(This was an assignment for one of my psych classes. It's long but as brief as I could be. I'm sure I'll hate it in a year or two, but at this juncture, its my longest work...)
Abstract
All systems of knowledge rest on
assumptions. My philosophy, as presented in this paper, rests on the assumption
of radical skepticism. I proceed from this base to argue that reality is
subjective and that the individual has the freedom to choose their perspective
of reality, subsequently their “truth.” This freedom is limited by many
factors, but one liberating factor is free will, or at least, the illusion of
free will.
Epistemology
As
defined by Webster’s Dictionary, Epistemology is “the study or a theory of the
nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and
validity” (Webster, 2012). There is a lengthy game that could be played if I
wished to be as philosophically rigorous as I’d like to. I would define every
term used in the definition of epistemology, then define all major terms in all
terms previously defined, ad continuum until we have established the meaning of
all major English words; but I don’t think such an endeavor would be necessary
or even appreciated for this assignment, thus I will refrain. However, I do
think it critical to define “knowledge.” If I refer back to Webster for a
definition of knowledge, within its description is the word “experience.”
Within the very definition of knowledge, we have been shown our culture’s
answer to the sweet dance A priori and A Posteriori have been entangled in the
last few thousands years.
My
approach to epistemology, which I’d like to think is unique, but could be reasonably
captured by the term “Epistemological Nihilism.” This stance is an extreme
skepticism that denies all knowledge. I do not deny all knowledge. I believe no
absolute knowledge or truth can be known. Now, a paradox arises here. If I am
to claim that there is no absolute truth, that claim is itself attempting to
assert an absolute truth. Here, I concede. It is my subjective view that there is no absolute truth.
This
view of Epistemology appeals to me because of its implication. Before I explain
why, keep in mind all systems rest upon assumptions. Even systems of logic rest
on the assumption that logic is an ideal, useful, or valid way to understand or
know reality. I assume no absolute knowledge or truth exists. This, in my mind,
dispels the existence of a God as accepted by the majority of religious people,
that is to say, a God who exists objectively from humans, a God who is
all-knowing/all-powerful/all-existing. Such a God, as known as Jesus, Yahweh,
or Allah, provides a source of absolute truth. Without digressing into religious
debates, I choose my approach because it allows me--the individual--freedom. I
am free to choose.
As
it was briefly touched on in the last paragraph, the most referenced authority
in the English language on defining terms has a description of knowledge that
leans in A Posteriori’s favor. A Priori and A Posteriori are the conflicting
ideas on where knowledge comes from. A priori argues that knowledge exists
before birth while A Posteriori argues that knowledge comes from experience,
thus post birth.
To
claim either is true in isolation of the other is comical to the extent I would
wonder if the assertion was meant as satire. Logically, one could create a
definition of knowledge that would allow them to remain logically consistent while
claiming either A priori or A Posteriori is true is isolation of the other, but
this would be just a semantic and logic game as oppose to some kind of
objective truth. I believe that information resides in the organism before
birth, thus laying the foundation for experience to add to the organism’s
information total as a whole.
Nativism versus Empiricism
As a rock causes ripples, the A Priori
and A Posteriori argument reverberates and gives rise to the battle between
Nativism and Empiricism. Nativism claims, “perceptions are operational from
birth” while Empiricism holds “all perceptions are learned or developed from
experience” (King et al, 2009).
Again, any who claim either is true in
isolation of the other is simply being naïve. If one so chose, they could
define perception in a way that would allow them to argue either side, and
again, this would be a game of semantics. If Nativism were true, why live at
all? If Empiricism were true, how does one learn to learn?
For my personal philosophy, I believe one
should understand their genetics (Nativism) but not let their genetics imprison
them. As for experience, it gets much more lengthy. To be concise, experience
is one of our closest sources for objective truth. One should learn the
sciences that seek to understand the experiences we all perceive as the same,
such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, and other “hard
sciences.” This is a limit to my philosophy, which emphasizes subjectivity.
However, my perception of this limit is not a rigid wall but more a
gravitational pull. If one so chooses, it is yet unknown how different they can
experience an “objective” truth of reality, but it is known that they can
experience it differently.
Instinct
versus Learning
What
does one do with the assertion that it is an instinct of humans to learn?
