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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment