions.
The "how" questions are asking about the "quality" of an object and are called qualitative questions.
So, beginning with objects closes to us, we start the Philosophical Inquiry. The First Object is per rule "the self" and this corresponds with the scheme we laid out for Mazdalogy.
In this method, by choosing the topics more central to our existence and understanding, we will not fall into the trap many previous philosophers and scientists fell into. Thales of Miletus believed the world was made of water. He had no actual knowledge of either water or the world and so his sweepingly grand idea was very shaky. Many metaphysicians made similar mistakes. They posited units and substances and essences which had no purpose but to fill a book. Indeed, it was due to such ambitious daydreaming that most of the metaphysical and physical theories of the past were formed.
In Mazdalogy, only the "self" is analysed and anything other than the "self" is still regarded as having "a relationship with the self". Therefore, it is the "self" and what the "self" witnesses and experiences that is analysed and nothing but the "self". This is what ensures Mazdalogy's soundness compared to other philosophies.
So, by positing these 3 questions to the "self" and what the "self" experiences, we will hopefully obtain answers to some of the toughest issues at hand.
Another reason why we should begin with ourselves is because we should begin with the basics, with what we know for certain (certainty is a jewel word in philosophy - rarely found)
The fiction above shows one question asked of one person in 2 different ways. The first way is to ask it in a general way. This method is crude and the mind has difficulty in answering it straightaway.
A powerful mind (like Biruni's in the fiction) would break the question into parts. It will find relationships between what we already know and what we are trying to know. In this way, we will be able to find hidden links between the known and the unknown, which will finally lead us to the unknown. A similar example is to be found in Plato's Meno dialogue in which the concept of a Priori knowledge is used to explain the incredible phenomenon. (The phenomenon of recollection and a Priori will be discussed from the Mazdalogical point of view in a separate essay.)
So, square 1 is what we know and from what we know, we hope to know more. This is why we should ask about ourselves and our knowledge before venturing into the dark mysteries of the outside worlds.
Now that we know "what we should ask", the next step is to know "why do we ask"? Why bother with Philosophical Inquiry?
To answer this we will take a little break.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A father and a son were on the balcony watching the silver stars in the sky.
"Why does it become night-time, dad?"
"Why do you want to know?"
"Because I want to know. Why isn't it always daytime?"
The dad felt his son was too young to learn about the science behind it.
"So we can sleep," he replied.
"But we can sleep during the day too."
"Yes."
"Then why should it become night?"
"Because it is easier to sleep when there is no light."
The boy went quiet. He was staring at the visible strip of the moon.
"Is that okay, son?"
"Yes, dad," and the boy continue gazing at the moon, his mind racing restlessly against time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above fiction is a perfect example of a restless mind seeking answers for questions it cannot help but carry around. These questions strike him. They trouble him. But why do they appear?
The boy asks a question. Let's call this "why Q1"
The father asks him why he asks. Let's call this "why do you ask Q1"
The boy replies with another question. Let's call this "why not Q2"
What does this mean, you may very well ask. I will expound.
When the boy asks: "Why does it become night-time?" He is actually saying: Why night-time? In other words, he's looking for a reason for night-time.
The father wants to know why he asks. The boy replies: "Why isn't it always daytime?" He is actually saying: Why not daytime?
Let me write this symbolically.
Boy: Why Q1 ?
Father: Why do you ask Q1?
Boy: Why not Q2 ?
Deleting the father's comment, we come to the crux of the matter, the actual questions that had popped into the boy's mind.
Boy: Why Q1 ?
Boy: Why not Q2 ?
So, in fact, the boy is saying: "Q1 is possible and Q2 is possible - their possibilities of occurring are equal, at least in the mind. The world could have been different with no days or nights. So, day and night were both possible but not necessary. So if they were both possible, why does day happen at one point and night at another. Why not just day? Or just night?
[Note: Some people may mistake this possibility with physical possibility whereas this is logical possibility. Also, some people may say that the reason there is day is because the Earth rotates to face the sun and the night is due to the Earth's surface facing away from the sun. While this is true, they have not yet understood what is meant by contingency- this term wil also be explained thoroughly in a future essay dealing with necessity and contingency.]
So, since the boy's mind knew that both day and night were equally possible, yet only one had occurred, the boy naturally sought for a reason why one of them was preferred over the other. Every rational being would come up with the same question.
The reason behind this method of thinking is based on human logic. This will be dealt with in future essays that engages in discovering the "logic in the human mind".
