How To Do Philosophy From Scratch
Immortalist
Putting Yourself in the Right Frame of Mind:
One good way to approach the concept of reality is to look at how the first
people who wondered about it tried to explain it. To understand what these
thinkers say, however, you should be in the same frame of mind they were in.
So be patient and try to imagine the following scenario; it's all for a good
purpose.
You are on a tropical cruise and you're having a terrific time. The people
are friendly and the weather is great. On the last night of the cruise,
however, you have too good a time and drink too much champagne at the
captain's farewell party. You decide to take a walk around the deck to clear
your head. As you stagger along, the ship unexpectedly runs into heavy winds
and rough seas. The ship lurches, and you fly across the deck. As you try to
get up, a huge wave crashes over the ship. The ship pitches again, and you
are washed overboard. Unfortunately, no one realizes you're gone until the
ship returns to port. Your disappearance is a mystery.
The good news is that when you were thrown overboard, you grabbed hold of a
log in the water, and the winds and currents carried you to a small island
nearby. You are safe. The bad news is that you don't have the faintest idea
where you are. In fact, your head hit a stanchion before you went overboard,
and you have a ferocious headache and complete amnesia. You do not know who
you are, where you came from, or anything about your past.
Worse than that, you remember almost nothing of what you learned through
your years of schooling. You know you need food and water, but beyond that,
your mind is blank. It works, but it's empty. Really empty!
So here you are, a sentient, intelligent creature surrounded by a complex
world. Light turns into darkness as a disc in the sky that is too bright to
look at moves across the sky and sinks into the waves. When this happens,
the sky sometimes changes into different colors. Then countless smaller
lights appear that move very slowly. After what seems like a set period, the
darkness goes away and the bright circle returns—but from the other side of
the island. The sky is usually blue, the breeze warm and comfortable. But
sometimes for no reason dark gray objects cover the blue, and drops of
water, loud noises, hard winds, and lines of light come from the sky. Then
the blue returns. Food grows on the trees, and even replaces itself. You
also see other living beings, but they are different from you. Some live in
the water, others fly through the air. What does it all mean?
If you can imagine this situation, you can imagine your confusion and fear.
You are in an exceedingly complicated place. And because you have a human
mind, you also wonder about everything that is happening. Your fear is mixed
with curiosity.
Explaining Your New World:
Having come this far, now try to imagine how you would understand this world
you know nothing about. First, you would probably attempt to find some order
in what you see. You would distinguish between the things around you that
move (animals, birds) and those that stay put (plants, rocks). You would
distinguish patterns—light (day) followed by dark (night). You would also
see that much about what happens is unpredictable—the weather, for instance.
Eventually you would develop some sense of what your world consists of.
But describing things would not be enough for you. You would want to
understand what goes on, and why. How would you do that? How would you
explain, for example, the fruit on the trees, the passing storms in the sky,
and the coming and going of the bright disk? Think about that for a minute.
An Anthropomorphic Explanation:
Chances are your first explanation would be neither philosophical nor
scientific. The human animal is by nature very nervous, and you would
probably feel fear and awe at the great powers you witness in action around
you. Feeling pressed to calm yourself and to make some sense of what you
see, you would start interpreting your world in the only terms you know—your
own human ones. You would probably believe that other living beings cause
what happens. You would personify things, imagining that everything you see
is alive like you, with a will and a personality of its own. You would come
to think that the winds blow, the clouds move, and the plants grow because
they want to. You might even conclude that these natural occurrences express
the will of one or more superior, incomprehensible being whose actions may
be benign, or hostile, or completely arbitrary and indifferent.
Whichever explanation you come up with, your account of reality could be
called anthropomorphic—that is, your account would be given in human form.
("Anthropomorphic" comes from two Greek words: anthropos, "human," and
morphe, "form.") Such an interpretation of reality explains things in terms
of who is responsible for them, not simply what happened. And to the extent
that your explanations consist of stories about divine beings, this kind of
thinking is also called mythic. (Mythos is the Greek word for "story.") The
anthropomorphic, mythic mode of explaining reality obviously leads more in
the direction of religion than science, and this was essentially the
direction taken by the earliest human societies.
