Feast or Famine

What a daunting task it is to put on paper the amount of learning that I have experienced over the course of this semester.  It proves a difficult task to synthesis my own ideas, the ideas of great philosophers of the past, and ideas of those that have influenced my thoughts from other readings and conversations.  How can I narrow down what I have learned from this semester when it is inseparable from my years previous? How does one objectively look outside of what culture, biases and prejudices have lead you to believe and think?  Especially, how does one separate themselves from a seemingly dogmatic and saturated culture and religious practice, one of which I have had the privilege of being raised in?  Having asked this series of questions, I will take into consideration my own biases and cultural influence, and try to remain honest.

My personal thoughts and questions as a naturally inquisitive person, have guided my thirst for knowledge and truth. I relate to Socrates when he stated, once I have searched for more, you see more in the stars, the moon, and the heaven.  Even as a deep thinker, there are ideas and perspectives that I haven’t considered before. It would seem absurdly prideful to think otherwise. 

Some topics and ideas are uncomfortable and paradoxical to what I had previously thought.  When addressing topics such as the problem of evil, the world of Forms, the nature of man, or the meaning of life, this can create tension for some when previous ideas have been shaken or one hasn’t ever considered these topics. Rene Descartes motioned to this idea that it proves productive to strip yourself of the ideas and thoughts that you had already perceived as true, and believed at one point. Descartes maybe does this out of fear of being wrong, or of fear of being deceived, but his actions nonetheless are to start out by radically doubting everything.   He then starts over, so to speak, with what he sees as the most basic, these ideas are found in Meditation I. Descartes tries to separate himself from any biases and untrue thought.  In a certain sense, I hope to be able to examine myself from an objective standpoint, and to be able to clean the closet as it were when considering certain belief systems.  The unexamined life is not worth living as Socrates stated, this in a way is what I hope to do throughout my entire life. 

When Socrates speaks of the philosopher as a “gadfly”, he speaks of the bother that the weight of intellectual inquiry can have on a person.  Socrates went about conversing with others and consistently proved that the general populous didn’t think deeply about things seemingly so simple as to define terms of everyday objects.  To be as a “gadfly”, a pest, asking questions to those that would rather not be bothered by such thought, those that are adverse to arguments proving that one is wrong is an aspect of philosophy that I dare say this culture and perhaps many others resist.  Some see it as dangerous territory for faith to dwell, others don’t even consider taking time out to broaden their horizons, and see what the world outside of the cave has to offer, they remain content with the copies and the shadows and façade of their lives.  Those blissfully ignorant, lemmings as it were, don’t turn around and see what the world has to offer them. This would blind them.  The pain that comes with delving into the reality of suffering, to the reality of human nature, to the reality of how small mankind is compared to the cosmos, and so on. 

We don’t have to ask these questions, the questions of whether God exists or not, or what the meaning and purpose of life is, but we do live as though we have answered these questions.  So, why not do something about it?  Why not ask them?  Perhaps curiosity sets as a reason for inquiry, or perhaps for the benefit of others. 

In Socrates’ Allegory of the Cave, turning oneself to reality, or to become acquainted with the world of Forms is a process.  I think this process takes time; it takes effort to come to grips with reality and still see the Beauty participating in the world around us.  Socrates alludes to the idea that once one has turns from the life of copies and shadows, and has ventured out of the cave, into the world of Forms, one goes back down into the cave once they have reached this point.   I find this to be a poignant part of the allegory.

Service, persuasion, benevolence are a part of a growth process.  Maybe asking these questions, and changing yourself in the process proves to be beneficial to the greater whole. The mind of a philosopher is in the clouds, as Aristophanes wrote.  In the world of Forms, instead of bothering with the carnal, or lesser law, or the material world, the philosopher is concerned with the depth, the intangible, the principles, the composite of experience and form, the Forms, the essences, the essential. Perhaps we are to ask and venture into the depths because in the growing pains of the journey, we feel a desire and duty to go back to our friends and family to help them to see what is on the other side.  By no means am I stating here that I have “seen the light”, or have turned, unchaining the shackles of ignorance from myself.  I do, however think that I have begun in that process.  I have begun because of my desires to change and know the truth, perhaps this is an altruistic notion, and perhaps it is self-serving. 

