Entries in this series:
Examining The Meditations (Part 1): The Religion Of Descartes --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-1-religion.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 2): Cartesian Doubt --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-2-cartesian.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 3): Descent Into Skepticism --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-3-descent.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 4): Illusion And Reality --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-4-illusion.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 5): "I am, I exist"
At this point in the series, I had previously just explained the relationship between illusion and reality and how Descartes used the hypothetical scenario of a powerful demon manipulating his senses to perceive illusions to demonstrate to himself that he does not know if the perceptions of his senses are in alignment with objective external reality.
Now I will begin dissecting the second meditation, or chapter, of his book:
"So serious are the doubts into which I have been thrown as a result of yesterday's meditation that I can neither put them out of my mind nor see any way of resolving them. It feels as if I have fallen unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool which tumbles me around so that I can neither stand on the bottom not swim up to the top." (16)
I myself know the intense mental agony of going through a deep existential crisis such as the one described by Descartes. I tend to travel into mini existential crises on a sporadic basis, with these mini periods of uncertainty and mental pain focusing on specific propositions that I cannot have absolute certainty about, not about things I know for sure, like my consciousness, first principles, necessary truths/axioms, and logical truths (which include the necessity of an uncaused cause). During an existential crisis, uncertainty can result in great fear and mental sensations of confusion. Although at this point Descartes sits right on the precipice of admitting that he knows at least one thing for certain, he still experiences a raging inner storm.
Descartes goes on to summarize how he will not yet grant that any of his memories or sensory perceptions are more than mere perceptions that do not connect with the external world:
"I will suppose then, that everything I see is spurious. I will believe that my memory tells me lies, and that none of the things it reports ever happened. I have no senses . . . So what remains true? Perhaps the fact that nothing is certain." (16)
But if nothing is certain, then "nothing is certain" is actually certain, and thus it is impossible for nothing at all to be certain. As I explained yet again in the previous post in this series, there are multiple truths which cannot be false. I will quote another post of mine where I listed some necessary truths in order to make my point:
"1). Truth exists.
2). Some knowledge is possible.
3). Words can convey truth.
4). Everyone has a worldview.
5). Deductive reasoning is reliable (Example: If X is true, Y is true. X is true. Therefore Y is true.)
6). Something is what it is (Law of Identity).
7). Something cannot be true and false at the same time in the same way (Law of Non-contradiction).
8). Something is either true or false (Law of Excluded Middle)." [1]
None of these things can be false, and no one can deny them without using and proving them. Again, the existence of one's own conscious mind is not the only thing which is self-evident (meaning its denial results in impossible contradiction) or which one can know with absolute certainty!
As I've said before in this series, if my sensory perceptions do not correspond to the actual objects and appearance of the external world, then at least my senses and their perceptions still exist, so it is impossible for any being experiencing sensory perceptions to not have any senses. And if my memories of the past do not correspond to actual past events, then at least my memories still exist. And yes, one can verify the reliability of one's memory, depending on what it meant. Indeed, if my memory was not reliable in the sense of at least storing and recalling ideas and concepts (not in the sense of all of its recollections of past events having occurred just as recollected, or even occurred at all) and enabling reasoning to occur, continual contemplation itself would be impossible. It also remains true that if my memory did not present to me familiarity with objects which my senses perceive in the external world or with my own personality, I would be unable to function; I would be in a relentless, near-total stupor. Thus the very fact that I am not constantly struggling with unfamiliarity proves to me entirely that my memory is reliable in the sense I stated above [2].
Anyway, allow me to return from my tangent to my commentary on the words of Descartes.
"Am I not so bound up with a body and with senses that I cannot exist without them? But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." (16-17)
When Descartes says that his imagined deceiving demon cannot reduce him to nothing, he does not mean "nothing" in the sense of being psychologically or socially demeaned, but in the sense of nonexistence. As long as he thinks he is something--as long as he thinks at all, whether he dreams, is awake, doubts, desires, contemplates, wills, assents--it is impossible for him not to exist. No one can doubt his or her existence without by absolute necessity existing in order to do so, just as, in the same way, no one can doubt that truth exists without proving that it does indeed exist in some form. Just as the existence of my mind is not uncertain to me at all, I also cannot be deceived about the contents of my mind, though my senses may be manipulated by an unseen being of immense power like Descartes' hypothetical demon.
