When we read a question, do we skim over it, ponder it or actually mentally tear it to pieces?! The following fiction will show us the best answer to a remarkable question.
A wise man was lecturing the youth of
"Where can we find tomorrow's rain?" he asked.
Some of the young men went deep in thought.
One said, "Rain resides with Zeus, the god of heavens, king of the gods of
The wise man smiled. "You, boy, will be a good priest, pious and fearing god."
A second boy said, "No. Rain can be found in the heavenly ocean which flows parallel to the
The wise man said, "You will be a superb cosmologist, understanding the world through signs and symbols."
A third said, "These are all wrong. Tomorrow's rain can be found in the clouds above and the seas below. Rain is the cycle of water."
The wise man nodded and said, "You will be a convincing scientist, knowing the world using concepts and physics."
A fourth boy with a flat nose stepped forward and said, "All these answers are interesting, sir, and may be correct. But tomorrow's rain cannot be found."
"Why?" asked the other boys.
"Because tomorrow's rain is not known – for it is not yet tomorrow. Tomorrow can never be known, so how can one know tomorrow's rain?"
"We can anticipate it using physics and searching the skies," said one of the boys hurriedly.
"True – but how can you anticipate the rain tomorrow if you don't know all the factors that influence it, such as the wind, the heaviness of the clouds and the passing of time? Who here can honestly claim to know every factor surrounding tomorrow's rain?"
Nobody replied.
"So you see; it is impossible to find tomorrow's rain."
At this point, one of the boys objected. "If we learned all the factors surrounding tomorrow's rain, we could find and anticipate it – therefore it is not impossible. In fact, at that point we would be certain that we have found tomorrow's rain."
The boy with the flat nose listened with care, and then said, "While it is logically possible to learn all the factors that surround tomorrow's rain at this moment, it is impossible to learn anything of the future factors that will affect it at a later time, for to do so, one should be able to move to and fro the dimension of time, which to my understanding is impossible. So, if we can't know what factors will influence it later, how can we be sure that the rain will come to
The boy objected again. "If we could know all the factors that exist in the world, all the centres of gravity that cause the motion of the earth and heavens, we will be able to anticipate the future."
The flat-nosed boy replied, "You can know all the factors of the world if you could perceive all the world. But you only have five senses that take in colours, tastes, smells, touches and sounds – what if there existed something that cannot be visualised, tasted, smelled, touched or heard? How would you know of it? So how can you be certain that you know all the factors of the world?"
"We can't," said the boy, defeated and dismayed.
"Then we can never ever find tomorrow's rain."
The wise man beamed at the flat-nosed boy and patted his head. "What's your name, boy?"
"Socrates."
"You, Socrates, will be an excellent philosopher – one of the best
"Sir," replied Socrates, "you can never know tomorrow's Socrates – so how can you anticipate my future?"
The wise man said, "I am not anticipating the future… I am perceiving the present."
And indeed he was, for Socrates became the fountainhead of European philosophy that has endured the sands of time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does the fiction tell us? Many things – but let us systematically grasp the hidden wisdom in this fiction.
The fiction can be divided in 2 parts. Part 1: different kinds of answering. Part 2: the best answer and its reasons.
Part 1: Different Kinds of Answering
We saw a wise Athenian ask a question to four young men. Each replied and the Athenian would categorise them based on their answers.
The first answer was a religious one. An answer that puts god as the ultimate response is one based on piety and humility, and this is why the wise man recommended the temple for him.
The second answer was a cosmological answer, an answer which reflected the traditional understanding of the world. Such answers can be found amongst mystics and rather spiritual philosophies which explain the world through a series of symbols and gestures. One should dismiss them merely for their approach, as strange and distant as it may seem.
The third answer was a scientific answer, a rational answer, a good answer, but an incomplete answer as shown by the young Socrates a few passages later. It used real entity concepts such as "clouds" and "seas" and real relational concepts such as "water cycle" to explain the phenomenon. While this is an interesting answer, it is demolished by Socrates.
The fourth answer as given by Socrates can be summarised as follows:
"We do not know the factors that surround rain now to anticipate it for tomorrow. So we cannot find tomorrow's rain."
The first objection brought against was: "It is possible to learn all the factors surrounding rain now."
Socrates' response was something like: "Even so, it is impossible to learn of any future factors that may influence the rain."
The second objection was: "It is possible to learn all the factors of the world so as to anticipate the future, such as rain."
Socrates' response was totally destructive: "It is impossible to be certain of knowing all the factors of the world, since it is always possible that there are factors we cannot perceive and factors we cannot understand."