Why do we philosophise? The conclusion to this topic is the following:
We philosophise because we know that other things were possible, which did not happen. We wonder why one possible event occurred but the others did not... this leads to "sufficient reason for the existence of an event"... and this leads us to many other logical arguments and proofs.
So, although we know why we philosophise, we don't how we do it. What is it in our minds that does the thinking? What part of the mind are we? Are we the mind, or simply the neurones playing tricks on us? And what makes us think logically? How do we know? How do we remember?
To ask these, we must begin our journey into discovering the "self". The first step towards understanding begins within us.
In the next essay, I will be writing about the "self" and what we can know about it alongside proofs and examples. Keep tuned!
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Essay 1 - What is Philosophy?
[Note: all the posts headed as Essay are part of the Mazdalogic writings and act as bricks within a pillar holding up the roof of a building and so must be taken seriously]
In the old days in Ancient Greece, a small boy was sent to our private teacher for close tutoring. The teacher was amongst the wisest in the country and the boy was expected to do well. The first class was sociology and the teacher started the lesson.
"The smallest unit in a society is the individual. Individuals come together and form families. Tell me, little boy, name the members of a family."
"Father, mother and child."
"Good, little boy. Can you tell me how you came to be alive?"
"Yes teacher. Because of my parents."
"True. And how did your parents come to be alive?"
"Because of their parents."
"Well done. And how about them? How did they come to be alive?"
"They had parents too."
"Bravo! And them?"
At this point the small boy jumped in agitation. "They all had parents! Everyone that is and was alive had parents!"
Frustrated, the small boy sat down for the second lesson late afternoon. The lesson was alchemy.
"What is gold?" asked the teacher.
"It's a metal, teacher."
"What is a metal?"
"It is a hard substance - like iron, teacher."
"What is iron?" asked the teacher.
"It's also a metal. They make swords with it, sir."
"What is a sword?"
"When will this end, sir?"
"When you reach the ends of the earth and the depths of the fathomless sea and the edges of the celestial dome."
Angrier than before, the small boy passed the second lesson in a bad mood.
During lunch, the teacher decided to test his pupil once more.
"Why do you eat?"
"Because I want to grow."
"Why do you want to grow?"
"So I can support a wife and many children."
"Why do you want a wife?"
"So that I will be happy."
"Why do you want to be happy?"
The small boy didn't know how to explain. For him happiness was an obvious desire. So, instead, the boy decided to turn the tables on his teacher.
"Why do you ask these questions?"
"So you answer them."
"Why do you want me to answer them?"
"So you learn."
"Why do you want me to learn?"
"So you can earn."
"Why do you want me to earn?"
"So you can support your wife and many children. Isn't that what you wanted?" replied the teacher.
At this point the small boy stayed silent. There were no more "why's" to ask and he felt the teacher had shrewdly answered him.
In the last lesson, evening time, the teacher started teaching the alphabet. He pointed at the shape called "Alpha" and asked the boy to pronounce. But the boy would not pronounce. Try as he might, the teacher was unable to get him talking.
"What is this letter? Why don't you answer?"
The boy looked furiously at his teacher and said, "if I say this is "alpha" you will ask me to pronounce "beta" and if I pronounce "beta" you will ask me to pronounce "gamma" and if I pronounce that you will take me to the last letter of the alphabet. Once we finish with the alphabet, you'll begin teaching me geometry and arithmetic, after that history and drama, politics and rhetoric will follow later and metaphysics and theology also. The more I submit to your lessons, the more lessons I am given. The more I learn, the more there is to learn. I will not submit to this never-ending madness. I quit!"
And the teacher was shocked to find such a clever pupil quit on his first day in school. But in this first day, the teacher knew he had taught the basics of philosophy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the fiction above showed, philosophy is nothing but constant inquiry into appearances and concepts. It is asking what such-and-such is, why such-and-such is the case and how such-and-such is the case.
The fiction also showed what themes this constant inquiry is subjected to. The small boy faced inquiry in his sociology lesson, his chemistry lesson, his dialogue during dinner and even in his linguistic lesson. This points to the fact that in every study philosophy is involved. Indeed, when we remember that philosophy is nothing but questioning, we can understand why every study is based on philosophical ground.
The fiction also hinted when we should engage in philosophy and when we should stop. The teacher began his classes with questions and continued asking - this process ended abruptly when the boy became angry. This could be a reminder that philosophical inquiry should be between people who are patient, willing, understanding and passionate about philosophy.