Notice what all this means for your understanding reality on your island. I
come to you and say, "Tell me, what exists, what is real?" Your answer would
not be that of twentieth-century Westerners—"what is real is what I perceive
with my senses." It would probably be more like, "First, there is what I can
see—the trees, the water, the animals, and the sky. Then there is what I
cannot see—the powers that bring the storms and make the light come and go."
Your conception of reality would include material and nonmaterial things,
you may very well project human characteristics onto either, and you might
even imagine some of them as the equivalent of gods.
A Natural Explanation:
You'd probably start with an anthropomorphic, mythic account of reality. But
eventually some questions occur to you. You attempt to test the wind, the
sea, and the trees on your island, you try some "experiments" to see if
particular actions anger or please the gods that rule them. Eventually, you
conclude that what you do doesn't affect things, that you cannot communicate
with them, or at least that they do not respond. Perhaps you decide these
gods do not exist. Now your thinking might go in a different direction. You
might considet the possibility that you and the events around you are all
part of the same system of natural, impersonal forces. You hypothesize that
everything that happens has a cause, and that these causes somehow lie
within the events themselves. Exactly how isn't immediately apparent, but,
you think, if you looked long and hard enough, you could figure it out. You
assume that the nature of the world around you can be grasped by your mind.
In essence, you opt to explain your world in terms of some concept of
nature. When you take this path, you are following the steps of the first
philosophers.
[anthropomorphic] An anthropomorphic account of something explains it in
human terms. For example, an anthropomorphic interpretation of reality
explains things in terms of who is responsible for them, not simply what
happened. Such an account regularly appeals to the notion of divine beings.
Before Philosophy, Mythic Explanations:
The earliest human beings found themselves barraged by experiences they did
not know the meaning of, much as you were on the island. Some of what
happened was wonderful; some was terrifying. Along with their fear and
confusion, however, these people also had a basic impulse to try to make
sense of the world around them. We are curious creatures, and we naturally
want to understand what is happening around us. That's why we're called Homo
sapiens—"thinking man."
The first explanations we came up with about the world were anthropomorphic
and mythic, just like yours on the island. For about 2000 years before the
Greeks tried their hands at explaining the world, a number of major cultures
in Egypt and Mesopotamia had invented their own elaborate, but decidedly
unphilosophical, explanations of reality. These ancient cultures wove their
myths into highly organized religions. Every event was the product of
actions taken by a variety of gods and goddesses....
Adapted from "Discovering Philosophy"
Thomas White 1996
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0135080037/qid=1036465417/
Chiloa1
bad start.
John Jones
animals.
What is this fascination for 'explanation'? All we do
is re-interpret. There is no drive to do that unless we
have a reason. There are no 'explanations' lying 'out
there', no-one spends their time racking their brains
for an interpretation for what adequately suits them
anyway. It is not even as if the interpretation, or
explanation, is somehow on a higher plain of truth than
first impression.
I think 'explanation' is of use to people who want to
know how to control something.
JJ
<Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:usefg29...@corp.supernews.com...
> darkness goes away and the bright circle returns-but
> distinguish patterns-light (day) followed by dark
(night). You would also
> see that much about what happens is unpredictable-the
weather, for instance.
> Eventually you would develop some sense of what your
world consists of.
> But describing things would not be enough for you.
You would want to
> understand what goes on, and why. How would you do
that? How would you
> explain, for example, the fruit on the trees, the
passing storms in the sky,
> and the coming and going of the bright disk? Think
about that for a minute.