If perceptions exist, something must exist which perceives; if thinking exists, something must exist which thinks. I have actually had people tell me that it can only seem to someone like he or she exists and whether or not that person actually exists is not fully known by that individual, yet, as anyone who exercises reason here will quickly recognize, if anything at all seems like anything at all to me, then I must exist in order for something to seem a certain way to me. The experience of seeming to exist proves to a thinking mind that it does exist, with its nonexistence totally impossible as long as any internal thought is present. However, although I know with absolute certainty that my own mind and consciousness exist, I can neither know if other people I perceive with my senses truly exist and have conscious minds, nor can I prove to them, if they really exist and have my limitations, that I myself exist. That does not mean that I cannot have absolute certainty that something material exists outside of my own mind--but I will explain that more as this series continues.
With the fact of his existence infallibly certain, Descartes seeks a more full understanding of what this self is which is thinking:
"But I do not yet have a sufficient understanding of what this 'I' is, that now necessarily exists. So I must be on my guard against carelessly taking something else to be this 'I', and so making a mistake in the very item of knowledge that I maintain is the most certain and evident of all." (17)
With his existence established with perfect certainty, Descartes will soon move on to distinguishing the exact nature of the conscious mind from the nature of the physical body, an undertaking that thoughtful Christians will recognize as very beneficial to Christian apologetics. Expect the next installment in this series soon!
Summary of observations:
1. Total skepticism is impossible, for a conscious, thinking being knows at least some things with absolute certainty.
2. Consciousness cannot be illusory. Logic and immediate experience prove this incontrovertibly; anything that thinks must exist as, at the very least, a conscious mind that perceives its thoughts.
Meditations on First Philosophy with Selections from the Objections and Replies. Descartes, Rene. Ed. Cottingham, John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Print.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html
[2]. For more on memory, see here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-reliability-of-memory.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-cruciality-of-memory.html
Hi! Okay, I’ve been having an existential crisis, because I heard what you mentioned about people saying you cannot prove you exist, and that you must assume reasoning/logic in order to say that perceiving means you exist. How can know with absolute certainty that everything is logical, and assume reasoning in this instance? How do we know that we aren’t apart of an illusion where we could be “tricked into thinking we are thinking”? Maybe we could be part of some kind of unperceived, irrational reality.
ReplyDeleteDon’t get me wrong, I am a believer in Jesus, and I’m committed to following Him, but I don’t know how to prove that things are rational and not ever irrational, like what I just mentioned. It’s caused me great anxiety.
Hey Katie! I know how terrifying an existential crisis can be, and it is partly for that reason that I started my blog to begin with. You are bringing up questions about the very core of reality and rationality that are often overlooked by many. To start with, I will quote myself from a different post:
Delete"Illusion cannot exist unless it deviates from reality. Otherwise, it would itself be reality! And it is impossible for there to not be a way reality is, as then the way reality is would be that there is no way reality is--a self-refuting impossibility."
The very idea that "everything is an illusion" is inescapably impossible, as if "everything" is an illusion then the illusion IS reality. There are things that inherently cannot be illusions even if other things are. For instance, it is impossible for me to just "think I'm thinking", and be somehow deceived into thinking I exist, because the very experience of illusory thoughts would necessitate that I am thinking/perceiving, meaning my thoughts can't actually be illusions. I can't even doubt my own existence (or anything else) without existing to begin with! In order to have knowledge, one must have an infallible starting point(s). There is only a very small handful of truths that are true by absolute necessity in themselves. I will give some examples here.
Truth can't not exist (it is impossible for there to not be a way that reality is), as it would then be true that truth does not exist. The logical law of identity can't be false, because if something isn't what it is, then it is something else, and that something else would be what it is. Consciousness can't be illusory, as consciousness is necessary to perceive illusions. These are examples of necessary truths because they cannot be false regardless of what else is.
While I have had several existential crises, varying in severity and extent, mine revolve around issues like meaning, morality, or other things that I am well aware I cannot currently have absolute certainty of beyond knowing what follows and doesn't follow from certain concepts. But I can definitely relate to the anguish of uncertainty.
I hope you can soon find peace with the knowability of base reality, and don't hesitate to comment more if you need to! In my existential crises, I realized how few people there are who will give honest, rational, verifiable answers to those wracked with doubts and existential unease. I care about you having your questions answered! The whole reason I initially got into philosophy and apologetics was for people like you!
Below are links to some other articles of mine that are relevant.
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-impossibility-of-total-skepticism.html
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/consciousness-cannot-be-illusory.html
Hi, Cooper! Thank you so much for getting back to me! I really appreciate it, and it’s nice to know I don’t sound like a freak to you for having these questions. I’ve had way too much time on my hands the last couple of years, and it’s only made my questions more intense.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so I can see that not everything can be an illusion, because that would make it reality. Thanks for pointing that out.