Many knowledgeable people were deemed unwise when people observed their impatience - because impatience is a sign of arrogance, which is a cardinal sin in this field.
If people are not willing to engage in philosophy, they will not taste the sweetness of this amazing field of human understanding and if we try to talk to them they will change the subject or ignore us altogether.
Understanding is key to philosophy. So many great philosophers were forgotten because they spoke with people who did not understand. Many philosophers were executed for a similar reason. Thus, one must target understanding people with rational mindsets to explain their philosophy.
Passion, though irrational, is the driving force of life. We must love thinking. We must adore philosophy. We must want to do it every moment of every second of every minute of every day! It is extraordinary but understandable why most Western Philosophers never married... philosophy and knowledge was the love of their lives... a bit over-the-top for me personally, but it is true.
However, in our fiction, the boy was not patient, not willing, not understanding and certainly lacked any passion for learning. However, he was a clever boy who did not have the necessary behavioural requirements for study.
Therefore, whenever the boy lost his patience, the teacher would stop his inquiries until he had calmed down.
Another time to stop (apart from 'bad audience') is demonstrated in this fiction. When the boy shows his cleverness and begins asking questions of his teacher, the teacher answers every single question with patience and respect until a satisfying answer is agreed upon.
Therefore, philosophical inquiry does end at a point - the point which is agreed by all the minds involved. If somebody does not agree with the inquiry, they can voice their objection and the inquiry will recommence.
But what is the essence of Philosophical Inquiry?
One of the ways to know the essence of something is to know its limits.
The essence of inquiry can be understood from the following passage:
"When will this end, sir?"
"When you reach the ends of the earth and the depths of the fathomless sea and the edges of the celestial dome."
This notes the limitlessness of philosophical inquiry. The reason it is limitless is because humans can analyse what they experience and they can analyse their own analysis and they can analyse the analysis of the analysis ad infinitum.
One may say: philosophical inquiry has an ending according to one of your arguments, and is limitless according to another - but this is impossible.
We will say: The number of inquiries is limitless. But each inquiry in itself has a limit. So, for example, "What is gold?" will eventually reach a limit, but there are infinite number of inquiries one can make simultaneously. (e.g. What is silver? What is nickel? What is air? What is a bucket? What is love? ad infinitum.)
So philosophical inquiry is like a rectangle with a length of infinite and a limited width. Inquiries that make up the length are infinite in number. There is no limit to what you can ask in general. However, the subsequent questions resulting from the original inquiry (which make up the width) are limited. This is because there is a limit to what you can ask about something specially.
One may say: Why is there no limit to what one can ask?
We will say: Because if we ask a question such as "why x?" we can then ask "why did we ask 'why x'?" and we can then ask "why did we ask 'why did we ask 'why x' '?" and so on ad infinitum.
But why is this so?
This returns to who we really are - our essence - Mazda - which I will discuss in future essays. However, for now it suffices to say that we are able to "analyse our own analysis" - we are self-aware and we can study our own actions and then go on and study our own studies.
One may say: If there is no limit to what one can ask - why is there a limit to what one can ask "about something"?
We will say: This understanding is rooted in logic and epistemology and we shall discuss this in great depth in future essays. However, we will assume that everyone accepts "causality" for now. (future essays will prove causality and answer the challenges from the skeptics)
Every existing event requires a "Sufficient Reason" for existing. Sometimes the reason is not "sufficient" and so the reason itself would require another reason - and sometimes this will go on - but due to our assumption that every existing event requires a sufficient reason we will continue inquiring until we reach the ultimate reason. This ultimate reason would not need a reason for itself and thus the inquiry will end.
An example of the above is the following:
(1) Why do you write a book? To earn money.
(2) Why do you want to earn? To have money to buy food.
(3) Why do you want to buy food? To eat when I'm hungry.
(4) Why do you want to eat when you are hungry? Because if I don't I will die - which I don't want.
I agree. Death is not convenient (!)
Each given answer was in itself not a sufficient reply for the person asking. In other words, the inquirer's mindset was not satisfied with the first few answers - this dissatisfaction can be seen as s/he continued inquiring, narrowing down the reasons until s/he reached the ultimate reason - for the inquirer, not wanting to die was a sufficient reason for writing a book.
Of course, not all of us would have followed up the inquiry past answer (1). It seems pretty obvious to us why someone would want to earn money.