Even if I have this desire as a truth-seeker, like Descartes put in Meditation V, there are some questions that cannot be answered and understood by the finite mind.  Will or desire lies outside of the reach of reason.  I remember a day in class, that I was disturbed, or bothered, by the seemingly unanswerable.  There are many issues and questions that track through my mind regularly, as I have mentioned earlier, this topic brought up in class was no exception.  But, this day, I left shaken. We talked about the problem of evil.  Squaring up my idea of God, my definition of God, with the reality of suffering that I see in the world is not an easy and/or simple problem to solve. In the problem of evil I have an option to not believe in God because of the suffering that perhaps would have been instigated by an omnipotent God.  I don’t know that anyone really has any concrete answer for this question.  Descartes talked about our will to know answers are sometimes beyond our rational power to understand, I think Descartes is right. But, it still remains uncomfortable for me to sit with these ideas both the problem of evil and the idea Descartes presents in Meditation V regarding limited rationale.  I either have to ignore the suffering and evil that happens, or I have to take away from the power that God has to stop suffering.  Sometimes our choice is that we can’t make a choice right now with the limited rationale we have in dealing with the ideas of infinitude. 

My continual moment of reflection seems to steer me in a certain direction. There are options and arguments for both sides. Choose what you believe, you choose what you give weight to, you choose how to see the world and how to react to adversity, trail, pain, and suffering. There are those that are Platonists, those that are Thomists, Cartesians, Humeans and everything else.  All of them have pertinent arguments.  Both sides can be argued, but again, you choose which ideology you agree most with.  Camus was right; it is up to us to choose what meaning we attach to human experience, whether that is fortune or famine. Choose to find meaning.  Aristotle chose to put function in essence.  Aristotle said goodness lies in function, and this is a road to achieving happiness.  I think goodness and happiness lie in the ability to choose and to find meaning within the options before you. Happiness doesn’t mean easiness. 

Options for some, myself included, have proven to be a burden in some cases.  In the story of the ass of Buridan, the ass is faced with two options, one stack of hay versus a pale of water. Both are equal distances away from the ass, which one does the animal choose? The ass cannot rationally deduct which option is better, and in drawn out idleness, the beast dies of hunger.  Option can cause conflict for many.  Look at Hamlet; he was caught in between the option for living in a world of suffering, or to die.  To be or not to be, that is the question.  He was on the fence, the uncomfortable place that skewers you in the back. In this sort of limbo state, it seems hard to deal with the suffering of reality and the fear of the unknown of what lies beyond this life. Hamlet is being pulled in two directions, he doesn’t know what to do with the reality of the pain and suffering that blinds him, so much so that he considers suicide.  And on the other hand, Hamlet is being tortured by the doubt and uncertainty of what determines his standing beyond the grave.  Hamlet is tortured by the fact that he doesn’t know if it will be a peaceful experience for him when he dies, or if it won’t, perhaps the pain will only be exacerbated post suicide.

Hamlet is post Humean thought.  Hume has created more of an option for humanity. Option is essential in creating a mode to finding purpose and meaning in life.  Hume refers to epistemology versus metaphysics.  As an empiricist he argues that all ideas are copies of impressions, and that we are all born with a blank slate. It should be noted however that Hume doesn’t argue that God doesn’t exist, he is simply stating that you cannot rationally argue for any metaphysical claim.  Hume doesn’t trust causation like Aquinas does.  Aquinas argued for the first great cause, everything in motion is an effect that had to have a cause.  God according to Aquinas is the first great cause.  Hume’s skepticism proves to be a powerful in terms of creation of a different argument versus previous philosophical thought.  There isn’t one solid, sound, logical argument that God exists, but there also isn’t a completely sound argument that God doesn’t exist.  It’s just as absurd to believe in nothing, as it is to not believe in something.

In an attempt to not be as the ass, I might try to further explain my choice to believe and find meaning in the options.  Believing in only the material world leaves a lack of passion and reason.  Aquinas thinks that human beings acquire knowledge first by sense experience, then, intellect abstracts the universal from the phantasm, or sense images. It makes a lot of sense to me to gain knowledge in this way, but also to focus and give weight to the form, or the universal.  There is more depth to this way of living in my opinion.  I have reason to be moral.

Why would a skeptic ever be nice? What reason does he have to not commit murder, and adultery, and steal?  Where do his ideals of morality stem?  Would his only reason not be that of the cultural and societal shift? Of the wind blown trends and fads, and only what is presently before them? There is no essence, there is no form, and there is no anchor for you in this ideology, in this you are just being persuaded, you are not acting for yourself.  If you are not acting for yourself you are not experiencing the actuality of happiness for you, you might only be participating in the potential to find meaning and to be happy. Thomas Aquinas states that so in the soul is there something by with it becomes all things and something by which it makes all things.  How am I spending my time? Do I muse? Do I leisurely ponder? Am I caught up in the wave of the crowd? We have the choice to become and think and feel however we choose. I find power in the arguments for both sides, or perhaps more accurately all sides, because it proves to be more of an option.  In the perennial conversation I participate in, I realize that I am young, and have time to experience and to sort out my beliefs, but I plan on feasting at the end of the day.