>
> An Anthropomorphic Explanation:
> Chances are your first explanation would be neither
philosophical nor
> scientific. The human animal is by nature very
nervous, and you would
> probably feel fear and awe at the great powers you
witness in action around
> you. Feeling pressed to calm yourself and to make
some sense of what you
> see, you would start interpreting your world in the
only terms you know-your
> own human ones. You would probably believe that other
living beings cause
> what happens. You would personify things, imagining
that everything you see
> is alive like you, with a will and a personality of
its own. You would come
> to think that the winds blow, the clouds move, and
the plants grow because
> they want to. You might even conclude that these
natural occurrences express
> the will of one or more superior, incomprehensible
being whose actions may
> be benign, or hostile, or completely arbitrary and
indifferent.
>
> Whichever explanation you come up with, your account
of reality could be
> called anthropomorphic-that is, your account would be
given in human form.
> ("Anthropomorphic" comes from two Greek words:
anthropos, "human," and
> morphe, "form.") Such an interpretation of reality
explains things in terms
> of who is responsible for them, not simply what
happened. And to the extent
> that your explanations consist of stories about
divine beings, this kind of
> thinking is also called mythic. (Mythos is the Greek
word for "story.") The
> anthropomorphic, mythic mode of explaining reality
obviously leads more in
> the direction of religion than science, and this was
essentially the
> direction taken by the earliest human societies.
>
> Notice what all this means for your understanding
reality on your island. I
> come to you and say, "Tell me, what exists, what is
real?" Your answer would
> not be that of twentieth-century Westerners-"what is
real is what I perceive
> with my senses." It would probably be more like,
"First, there is what I can
> see-the trees, the water, the animals, and the sky.
Then there is what I
> cannot see-the powers that bring the storms and make
> sapiens-"thinking man."
Not so quick
even be willing to be much more primitive in my thinking if it allowed me to
feel more alive. But... how much of my vocabulary do we retain if left on
the island? If none then the story would start out more like a stroke
patient learning language again. If all then the story would be very
different... Maybe a clean slate is not conceivable.
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:usefg29...@corp.supernews.com...
> darkness goes away and the bright circle returns-but from the other side
of
> the island. The sky is usually blue, the breeze warm and comfortable. But
> sometimes for no reason dark gray objects cover the blue, and drops of
> water, loud noises, hard winds, and lines of light come from the sky. Then
> the blue returns. Food grows on the trees, and even replaces itself. You
> also see other living beings, but they are different from you. Some live
in
> the water, others fly through the air. What does it all mean?
>
> If you can imagine this situation, you can imagine your confusion and
fear.
> You are in an exceedingly complicated place. And because you have a human
> mind, you also wonder about everything that is happening. Your fear is
mixed
> with curiosity.
>
> Explaining Your New World:
> Having come this far, now try to imagine how you would understand this
world
> you know nothing about. First, you would probably attempt to find some
order
> in what you see. You would distinguish between the things around you that
> move (animals, birds) and those that stay put (plants, rocks). You would
> distinguish patterns-light (day) followed by dark (night). You would also
> see that much about what happens is unpredictable-the weather, for
instance.
> Eventually you would develop some sense of what your world consists of.
> But describing things would not be enough for you. You would want to
> understand what goes on, and why. How would you do that? How would you
> explain, for example, the fruit on the trees, the passing storms in the
sky,
> and the coming and going of the bright disk? Think about that for a
minute.
>
> An Anthropomorphic Explanation:
> Chances are your first explanation would be neither philosophical nor
> scientific. The human animal is by nature very nervous, and you would
> probably feel fear and awe at the great powers you witness in action
around
> you. Feeling pressed to calm yourself and to make some sense of what you
> see, you would start interpreting your world in the only terms you
know-your
> own human ones. You would probably believe that other living beings cause
> what happens. You would personify things, imagining that everything you
see
> is alive like you, with a will and a personality of its own. You would
come
> to think that the winds blow, the clouds move, and the plants grow because
> they want to. You might even conclude that these natural occurrences
express
> the will of one or more superior, incomprehensible being whose actions may
> be benign, or hostile, or completely arbitrary and indifferent.
