On assumptions: I’m not trying to cure the whole of epistemology here, just the epistemology curriculum taught at Bell.
Ah, so. That’s a narrower claim. I’ll go along with you on that one.
The teacher was willing to question even the base assumption that the universe is real and we live in it. This should be obvious, but I’ll state it for reinforcement: if we are all in the Matrix or something, there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it. So why bother with that course of discussion? Why bother questioning that which is truly self-evident?
“Am I real?” “Is the world real?” Those are good questions that all of us need to consider thoughtfully at some point. What we do not need is to then obsess over the possible ramifications of these ideas, as some folks are apt to do for a small number of reasons, and in that regard I will agree with you explicitly that we must draw a line between the groundless and legitimate sorts of speculation. But the questions themselves deserve to be asked.
Why is that, exactly? Well, I notice that you went out of your way to emphasize “there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it,” should we discover ourselves to be living in the proverbial Matrix. But how do
you know
that? What makes you so sure that, if we were to discover that some aspect of “the universe” is illusory, we would not be able to increase our overall awareness of the deepest possible truths, and perhaps increase our power as individuals and as a species along the way? I have yet to meet a piece of knowledge that has
dis-empowered me.
Besides, cheer up. It’s not as hopeless as it all might seem. When I sat down to turn the “Am I real?” question over in my mind a few times some years back, I ultimately decided I liked the simplest answer of all: Cogito, ergo sum. I worked with that for a few years and eventually came up with my own, homemade idea. Because “I think,” therefore I am…at liberty in a state not unlike that of purgatory to use my thoughts to develop a more reasonable answer to the question of whether I am real. And “real” would take form in the physical world as a case of identity. So the question translates to whether I have an identity, which brings me to my point. I define—and here’s some
a priori shenanigans for you—I define the sentient will as the seat of identity. The will is the status board to the mind’s engine. Having a will is proof of my own identity, and yours, and anyone else’s, and therefore the reality of the same.
You are welcome to counter—I have had this discussion before, after all—that my will is not my own, that some “outside manipulator” is merely giving me the illusion of having a will, that all of this speculation is just someone’s evening television show. But because of the structure of my premise, such a claim is irrelevant to the debate. Me and my will and my identity are all words for the same thing. In other words, there is no “me” separate to my will. And bear in mind that the sentient will is abstract in any case; it belies the quantifiable makeup of the human brain. So whether we are what we appear to ourselves to be, or are indeed no more than someone else’s dream, if a sentient will exists at all then it cannot be illusory. It is based upon something. And, because we are inseparable from our will, therefore if a will exists then so does the identity who owns that will.
To put it in the simplest terms: The fact that I appear to myself to be anything, makes me something.
The caveat of my position is that it settles for a perhaps shallower form of existence than might be comfortable. It doesn’t establish the physical nature of my existence. I may indeed be someone’s television show, a wild speculation hampered by any shred of evidence. But the possibility is there. And, of course, in the more general sense my little equation between identity and sentient will doesn’t allege that my presumed existence is situated at the “supreme level of absolute reality,” if you will. Well, I have an idea about that too. We all live in the same universe. If there is such a plane of elemental trueness of existence, then life as I know it depends upon it in some way, by the very notion of absolute reality. For this stage in our evolution, that is good enough for me. I shall be content enough to pursue my ambitions as long as I live, no matter the nature of my existence or the circumstances of the same. And, because the pursuit of knowledge is among my highest ambitions, perhaps I will find a way to fathom the same. “Aim high” and all of that.
But in closing, I would say that having persuaded myself that I am real is a source of satisfaction. It wasn’t a waste of time to reason out to myself back then, and it wasn’t a waste of time to try and explain to you here today.
On sophistry: I don’t claim to be a Guru of Epistemology, but I can hold my own. Sophistry is, rather than a claim to mastery, one of my favorite insults to use when I’m calling someone on bullshit.
I unashamedly admire elitism, which I suspect is synonymous with your concept of sophistry. My respect for epistemology shares only some, small part of that. You can have all the money on Earth, all the riches, perfect health, a long life, the greatest inner contentment imaginable, and even a vastness of acquired knowledge and professional discipline…and indeed these are all good things to have…but you can never fathom the great weight of your existence and its potential if you do not strive, with some success, to be aware. Anyone who when presented the opportunity chooses to forsake a greater understanding, is beneath contempt. You know, here we are chatting it up on a forum started by a guy who fell in love with the profound teachings of the magical Kingdom of Zeal, a kingdom representing the ambitions that drive our restless souls to ever greater heights...a kingdom borne of much hard work and sacrifice. How did such a place ever come to be, even as a map in a video game? By precisely this sort of thing, I tell you. Illumination is the currency of the dreams of humankind, and you can’t counterfeit that.