Yet, the purpose of this argument was to show that every inquiry in itself will end. The epistemological reason for this is based on the limitations of what we can know and also because of what philosophers call a priori knowledge (this shall be explained in future essays)
However,
One may say: Although it is true that we may find a reason satisfyingly sufficient, it does not mean that it actually is sufficient. So we can't say just because we 'feel' it is sufficient that it truly is. This means that we can not posit that every inquiry has an ultimate reason. Instead, every inquiry will go on forever with no end in sight.
We will say: To say every inquiry has no end means that every reason has a reason, which in turn has a reason with no beginning in this chain of reasons.
Let us say: Z> Y and Y> X and X> W and W> V ...
Yet for Z to happen Y needs to happen, X needs to happen, W needs to happen, V needs to happen and another "infinite" reasons have to happen. We all know that you can never count infinite because there will also will be + 1. So, something that is infinite will never happen because there will always be 1 more event happening. This is what we call a regress.
Regresses are impossible by nature. Therefore, any such chain where each event is subsequent to another event is finite, not infinite. This is called a Sequential relationship. Chains in which events happen independent of each other are have what is called a Parallel relationship. Parallel relationships can be both infinite and finite. I shall provide these terms in a future essay.
So, since each inquiry is a question that leads to another question that leads to another, it is a sequential relationship. Therefore it is finite, which means it necessarily has an end.
[Note: As stated, philosophical inquiry can be liked to a rectangle. The infinite length has a parallel relationship and the finite width has a sequential relationship.
So philosophical inquiry is 2 kinds: 1.Number of things we can ask in general 2.Number of things we can ask about something specially.
The 1st kind has a parallel relationship. For example the inquiry "What is gold?" has nothing to do with and is independent of "Why does the Sun glow?"
Yet once we ask "What is gold?" our inquiry will ultimately result in a sufficient response
and no extra answer would be required. Thus, "What is gold?" has a sequential relationship.]
Now we have identified what Philosophical Inquiry is. It is the basis of what we know as the "Socrates method of questioning" and it is also the oft used method of modern philosophy.
This essay was written to understand what is the essence of Philosophical Inquiry and the types of questions one can ask and the results one can expect. Since Philosophy is questioning, it is not only "what we can ask?" but "what we should ask?" The next essay will take a look at that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: Philosophy is asking questions, seeking reasons, wanting answers. It is the three questions of "What?" "Why?" and "How?"
Philosophical questions are infinite in number - they have what we call "parallel relationships" - this is because they are NOT related via an answer.
Philosophical questions lead to answers and more questions - this chain will continue until an ultimate answer is reached (a sufficient response) - this chain is finite and has what we call a "sequential relationship" - this is because each question is related to another sequentially via an answer.
So, we can be sure of an ultimate answer, a sufficient response to every question. Yet, epistemological limitations may not allow us to know those responses.
The reason for an infinite number of questions available is due to our self-awareness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have any comments, questions or criticisms, please add them. They will be welcome and acknowledged.
In the old days in Ancient Greece, a small boy was sent to our private teacher for close tutoring. The teacher was amongst the wisest in the country and the boy was expected to do well. The first class was sociology and the teacher started the lesson.
"The smallest unit in a society is the individual. Individuals come together and form families. Tell me, little boy, name the members of a family."
"Father, mother and child."
"Good, little boy. Can you tell me how you came to be alive?"
"Yes teacher. Because of my parents."
"True. And how did your parents come to be alive?"
"Because of their parents."
"Well done. And how about them? How did they come to be alive?"
"They had parents too."
"Bravo! And them?"
At this point the small boy jumped in agitation. "They all had parents! Everyone that is and was alive had parents!"
Frustrated, the small boy sat down for the second lesson late afternoon. The lesson was alchemy.
"What is gold?" asked the teacher.
"It's a metal, teacher."
"What is a metal?"
"It is a hard substance - like iron, teacher."
"What is iron?" asked the teacher.
"It's also a metal. They make swords with it, sir."
"What is a sword?"
"When will this end, sir?"
"When you reach the ends of the earth and the depths of the fathomless sea and the edges of the celestial dome."
Angrier than before, the small boy passed the second lesson in a bad mood.
During lunch, the teacher decided to test his pupil once more.
"Why do you eat?"
"Because I want to grow."
"Why do you want to grow?"
"So I can support a wife and many children."
"Why do you want a wife?"