>
> Whichever explanation you come up with, your account of reality could be
> called anthropomorphic-that is, your account would be given in human form.
> ("Anthropomorphic" comes from two Greek words: anthropos, "human," and
> morphe, "form.") Such an interpretation of reality explains things in
terms
> of who is responsible for them, not simply what happened. And to the
extent
> that your explanations consist of stories about divine beings, this kind
of
> thinking is also called mythic. (Mythos is the Greek word for "story.")
The
> anthropomorphic, mythic mode of explaining reality obviously leads more in
> the direction of religion than science, and this was essentially the
> direction taken by the earliest human societies.
>
> Notice what all this means for your understanding reality on your island.
I
> come to you and say, "Tell me, what exists, what is real?" Your answer
would
> not be that of twentieth-century Westerners-"what is real is what I
perceive
> with my senses." It would probably be more like, "First, there is what I
can
> see-the trees, the water, the animals, and the sky. Then there is what I
> cannot see-the powers that bring the storms and make the light come and
> sapiens-"thinking man."
Immortalist
"Not so quick" <good...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:muWx9.67$Va.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
> Interesting. It makes we want to be more connected to nature and I might
> even be willing to be much more primitive in my thinking if it allowed me
to
> feel more alive. But... how much of my vocabulary do we retain if left on
> the island? If none then the story would start out more like a stroke
> patient learning language again. If all then the story would be very
> different... Maybe a clean slate is not conceivable.
>
...if people were somehow raised from birth in an environment devoid of most
cultural influence, they would construct basic elements of human social life
ab initio. In short time new elements of language would be invented and
their culture enriched. Robin Fox, an anthropologist and pioneer in human
sociobiology, has expressed this hypothesis in its strongest possible terms.
Suppose, he conjectured, that we performed the cruel experiment linked in
legend to the Pharaoh Psammetichus and King James IV of Scotland, who were
said to have reared children by remote control, in total social isolation
from their elders. Would the children learn to speak to one another?
I do not doubt that they could speak and that, theoretically, given time,
they or their offspring would invent and develop a language despite their
never having been taught one. Furthermore, this language, although totally
different from any known to us, would be analyzable to linguists on the same
basis as other languages and translatable into all known languages. But I
would push this further. If our new Adam and Eve could survive and breed —
still in total isolation from any cultural influences — then eventually they
would produce a society which would have laws about property, rules about
incest and marriage, customs of taboo and avoidance, methods of settling
disputes with a minimum of bloodshed, beliefs about the supernatural and
practices relating to it, a system of social status and methods of
indicating it, initiation ceremonies for young men, courtship practices
including the adornment of females, systems of symbolic body adornment
generally, certain activities and associations set aside for men from which
women were excluded, gambling of some kind, a tool- and weapon-making
industry, myths and legends, dancing, adultery, and various doses of
homicide, suicide, homosexuality, schizophrenia, psychosis and neuroses, and
various practitioners to take advantage of or cure these, depending on how
they are viewed.
In 1945 the American anthropologist George P. Murdock listed the following
characteristics that have been recorded in every culture known to history
and ethnography:
Age-grading, athletic sports, bodily adornment, calendar, cleanliness
training, community organization, cooking, cooperative labor, cosmology,
courtship, dancing, decorative art, divination, division of labor, dream
interpretation, education, eschatology, ethics, ethnobotany, etiquette,
faith healing, family feasting, fire making, folklore, food taboos, funeral
rites, games, gestures, gift giving, government, greetings, hair styles,
hospitality, housing, hygiene, incest taboos, inheritance rules, joking, kin
groups, kinship nomenclature, language, law, luck superstitions, magic,
marriage, mealtimes, medicine, obstetrics, penal sanctions, personal names,
population policy, postnatal care, pregnancy usages, property rights,
propitiation of supernatural beings, puberty customs, religious ritual,
residence rules, sexual restrictions, soul concepts, status differentiation,
surgery, tool making, trade, visiting, weaving, and weather control.