This argument can be better reflected in a mathematical formula where you have an infinite number of variables – it is impossible to know the values with any number of formulae.
Thus, with certainty gone, tomorrow's rain can never be identified, since one can never be sure.
This answer by Socrates is the philosophical answer. That answer is not necessarily the truth, but is the only answer of which we can be certain. So, philosophy seeks certainty and strives to establish a firm ground for human understanding of the vast universe that encompasses it.
Part 2: The Best Answer and its Reasons
The Best Answer belonged to Socrates. Why? Because he saw the question for what it really was. Socrates listened to his fellow Athenians as they tried to answer the question, and he found flaws in their reasoning. The real problem for the other boys was their lack of understanding of the question at hand.
"Where is tomorrow's rain?"
Lack of understanding of the question is the main reason for bad reasoning. It is not that humans reason badly, for as shall be shown by Mazdalogy, humans are perfectionists when comes to reasoning. One of the problems is found in "misinterpretation of words by different users".
For example, your teacher asks you to bring out a notebook and you take out a small notepad. She rages at you for not bringing a notebook while you try hard to explain that this is not a notepad but a small notebook. The trouble here is because your teacher and you interpret differently the same words. Sometimes these misinterpretations happen with concepts and universals, causing philosophical debates and ideological wars – all because of a misunderstanding – a misinterpretation.
That is why it is always necessary in philosophy to define every single thing that is said. Of course, this sometimes creates definition wars, where each person tries to force their definition upon others.
So, when the wise man asked "Where is tomorrow's rain?" the first three young men set about answering without actually considering what is meant by the terms "Where", "is", "tomorrow", " 's " and "rain". Herein lies their fault.
The boy who said "Zeus" only considered the word "is".
The boy who said "The heavenly ocean" only considered the word "where".
The boy who said "The clouds above and the seas below" only considered the word "rain".
Only Socrates considered every word and pointed out the crux of the question. The question "where" means that we should be able to perceive the object. The word "is" means we should be able to perceive the object's spatial position. The word "tomorrow" means we should be able to perceive the future or anticipate it. The word "rain" is the object.
Socrates was quick to understand that the future cannot be perceived (we are not concerned about any theories of moving through time at the moment – a thorough essay on Time will be written in the future) Socrates knew that the only way to find tomorrow's rain was to anticipate it. Therefore, Socrates altered the question "Where is tomorrow's rain?" to "How can we anticipate tomorrow's rain?"
Hence, Socrates proved that to anticipate tomorrow's rain with any degree of certainty was to be certain that every factor that surrounds tomorrow's rain and every factor that will surround it in the future are known. Therefore, the next logical question would be "Is it logically possible for us to be certain that every factor, now or in the future, is known?"
The answer Socrates gives to this question is negative. How can we ever be sure that there is nothing more to know? He therefore uses this conclusion as the basis for his denial of any type of certainty of any future event. (This should not be mistaken with David Hume's objection to causality, which runs along similar lines but is meant for a different conclusion)
Now we appreciate the necessity of good analysis and clarifying any potential misinterpretations. So, to answer a philosophical question well, we must first analyse the question, open up the hidden aspects of every word, define the terminology and smell out any hidden questions within the original question. Then, we can rely on our reasoning and be sure that we'll get it logically right.
To end this essay, another point I would like to make is essentially an obvious one. One should never guess – ever! We should never guess that god is a spirit if there is no reason to, nor can we guess that electrons are bad faeries and positrons are good faeries if we have no reason to do so.
Many answers given by ancient philosophers to the questions they had were based on no or little reason. We all know Thales believed everything was made of "water". Just because he lived on an island and saw water as a holy element that provided life to every plant and creature, there was no way he could have been certain of it. If one cannot be certain, one can still guess, and Thales guessed firmly that "water" was the original element. We now laugh at this proposition.
So remember, we can only be certain of something as truth if and only if we are certain of it – meaning, if and only if there is no alternative possibility – meaning, if and only if it is necessary that it is so. Any other type of truth cannot be known for sure by us, and so we must either not believe, or simply not care, or any other sensible approach.
We will end this essay with a sentence of my own – it is simple, but not simplistic. You may disagree with it at first, but as you dwell on it and "think" about it, rather than "guess and jump to conclusions", you too will agree in the end. The sentence is:
"One may guess and get it right. But one can never think and be wrong!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This essay ends the Philosophy Foundation Course planned for students of Mazdalogy. This course explored "What is Philosophy?", "Why Philosophy?", "How to Philosophise?", "How to answer?" and "How to analyse questions?"
The next course will be the starting-point for Mazdalogy, where we will begin the true philosophy.
Any comments are welcome and will be replied to.
Posts