With the scenario I’m referring to, there would have to be an illusion maker, who would have to be capable of deceiving us. I know that logically, at least in our perceived reality, if something thinks it exists, but let’s just go there.
Again, I’m a Believer, but hypothetically speaking, let’s say that that creator could deceive so much that it could make nothing (like a machine/robot) think it’s something namely, a thinking thing. Wouldn’t that be possible for a creator? How do I know the laws of logic would work here?
There’s also the weird hologram theory. But isn’t that only saying we could be 2 dimensional, not that we may not exist.
I just want to be done with this, but I don’t know how to resolve it once and for all, and get on with my life.
Thank You! :)
Katie
Sent from my iPhone
I'm so sorry that I'm just now replying, but for some reason your second comment was marked as spam and so I just discovered it this morning! I definitely wouldn't have taken so long to respond otherwise. And you definitely don't sound like a freak at all! Every person has to go through a period of serious examination and critical thinking about reality, or otherwise he or she will be adrift in assumptions, societal conditioning, and fallacies. Despite the fact that this is almost never said in many churches I've been to, it is entirely Biblical to raise these kinds of questions (1 Thessalonians 5:21, Proverbs 19:2, 1 Peter 3:15). On the Christian worldview rationality is obligatory, not an optional pursuit, and consistent, true rationality always involves a deconstruction of what is uncertain in order to identify what is true.
DeleteAs for your illusion maker hypothesis, even if my mind is being deceived into experiencing, say, sensory perceptions that do not pertain to external objects the way they actually are, the deceiver cannot deceive me into perceiving objects other than the ones it is deceiving me into perceiving. The perceptions themselves cannot be illusions, just like consciousness and logic cannot be illusions. No deity or demon can deceive a robot into thinking that it is a thinking thing since it could not even be deceived without having a conscious mind and rational thoughts already.
As for logic, it is impossible for it to 1) not exist and 2) not be inherently true, universal, and inviolable. It is impossible for a "logicless" realm to exist. If it did, it would be a logicless realm and not a logical one (meaning the law of identity still applies by necessity); the fact that it is logicless means that the laws of logic are not true within the realm (meaning the law of noncontradiction still applies by necessity); and the realm, being logicless, is one of the only two ways it could be, namely logical or logicless (meaning the law of excluded middle still applies by necessity). Logic governs all things by necessity, as there is no other way that reality could be. Nothing, not even God, is capable of operating outside of these laws. The very imagining of logic not existing or governing something is impossible (I mean that while someone can understand what the word "logicless" means he or she could never produce an actual example of it), just as such a thing (logic not existing/governing a thing) is entirely impossible in reality.
Can you explain the hologram theory to me?
I hope this helps! And I hope that you can soon obtain the existential and intellectual peace you need! Ask as many questions as you need to! :)
Thank you, Cooper! It helps so much to not be labeled as sinful or a freak because I’ve questioned existence and reality. I want to chew on what you said, and let it sink in a little. My mind is slow today, after having a histamine reaction and taking Zyrtec. It is nice to think I don’t have any reason to worry about reality ultimately being irrational. :)
ReplyDeleteThe hologram theory is just a stupid theory about things not being as they seem, but rather if they could be 2-dimensional, which doesn’t affect us at al even if it were true. I don’t believe it’s true, because God doesn’t deceive us. Don’t even bother putting energy into that question. Haha :)
I totally relate to people not understanding my deep desire for actual certainty. I've had one Christian tell me I might be going to hell because I take logic seriously, and I've had others doubt my salvation just because I point out that many ideas that are popularly accepted in the church are illogical and unbiblical. So I totally understand how frustrating it can be to have people misrepresent or misunderstand that kind of skepticism!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so you said there couldn’t be anything irrational within the universe, but what about outside of our universe? Please help me see how things still must be governed by logic outside of it. Have patience with my slowness today. ;) I see how in our reality, things must be logically governed, because we can’t escape it in this universal reality. It seems an irrational universe could be governed by irationality hypothetically speaking, even if we, in our realty could stall call it irrational.
ReplyDeleteOh my goodness! Sorry about the auto correct! So many spelling problems. Either that, or I’m all thumbs!
ReplyDeleteIt's ok! I write my blog posts on my iPad, and I have to watch out for autocorrect changing things too! Lol
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so you said there couldn’t be anything irrational within the universe, but what about outside of our universe? Please help me see how things still must be governed by logic outside of it. Have patience with my slowness today. ;) I see how in our reality, things must be logically governed, because we can’t escape it in this universal reality. It seems an irrational universe could be governed by irationality hypothetically speaking, even if we, in our realty could stall call it irrational.