"So that I will be happy."
"Why do you want to be happy?"
The small boy didn't know how to explain. For him happiness was an obvious desire. So, instead, the boy decided to turn the tables on his teacher.
"Why do you ask these questions?"
"So you answer them."
"Why do you want me to answer them?"
"So you learn."
"Why do you want me to learn?"
"So you can earn."
"Why do you want me to earn?"
"So you can support your wife and many children. Isn't that what you wanted?" replied the teacher.
At this point the small boy stayed silent. There were no more "why's" to ask and he felt the teacher had shrewdly answered him.
In the last lesson, evening time, the teacher started teaching the alphabet. He pointed at the shape called "Alpha" and asked the boy to pronounce. But the boy would not pronounce. Try as he might, the teacher was unable to get him talking.
"What is this letter? Why don't you answer?"
The boy looked furiously at his teacher and said, "if I say this is "alpha" you will ask me to pronounce "beta" and if I pronounce "beta" you will ask me to pronounce "gamma" and if I pronounce that you will take me to the last letter of the alphabet. Once we finish with the alphabet, you'll begin teaching me geometry and arithmetic, after that history and drama, politics and rhetoric will follow later and metaphysics and theology also. The more I submit to your lessons, the more lessons I am given. The more I learn, the more there is to learn. I will not submit to this never-ending madness. I quit!"
And the teacher was shocked to find such a clever pupil quit on his first day in school. But in this first day, the teacher knew he had taught the basics of philosophy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the fiction above showed, philosophy is nothing but constant inquiry into appearances and concepts. It is asking what such-and-such is, why such-and-such is the case and how such-and-such is the case.
The fiction also showed what themes this constant inquiry is subjected to. The small boy faced inquiry in his sociology lesson, his chemistry lesson, his dialogue during dinner and even in his linguistic lesson. This points to the fact that in every study philosophy is involved. Indeed, when we remember that philosophy is nothing but questioning, we can understand why every study is based on philosophical ground.
The fiction also hinted when we should engage in philosophy and when we should stop. The teacher began his classes with questions and continued asking - this process ended abruptly when the boy became angry. This could be a reminder that philosophical inquiry should be between people who are patient, willing, understanding and passionate about philosophy.
Many knowledgeable people were deemed unwise when people observed their impatience - because impatience is a sign of arrogance, which is a cardinal sin in this field.
If people are not willing to engage in philosophy, they will not taste the sweetness of this amazing field of human understanding and if we try to talk to them they will change the subject or ignore us altogether.
Understanding is key to philosophy. So many great philosophers were forgotten because they spoke with people who did not understand. Many philosophers were executed for a similar reason. Thus, one must target understanding people with rational mindsets to explain their philosophy.
Passion, though irrational, is the driving force of life. We must love thinking. We must adore philosophy. We must want to do it every moment of every second of every minute of every day! It is extraordinary but understandable why most Western Philosophers never married... philosophy and knowledge was the love of their lives... a bit over-the-top for me personally, but it is true.
However, in our fiction, the boy was not patient, not willing, not understanding and certainly lacked any passion for learning. However, he was a clever boy who did not have the necessary behavioural requirements for study.
Therefore, whenever the boy lost his patience, the teacher would stop his inquiries until he had calmed down.
Another time to stop (apart from 'bad audience') is demonstrated in this fiction. When the boy shows his cleverness and begins asking questions of his teacher, the teacher answers every single question with patience and respect until a satisfying answer is agreed upon.
Therefore, philosophical inquiry does end at a point - the point which is agreed by all the minds involved. If somebody does not agree with the inquiry, they can voice their objection and the inquiry will recommence.
But what is the essence of Philosophical Inquiry?
One of the ways to know the essence of something is to know its limits.
The essence of inquiry can be understood from the following passage:
"When will this end, sir?"
"When you reach the ends of the earth and the depths of the fathomless sea and the edges of the celestial dome."
This notes the limitlessness of philosophical inquiry. The reason it is limitless is because humans can analyse what they experience and they can analyse their own analysis and they can analyse the analysis of the analysis ad infinitum.
One may say: philosophical inquiry has an ending according to one of your arguments, and is limitless according to another - but this is impossible.
We will say: The number of inquiries is limitless. But each inquiry in itself has a limit. So, for example, "What is gold?" will eventually reach a limit, but there are infinite number of inquiries one can make simultaneously. (e.g. What is silver? What is nickel? What is air? What is a bucket? What is love? ad infinitum.)