Few of these unifying properties can be interpreted as the inevitable
outcome of either advanced social life or high intelligence. It is easy to
imagine nonhuman societies whose members are even more intelligent and
complexly organized than ourselves, yet lack a majority of the qualities
just listed. Consider the possibilities inherent in the insect societies.
The sterile workers are already more cooperative and altruistic than people
and they have a more pronounced tendency toward caste systems and division
of labor. If ants were to be endowed in addition with rationalizing brains
equal to our own, they could be our peers. Their societies would display the
following peculiarities:
Age-grading, antennal rites, body licking, calendar, cannibalism, caste
determination, caste laws, colony-foundation rules, colony organization,
cleanliness training, communal nurseries, cooperative labor, cosmology,
courtship, division of labor, drone control, education, eschatology, ethics,
etiquette, euthanasia, fire making, food taboos, gift giving, government,
greetings, grooming rituals, hospitality, housing, hygiene, incest taboos,
language, larval care, law, medicine, metamorphosis rites, mutual
regurgitation, nursing castes, nuptial flights, nutrient eggs, population
policy, queen obeisance, residence rules, sex determination, soldier castes,
sisterhoods, status differentiation, sterile workers, surgery, symbiont
care, tool making, trade, visiting, weather control,
and still other activities so alien as to make mere description by our
language difficult. If in addition they were programmed to eliminate strife
between colonies and to conserve the natural environment they would have
greater staying power than people, and in a broad sense theirs would be the
higher morality.
From On Human Nature by Edward O Wilson
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid%3D1036537594/
Dare
of philosophy or science you developed...
if you ended up on a warm, bountiful island where
food was easy to find and there were few if any
threatening animals or preditors after you..where
life was basically good, albeit lonely.
versus if you ended up on a cold, wind-swept rocky
island with little food and predatory animals always
stalking you ---where life was hard and brutal and
you were too hungry and cold to ponder reality
much beyond right here, right now survival.
Would your gender make a difference in the kind
of philosophy you developed?..or your age?
Thanks,
Dare
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:usefg29...@corp.supernews.com...
Immortalist
"Dare" <clyd...@UNSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aq9jiu$3pso$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> I wonder how different environments might affect the kind
> of philosophy or science you developed...
>
> if you ended up on a warm, bountiful island where
> food was easy to find and there were few if any
> threatening animals or preditors after you..where
> life was basically good, albeit lonely.
>
> versus if you ended up on a cold, wind-swept rocky
> island with little food and predatory animals always
> stalking you ---where life was hard and brutal and
> you were too hungry and cold to ponder reality
> much beyond right here, right now survival.
>
> Would your gender make a difference in the kind
> of philosophy you developed?..or your age?
>
> Thanks,
> Dare
For the lucky first few generations life would be like science fiction
utopia.
But after a few 10 thousands of years after re-populating the entire earth,
coming soon would be the exact technologies we have now but discovered in
different orders and by different persons.
Not so quick
I think (therefore I am, heh heh) that children would indeed create a
language and culture over time. "Lord of the Flies" sucks. But... the point
still stands that the first generation will not be thinkers because they
don't have a vocabulary and each generation after will be influenced by the
linguistic devices of previous generations. No one can think with a clean
mind.
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:usgjrfq...@corp.supernews.com...
> would push this further. If our new Adam and Eve could survive and breed -
> still in total isolation from any cultural influences - then eventually
Immortalist
>
> I think (therefore I am, heh heh) that children would indeed create a
> language and culture over time. "Lord of the Flies" sucks. But... the
point
> still stands that the first generation will not be thinkers because they
> don't have a vocabulary and each generation after will be influenced by
the
> linguistic devices of previous generations. No one can think with a clean
> mind.