Instinct is, “a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity” (Webster,
2012). Learning is defined as, “knowledge or skill acquired by instruction or
study” (Webster, 2012). Are instinct and learning divisible? Again, it depends
on who is defining these terms, what their purpose is for defining, and how
they define said terms.
I believe learning is instinctual.
Learning for me is a kind of cognitive evolution. I believe it is an instinct
of humans to evolve, thus my claim that learning is an instinct of man. The
speed and velocity of the individual to learn and subsequently evolve is
powered by subjective philosophical assumptions and genetics, both conscious
and unconscious. Simple belief in oneself, in either a negative or positive direction,
has been demonstrated to have scientifically significant impacts on recalling
learned material. Knowledge is subjective. One should choose beliefs that best
explain their reality while providing the greatest possible happiness for the
greatest number of people.
I think a mastery of learning is one, if
not the most, valuable concept to learn. One should continue to learn
throughout life. Dogma should always be challenged…including the dogmatic
statement that dogma should always be challenged.
Criteria
for Claiming to Know Truth
My
personal view on human’s criteria for claiming truth rests with the concept of
power. The human race has found many ways to divide itself; language, religion,
nationality, even what sport team one is a fan of. These divisions are a cause of
groups to form. Truth is best described as the beliefs and assumptions more powerful
groups accept and convey in spite or directly at, less powerful groups. It is
because of this power play that the vast majority of humans succumb to the
appeal to truth by means of authority.
Authority
An
authority is any person or group that claims knowledge of truth (King et al,
2009). My interpretation of authority is an individual or group that is
believed to have power in some realm of knowledge.
This is the most common appeal to truth
because it is the first we are exposed too as a conscious organism and it is
also the one that expends the least energy and resource to assimilate. Due to
our inability to care for ourselves at the onset of life, humans are exposed to
authority figures from the moment one becomes conscious. These authority
figures are our parents or care takers. Many children idolize and even deitize
their parents. Parents are humans,
mortal, and fallible. Children who are reluctant or incapable of seeing their
parents as equals, thus seeing their parents faults and learning from their
parent’s mistakes become ideal fodder for culture. Culture does not want
dissent. It is a social organism that wants its occupants to follow the
established order.
Authority, for me, is the least viable
appeal to truth of the ones I will cover mostly due to its potentiality for
corruption, and also the lazy nature it encourages. One must take it upon
oneself to evaluate these authorities and determine for oneself if these
group’s versions of truth is an accurate representation of reality. One must
also determine if these groups truth claims that cannot be verified by
observation, lets call all claims beyond observation and experimentation metaphysics from here on, promote the
greatest possible good for the greatest number of people. The wise will let you
know how little they know. The fools are often the loudest and most confident.
One should beware any who claim to know. Ultimately, truth is subjective.
Empiricism
Proceeding
from my base of epistemological nihilism, empiricism can survive. Empiricism is
an appeal to truth through observation. This idea has been synthesized through
many great minds and is now the major mechanism that fuels science. The
Nihilist can proclaim that logically there can be no absolute truth to gravity,
but he will fall and die just the same as anyone else if he proceeds off the
edge of a cliff. This is the
beginning of the hazy line where my philosophy’s freedom to choose any meaning
he or she may please meets with the closest thing to objective truth. In my opinion, the reason this appeal
to truth cannot be absolute is because I claim human’s are the measure of
things. If one does not believe in external deties, than in the absent of all
humans, there resides no meaning.
Rationalism
Rationalism
is the appeal to truth through the use of innate ideas. Without my conscious
awareness, rationalism seems to be a prominent factor in support of my
subjectively based philosophy. There is no absolute/objective rational
perspective, from my point of view. Each individual will have a unique genetic
makeup mixing with a unique collection of experiences which creates a unique
rationale. The weak, lazy, or
manipulated accept other’s rationale. Cultures and institutions provide these
rationales for the meek minded. I believe if the individual who attempts to
learn their own rationale and live accordingly, will be happy. The tragedy is
that humans have given so much power to non-human power entities like
governments, cooperation’s, political ideologies, laws, and media, that many persons
are physically not allowed to live in harmony with their nature. I understand
this line of logic opens all kinds of nasty hypothetical “what-ifs”, and ones I
would love to engage, but for this paper, I believe this is an adequate
introduction to the interchange of my philosophy and rationalism. Rationalism
is subjective yet malleable by influence of power.
