Tuesday Morning Thoughts

A very good aspect of my studies of interest is that they allow me to do a lot of thinking. A very bad aspect of my studies of interest is that they allow me to do a lot of thinking...


As a result, I end up with somewhat unproductive mornings (academically speaking) like this. I begin to read a chapter of a book, I begin thinking about the contents of the chapter (which is what I'm supposed to do), and then my thinking begins to drift. This is not an unconscious wandering, but a thoughtful trail of thoughts. All too often I am nowhere near the original themes of the book and I end up with thoughts like these:

I believe we all have ridiculous beliefs. Some of us, have them and don't know it. Some of us have them, know it, and don't care. And then there are those of us who have them, realize it, and subsequently try to rationally dig ourselves out of them. But I feel that any attempt to rationalize our old beliefs or construct new ones will ultimately lead us to equally absurd positions; these positions are just more thought out. I think, to an extent, that this is what philosophy is. It's an attempt to rationalize our belief systems and the world around us. But the complex, if not crazy, results we are left with just go to show how inadequate we truly are at understanding our existence and the world we inhabit.

A simple example is the fact that we have gotten all the way back to questioning how/if the mind and body relate. As a result, you have Malebranche and his idea of occasionalism: that every time you want to make an action, god necessitates it. That was his explanation for how, when our 'mind' wants our body to do something, our physical body does it. Even more shocking are the metaphysical attempts to prove/disprove identity. We aren't even sure if there is an "I"!!!!!!! Hume gives us yet another example of an, on the face of it, absurd idea that matter can be infinitely divided. Mathematically we can't refute it, yet it simply seems nonsensical.

In the end, whose to say the more complex, and perhaps more thoughtful answers are more tenable than the inital, perhaps irrational, thoughts that we start out with?

Both Hume and James (I'm sure there are many more, but these are pretty much the two that I've studied at any depth thus far) are philosopher's that my preceding statement seem to line up with. Both point to the fact that even seeking truth (whether through reason, science, or something else) is just another belief we have which we are impotent to validate against any other.

Well I am one who champions the search for truth, whatever that may be and in whatever form it may take, but I can't prove to you that my position is any more rational than any other.

And now off to Epistemology, where we will be discussing whether it's possible to construct a structure of knowledge such that we can ever truly know anything....