>
is this like evidence for the negation of the lump on one side of our brain
that biases us to babble sounds that trigger activities in each other's
brains?
i believe there is much more going on than linguistic devices, i believe
that human nature would reasert herself and language would follow with
similar translatable human grammars and granpares
Not so quick
>> "Not so quick" wrote:
>> I think (therefore I am, heh heh) that children would indeed create a
>> language and culture over time. "Lord of the Flies" sucks. But... the
>> point still stands that the first generation will not be thinkers because
they
>> don't have a vocabulary and each generation after will be influenced by
>> the linguistic devices of previous generations. No one can think with a
clean
>> mind.
> is this like evidence for the negation of the lump on one side of our
brain
> that biases us to babble sounds that trigger activities in each other's
> brains?
no
> i believe there is much more going on than linguistic devices, i believe
> that human nature would reasert herself and language would follow with
> similar translatable human grammars and granpares
I don't doubt that. On every continent language developed
similarly and there is no reason to doubt that it would again.
But where is the human being who can think without the
import of the language taught to him? How much does the
language affect or perception/cognition... I think there must
be a great amount of philosophical thought on this. Prabably
I got my thoughts from something I read in 101 or Semantics.
[snip]
Immortalist
"Not so quick" <goodidea...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:uPpy9.9345$Ku.9...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:usiohe6...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >> "Not so quick" wrote:
> >> I think (therefore I am, heh heh) that children would indeed create a
> >> language and culture over time. "Lord of the Flies" sucks. But... the
> >> point still stands that the first generation will not be thinkers
because
> they
> >> don't have a vocabulary and each generation after will be influenced by
> >> the linguistic devices of previous generations. No one can think with a
> clean
> >> mind.
>
> > is this like evidence for the negation of the lump on one side of our
> brain
> > that biases us to babble sounds that trigger activities in each other's
> > brains?
>
> no
>
> > i believe there is much more going on than linguistic devices, i believe
> > that human nature would reasert herself and language would follow with
> > similar translatable human grammars and granpares
>
> I don't doubt that. On every continent language developed
> similarly and there is no reason to doubt that it would again.
> But where is the human being who can think without the
> import of the language taught to him?
we have to think in terms of 10,000 years segments and large numbers of
generations and "where everything endes up" on average. then about how much
is instinctual bias and how much a result of environment or if any analysis
can untangle nature/nurture in any instance since both might be wrapped up
together in the simplist universal.
when children learn language I have heard there is a critical phase when it
is much easier for them to learn different languages, but beyond this
critical stage, similar in all humans, the mylon sheaths harden around the
nerve cells which perform these functions.
> How much does the
> language affect or perception/cognition... I think there must
> be a great amount of philosophical thought on this. Prabably
> I got my thoughts from something I read in 101 or Semantics.
>
McCrone once believed that most of self-awarenes as opposed to animal
awareness arises from language *steering* awareness and allowed us to break
free of environmentally steered awareness.
http://www.btinternet.com/~neuronaut/webtwo_features_apethatspoke.htm
JusUK
it is probably very limited but I think useful.
What was the point of it? To prove how belief in God came about? Falsely
came about in your opinion? Belief in God is no scientific proof He exists,
but belief based on false reasoning is no proof that He doesn't. This would
be just as Anthromorphic. In other words, and for other reasons, "just
because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not after you!"
Peter van Velzen
I believe they are not after me.
I post my howetown and homeland with almost every post on this NG.
My telephone number and address are in the freely available telephone book.
If they are after me, and if they still haven't got me,
they must be pretty dumb.
I think they should be too dumb to even to be able to remember they were after me.
So if they were after me, they're not after me any more,
and if they are after me no, they won't be tommorow.
All in all, chances of creating life inside a vacuum are probably greater,
than the chance they are after me.
On the other hand,
If theist reasoning is right,
god probably doesn't exist.
For if they are right about there god,
and I was that god,
I would wish not to be that god anymore.
Being that god, I would be omnipotent,
and being omnipotent, I would not be that god.
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen November 2002
Atheist#1107
Amstelveen
The Netherlands