Aestheticism
Aestheticism
is a doctrine that principles of beauty apply to other arenas of thought (King
et al, 2009). While I find this appeal to truth less convincing than an appeal
to authority, I respect it more because of the implications it has on followers
of this kind of thinking. Beauty is a hallmark in mathematics. It is generally
accepted that a simple equation is “beautiful” and therefore considered more
likely true than a longer and less simple equation that may offer the same
answer. I know so little about math that it would be an insult for me to
comment on the validity of this approach, however I do have a reservation. I
believe this appeal to truth rests on an assumption of a God or creator or some
kind of driving divine force behind reality. If one does not sympathize with
this perspective, it easy to ask why should reality’s “truth” be beautiful? Why
not chaos? Why not ugly?
I
find tremendous benefit in this appeal to truth for the individual to integrate
into their subjective understanding of reality. To be frank, it is an aspect of
my philosophy, I have yet to be able to deconstruct or organize without falling
into all kinds of loops and paradoxes.
Pragmatism
Until
this assignment, I had no idea how pervasive pragmatism was in my personal
philosophy, but now that I have been exposed to it, it is maybe a deeper
foundation to my philosophy than any other assumption. The philosophical kind
of pragmatism I mean is closely related to William James’s, that theories,
definitions, ideas, and concepts should have practical use (King et al, 2009).
I
thought epistemological nihilism was my foundation, allowing for freedom to
choose ideal truths for the individual, but why did I believe this was the
ideal route to go? Well, because I believe it to be the most useful. It is the
most pragmatic. I believe a great deal of suffering has been caused by the
belief that there are objective truths, and that humans seem to fail at living
in accordance with many of these principles. To be specific, I think this is
best represented in religion. Again, without digressing into topics I fear might
impact my grade, I ask only the reader to think about the psychological impact
on the individual who believes they are born sinners, who must suppress
biological drives because of religious doctrine, and who fear that there is an
all knowing judge listening to their every thought. While this may be an ideal
situation for employing psychiatrists, I do not believe it is an ideal and
pragmatic metaphysics for the individual who wishes to be happy.
Skepticism
Skepticism
is defined as the stance that all claims are suspect and must be questioned
(King et al, 2009). Thus, one is compelled to question the claim that all
claims are suspect and must be questioned. Without losing focus on the strange
loops logic can take us, I believe this is a valuable appeal to truth.
In
an age with an exponential explosion of available data, skepticism seems to be
a valiant defense against the onslaught of propaganda. It is my opinion that my
skepticism arose due to my culture in the same way the body inflames in
response to a disease.
Other
Ways of Knowing
The
handout instructs that I should discuss Descartes’ method of trusting only that
which he could not doubt. I have been exposed to this particular piece of
Descartes’ work over and over, year after year. At first, I was enchanted by
it, as I feel any should be. But as I became familiar with it, and learned
where he took this line of logic, I fell from my enchanted trance. Descartes
claims the only thing he cannot doubt is the fact that he is thinking. He
introduces the idea of a mad scientist or a Demon who has the power to deceive
him and all of his senses. Since he has already proposed this situation as a
reason to doubt all his sensory experience, why would he not doubt that his
very thoughts are being manipulated? His solution to this problem was to
introduce a caring God. He claims a caring god would not allow for his thoughts
to be manipulated. Without examining the weakness and uncharacteristic
intellectual laziness of this solution, lets focus on implications his severe
skepticism would have on a non-believer. Without belief in a caring god to
rescue me from my doubt, I can doubt my own thinking. Thus, we have the kind of
skepticism found in my philosophy. My ego would like to think that if Descartes
was not fearful of religious persecution, he too would have found himself able
to doubt even his thoughts, as I do.
Now,
simply because I can doubt my own thoughts does not mean I should, to
constantly do so would not only be unpragmatic but would surely lead to
insanity. What one would do well to take from this line of thought is to
understand and accept the responsibility and freedom one has on determining
what they believe.
Relevance
of Epistemology to Psychology
Epistemology
is relevant to psychology because it creates an implicit and maybe explicit
reason on what psychology should use as measurements to make truth claims. The
handout indicates that I should show how people could improve their reasoning
by relying on statistical predictions. I believe humans would do well to use
statistics as a tool to reason but Noble Prize winning economist Kahneman has
done extensive researcher that indicates that not only is the average person
very poor at using statistics when reasoning, but even the leading
statisticians in the country are poor at using statistical knowledge in everyday
reasoning (Kahneman, 2012).