So philosophical inquiry is like a rectangle with a length of infinite and a limited width. Inquiries that make up the length are infinite in number. There is no limit to what you can ask in general. However, the subsequent questions resulting from the original inquiry (which make up the width) are limited. This is because there is a limit to what you can ask about something specially.
One may say: Why is there no limit to what one can ask?
We will say: Because if we ask a question such as "why x?" we can then ask "why did we ask 'why x'?" and we can then ask "why did we ask 'why did we ask 'why x' '?" and so on ad infinitum.
But why is this so?
This returns to who we really are - our essence - Mazda - which I will discuss in future essays. However, for now it suffices to say that we are able to "analyse our own analysis" - we are self-aware and we can study our own actions and then go on and study our own studies.
One may say: If there is no limit to what one can ask - why is there a limit to what one can ask "about something"?
We will say: This understanding is rooted in logic and epistemology and we shall discuss this in great depth in future essays. However, we will assume that everyone accepts "causality" for now. (future essays will prove causality and answer the challenges from the skeptics)
Every existing event requires a "Sufficient Reason" for existing. Sometimes the reason is not "sufficient" and so the reason itself would require another reason - and sometimes this will go on - but due to our assumption that every existing event requires a sufficient reason we will continue inquiring until we reach the ultimate reason. This ultimate reason would not need a reason for itself and thus the inquiry will end.
An example of the above is the following:
(1) Why do you write a book? To earn money.
(2) Why do you want to earn? To have money to buy food.
(3) Why do you want to buy food? To eat when I'm hungry.
(4) Why do you want to eat when you are hungry? Because if I don't I will die - which I don't want.
I agree. Death is not convenient (!)
Each given answer was in itself not a sufficient reply for the person asking. In other words, the inquirer's mindset was not satisfied with the first few answers - this dissatisfaction can be seen as s/he continued inquiring, narrowing down the reasons until s/he reached the ultimate reason - for the inquirer, not wanting to die was a sufficient reason for writing a book.
Of course, not all of us would have followed up the inquiry past answer (1). It seems pretty obvious to us why someone would want to earn money.
Yet, the purpose of this argument was to show that every inquiry in itself will end. The epistemological reason for this is based on the limitations of what we can know and also because of what philosophers call a priori knowledge (this shall be explained in future essays)
However,
One may say: Although it is true that we may find a reason satisfyingly sufficient, it does not mean that it actually is sufficient. So we can't say just because we 'feel' it is sufficient that it truly is. This means that we can not posit that every inquiry has an ultimate reason. Instead, every inquiry will go on forever with no end in sight.
We will say: To say every inquiry has no end means that every reason has a reason, which in turn has a reason with no beginning in this chain of reasons.
Let us say: Z> Y and Y> X and X> W and W> V ...
Yet for Z to happen Y needs to happen, X needs to happen, W needs to happen, V needs to happen and another "infinite" reasons have to happen. We all know that you can never count infinite because there will also will be + 1. So, something that is infinite will never happen because there will always be 1 more event happening. This is what we call a regress.
Regresses are impossible by nature. Therefore, any such chain where each event is subsequent to another event is finite, not infinite. This is called a Sequential relationship. Chains in which events happen independent of each other are have what is called a Parallel relationship. Parallel relationships can be both infinite and finite. I shall provide these terms in a future essay.
So, since each inquiry is a question that leads to another question that leads to another, it is a sequential relationship. Therefore it is finite, which means it necessarily has an end.
[Note: As stated, philosophical inquiry can be liked to a rectangle. The infinite length has a parallel relationship and the finite width has a sequential relationship.
So philosophical inquiry is 2 kinds: 1.Number of things we can ask in general 2.Number of things we can ask about something specially.
The 1st kind has a parallel relationship. For example the inquiry "What is gold?" has nothing to do with and is independent of "Why does the Sun glow?"
Yet once we ask "What is gold?" our inquiry will ultimately result in a sufficient response
and no extra answer would be required. Thus, "What is gold?" has a sequential relationship.]
Now we have identified what Philosophical Inquiry is. It is the basis of what we know as the "Socrates method of questioning" and it is also the oft used method of modern philosophy.
This essay was written to understand what is the essence of Philosophical Inquiry and the types of questions one can ask and the results one can expect. Since Philosophy is questioning, it is not only "what we can ask?" but "what we should ask?" The next essay will take a look at that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: Philosophy is asking questions, seeking reasons, wanting answers. It is the three questions of "What?" "Why?" and "How?"