It
seems that the current psychological zeitgeist is comfortable using statistical
data as a tool to make truth claims. At this point in my life I do not know
enough about the science of statistics to question it, but I have a feeling
that there are holes in this tool that have yet been indentified, or if so, not
properly disseminated amongst soon-to-be psychologists.
The
Problem of Causality
Webster’s
Dictionary defines it as, “the relation between a cause and its effect
or between regularly correlated events or phenomena” (Webster, 2012). The
problem I most encounter concerning causality is what was the first cause? My
answer to this will win me no fame, but I think it is the answer, and any other answer is at worst a lie and at best a
creative person’s attempt at showcasing their creativity. The answer is that
one, at this point in time, cannot know the first cause. Without lampooning the
apparent holes in both The Big Bang and God as answers to this, I think a more productive
endeavor is to examine the limits of our language and our understanding of
time. The implicit assumption of causality is that reality progresses in a
linear fashion and that A affects B within this linear space/time perception.
With my barely child like understanding of quantum physics and the physics of
time, I can grasp that both these assumptions underlying causality are not
true.
My
personal disposition towards causality will be more fully addressed in the Free
Will and Determinism section. A brief explanation of it would be that I believe
the individual can influence cause.
Free
Will and Determinism
To
define, Free Will is the idea that one has control of how one’s life is lived
while determinism claims that one’s life is fixed and choice does not play a
part. This is a huge philosophical subject with many implications. Where does
one begin? I suppose I’ll start with implications of free will, then
implications of determinism, and then what my personal opinion on the matter
is.
Free
Will seems to obviously be true when we think about our lives. If we assume
free will is true, what does that imply? The first and largest complication I
see is that of an all-knowing/all-powerful/all-existing God. If God is all
knowing, he knows how your life will unfold, so do you have a choice in how you
live it? I have heard many religious people claim this poses no problems. Since
logic can be doubted, these people do not seem to care about logical
consistency and so this paradox between an all knowing god and their free will
causes little concern. Did Judas
have the free will to not betray Jesus? It would appear he didn’t. Another
concern is neurochemistry and psychology. It is already a precedent in the
judicial system that there are exceptions for people deemed crazy, that they
did not control over their actions. Can there be a continuum between free will
and determinism?
What
if we assume determinism is true? I would have no choice as to what I write
about on this subject. The teacher would have no choice in how she grades my
paper. Fate could logically exist. God’s all-knowingness could logically exist.
My responsibility would not exist. The implications kind of boggle my mind.
Since
I believe there is no objective truth, I am free to choose which I want to
believe as long as my rational self and experiencing self can coexist with
these beliefs. My opinion is that our lives are determined if we believe them
to be. If you do not believe life is determined, it is not. This belief may or
may not be an illusion, but what is an illusion that hasn’t been disproven? It
is a truth. There are many details that I think would be excessive for this
paper, but I believe in my illusion of free will and I respect that much of my
life is determined by factors beyond my awareness and control.
The
Mind-Body Problem
The
Mind-Body problem can be defined as the study of nature of being (King et al,
2009). Before doing this assignment, I had been exposed to very little of these
subdivisions of the mind-body problem. Subsequently, I’ve learned more about
the nature of my philosophy. My approach to the mind-body problem is a
rejection of the long held assumption that the mind and body are separate. As
will show in the explanations of the subdivisions to come, this alternate
perspective has interesting implications.
Monism
Monism
is the belief that there is one undivided reality. This is the view I most sympathize
with. This stance is entirely metaphysical, that is to say, unprovable. The
individual who rejects absolute objective truths as I do is free to construct
any metaphysics the individual chooses too. My metaphysics is monistic. I
believe all divisions of whatever reality really is, are created by humans.
Humans are the measure of things. I like to believe that there is a universal
consciousness that closely but not identically resembles Jung’s. I believe this
consciousness can be glimpsed inside every person, and those who do glimpse it
tend to call it God. I like to imagine that all conscious beings of varying
complexity are all parts of this singular consciousness. In the same way the
body has different sense organs, this universal consciousness has varying
complexities of sensing beings, and as far as humans are concerned, we are the
greatest evolution of these sensing beings at the present moment.