Philosophical questions are infinite in number - they have what we call "parallel relationships" - this is because they are NOT related via an answer.
Philosophical questions lead to answers and more questions - this chain will continue until an ultimate answer is reached (a sufficient response) - this chain is finite and has what we call a "sequential relationship" - this is because each question is related to another sequentially via an answer.
So, we can be sure of an ultimate answer, a sufficient response to every question. Yet, epistemological limitations may not allow us to know those responses.
The reason for an infinite number of questions available is due to our self-awareness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have any comments, questions or criticisms, please add them. They will be welcome and acknowledged.
Friday, July 25, 2008
What is Mazdalogy?
First of all, this is a philosophy blog. It will deal with the major fields: Epistemology, Metaphysics, Logic and Semantics, Mind and Body,, Ethics, Aesthetics and also with the minor fields such as Theology, Sociology and Politics.
The philosophy written here is purely my own, no doubt influenced by great thinkers from around the globe, people whose voices echo from the distant past. The philosophy is written in the following layout...
Mazdalogy (the name of my philosophy) is literally "study of pure transcendental awareness" and is a complete worldview with "awareness" at its centre. Mazda itself is an Avestan word meaning "pure awareness" and it is upon this concept that holds up the entire philosophy.
As written, Mazdalogy is the study of this "pure awareness" (or Mazda) and therefore, I have decided to use people's everyday experiences to alleviate this study so that all can comprehend the often complicated terms and difficult concepts.
The study will take many many posts (which will keep me busy!) and it begins with self-reflection and promises to provide understanding of God.
The study's layout follows the following tradition from Muhammad, the Muslim Prophet:
"He who knows his self, knows his Lord."
Thus, Mazdalogy begins with the 'self' and ends with the 'Lord', proving every step of the way using firm philosophical arguments.
Based on the above tradition, Mazdalogy will contain in order the following syllabus:
1. The Self
2. Epistemology
3. Thought and Reason
4. Logic
5. Semantics
6. Ontology
7. Experience
8. Time and Space
9. Mathematics
10. Awareness and Will
11. Mazda
12. The Lord .... (also known as "Ahura Mazda" or God)
Each of the mentioned headings will include numerous sub-headings which will hopefully satisfy the readers.
Every post will be open to comments. Any comments will be answered and all questions will be dealt with.
This blog is for all who seek truth, certainty, knowledge... or all who seek to philosophise and think actively... this blog is for everyone who believes in human rational debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that I have explained what Mazdalogy is, I will retire. Don't forget to come back in a couple of days for any signs of a new post when the philosophy will begin!
The philosophy written here is purely my own, no doubt influenced by great thinkers from around the globe, people whose voices echo from the distant past. The philosophy is written in the following layout...
Mazdalogy (the name of my philosophy) is literally "study of pure transcendental awareness" and is a complete worldview with "awareness" at its centre. Mazda itself is an Avestan word meaning "pure awareness" and it is upon this concept that holds up the entire philosophy.
As written, Mazdalogy is the study of this "pure awareness" (or Mazda) and therefore, I have decided to use people's everyday experiences to alleviate this study so that all can comprehend the often complicated terms and difficult concepts.
The study will take many many posts (which will keep me busy!) and it begins with self-reflection and promises to provide understanding of God.
The study's layout follows the following tradition from Muhammad, the Muslim Prophet:
"He who knows his self, knows his Lord."
Thus, Mazdalogy begins with the 'self' and ends with the 'Lord', proving every step of the way using firm philosophical arguments.
Based on the above tradition, Mazdalogy will contain in order the following syllabus:
1. The Self
2. Epistemology
3. Thought and Reason
4. Logic
5. Semantics
6. Ontology
7. Experience
8. Time and Space
9. Mathematics
10. Awareness and Will
11. Mazda
12. The Lord .... (also known as "Ahura Mazda" or God)
Each of the mentioned headings will include numerous sub-headings which will hopefully satisfy the readers.
Every post will be open to comments. Any comments will be answered and all questions will be dealt with.
This blog is for all who seek truth, certainty, knowledge... or all who seek to philosophise and think actively... this blog is for everyone who believes in human rational debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that I have explained what Mazdalogy is, I will retire. Don't forget to come back in a couple of days for any signs of a new post when the philosophy will begin!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