Dualism
Dualism
asserts there are two distinct realities, that of the mind and that of the body
(King et al, 2009). I don’t understand how this idea of reality still lives.
The connection between our body and mind is buried beneath a mountain of
evidence. We know that if a part
of the brain is destroyed, the individual’s personality can be changed forever.
King and company claim that a problem with this “common sense” approach is that
we do not know how an immaterial system affects a material system. The
underlying assumption here is that we have discovered all the physical
components involved in this interaction. This is quite an assumption and one
that I do not agree with. I believe there is still more to be discovered about
neurochemistry, biology, and neuropsychology. Dualism reeks of a time before
the severe humbling astronomy and physics provided humankind. We are not the
center of the objective universe.
Pluralism
Pluralism
is the view that there are multiple realities and that we have yet to discover
the others. I believe this and monism can be the same. Any barrier we would
define would be an artificial barrier created by us. One with an eastern
philosophical predisposition could easily define this multiple divisions as a
whole, all-encompassing reality, thus and multiverse theory could be a monistic
reality, and vise versa. This is all a matter of perspective.
Psychogeny
may be defined as the study of the origin of psuche or the study of theories of
the origin of psuche (King et al, 2009). Sadly, the term psuche is not defined
by Webster’s dictionary. As I could gather from the handout, this is the study
of when the individual’s psyche or personality arises. There are distinct
subdivisions of this school of that as represented in the hand out; Identity
Theory and Psychogenic Emergentism.
Identity
Theory as presented by the handout seems weak. The field of thought rests on
the assumption that the psyche is some separate entity from the body and that
it merges with the body at some point. If the individual does not see these
entities as separate than the Identity theory perspective seems lacking and
non-applicable.
Of
the two theories offered, I am more willing to accept Psychogenic Emergentism.
I like this perspective for a few reasons. The first is it assumes that the
psyche and body are not separate and that the psyche arises from the complexity
of the body. This explains the many observations science as accumulated between
physical damage to the brain and apparent shifts or entire destruction of
personalities. It also offers
experimental research to be conducted in the future, in regards to just how
much complexity is required for consciousness to arise. A hallmark of a good
theory, from a scientific perspective, is one that is falsifiable. This theory
is.
King
and company claim a problem with this theory is the “fact” that we as
individuals do not change. I disagree. I’d like to start slinging some sarcasm
to make my point, but to be moderate, any who believe they do not change are
slaves to cognitive dissonance and surely have a bleak outlook on life and
maybe not a successful one.
The
Problem Of Explanation
The
problem of explanation stems from the limits of language. One could very quickly fall into pages
of digressions of the philosophy of language. As to not loose the attention of
the reader and also my will power to write, I will keep it brief. The possible
amount of explanations for any phenomena is seemingly infinite. As soon as an
explanation is offered, the language has put the phenomena into a finite box
that could never hope to capture the entirety of said phenomena. This is a fact
we live with, and for some, the challenge motivates the writer wishing to describe.
Some
of the techniques human’s use language to explain phenomena are analogies,
models, and physical explanations. All three can be useful as long as both
provider and receiver of information understands the finiteness of words and
the ever changing nature of reality and that no finite explanation will remain
true for all times.
Conclusion
To
condense, what I have presented is a pragmatically based philosophy that starts
at the assumption that there is no absolute knowledge. This assumption kills of
an objective god and leaves the individual free to choose his or her own
truths. These truths are limited by the individual’s rationale and how they
experience reality. The individual’s rational and experiencing self is heavily
influenced by genetics, subconscious processes, and randomness. Amongst these deterministic
variables, the individual has a sliver of control and freedom but only if they
believe they do. This freedom, if they choose to believe in it, allows them to
effect and direct their life enough to attain their goals and dreams. With
practice, one can exert this sliver of control to reach a transcendental state
of consciousness. This philosophy will be void as science and technology reach
a ”singularity” like peak.
Reference
Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated. (2012). Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved by
http://www.merriam-webster.com/browse/dictionary/a.htm.
King,
D.B., Viney, W. & Woody, W. D. (2009). A
history of psychology: Ideas and
content, 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Kahneman,
Daniel. (2012). Thinking, Fast and Slow.
New York. Allen Lane.