ReplyDeleteSorry, once again I didn't see this until just now (it seems the comment I'm replying to here got uploaded twice at separate times so I'm replying to the latter one)! Let's look at the three laws of logic.
DeleteLaw of identity--a thing is what it is (consciousness is consciousness and is not a stone; a lizard is a lizard).
Law of noncontradiction--a thing cannot be and not be something in the same way at the same time (a person is either married or not married to another respective person; I can't have been asleep five minutes ago and not have been asleep five minutes ago).
Law of excluded middle--a thing is either a certain way or not a certain way (I either have two arms or I do not have two arms; a woman is either pregnant or not pregnant).
None of these could be suspended even in a dimension outside of our universe, whether in heaven, some multiverse scenario, or something else. The only way a realm could truly escape logic would require being governed by logic, making the very concept of alogicality self-defeating and inherently impossible! The place would be alogical, meaning it still is what it is. It would exclude logic, and thus the law of noncontradiction is still true because for an alogical place to exist the law of noncontradiction must be false, which means that it is actually still true. And it would likewise also still be governed by the law of excluded middle, since it could only be either alogical or logical. Of course, it can't actually be alogical, but I am merely showing how the only way a dimension/universe could be alogical is if it is still under logic, which would by necessity mean that it isn't and can't be alogical at all!
The college I go to (Houston Baptist University) is full of people, at least in its honors college, who try to argue for the non-universality or fallibility of logic, and it gets really annoying having to constantly show that they are refuting themselves and denying what cannot be false. I have to address this issue a lot with them! Lol
You can see that nothing about any possible or hypothetical realm is actually alogical. The very nature of an alogical thing or place is metaphysically impossible! Sorry for making you wait for this reply, I'll try my best not to make you wait very long!
Whoa! That kind of gave me a headache, but good points! Haha :-)
ReplyDeleteEven after all of that, can we really know anything with 100% absolute certainty? I’ve heard a lot of people in this post-modern age, who seem to think the answer is probably not.
I, like you, want to have 100% certainty on the big issues of life, but maybe what we really need to do is to realize that we aren’t omniscient, and trust our Father God Who is. Know what I mean?
Sorry for the double posts. I’ve been having some interest issues. :) Thanks for your great answers, and the time you’re taking to help me. I greatly appreciate it.
This one will be a little long! I think I have to upload it in two parts due to the length.
DeleteAbsolute certainty is possible, but only about certain things: that truth exists, that logic exists, that I exist, and so on. I have absolute certainty that truth exists, that there is a way reality is, for example, because it could be no other way. If there was no such thing as truth, that itself would be true, meaning truth still exists. Anyone who argues against this or other axioms (my word for self-evident necessary truths) will end up proving and relying on the thing(s) being denied. To argue against deductive reasoning one must use deductive reasoning, and thus someone doing this could only be right if he or she is wrong. To argue that one does not know anything one must know something. To say that nothing exists requires that something does exist. These necessary truths are where knowledge begins, and it is only because of necessary truths that total skepticism is avoided by conscious, rational beings like myself. Denying them results in self-refutation. These are the things that can't be false regardless of what else is. Absolute certainty has nothing to do with whether or not other people acknowledge the truth. Even if everyone told me that I don't exist or that logic and truth don't exist, I know for sure that all three do. Necessary truths (truth exists, a thing is what it is, etc) can't be false and thus I have absolute certainty about them.
Since deductive reasoning is infallibly reliable (I mean deductive reasoning correctly used, free of fallacies), I can also use it to arrive at other absolute certainties. I will give some miscellaneous examples of things that are in this category. For instance, I know that my memory is reliable because it supplies me with information from one moment to the next, without which I would be almost entirely disoriented, and I am not constantly disoriented. Another example is that I know that the present moment exists because the present cannot be an illusion; I immediately experience it with each moment. I also know that there is an uncaused cause because the only other possibilities--self-creation, infinite regression, and coming into existence without a cause--are impossible. Other things I can prove and thus know entirely are things like how it does not follow from scientific laws holding in one instant that they will remain constant in the next, or how I know because I experience physical sensations that matter exists and that I have a body, or how men and women can be intimate friends without sexual or romantic feelings. These examples are random, yet in each case the conclusion can be proven in full, and thus absolute certainty is attainable in these cases.
Of course, even knowing things like what I just mentioned leaves a lot unknown. When it comes to issues beyond first principles and matters of deductive reasoning, like morality and meaning, I am utterly incapable of knowing things with absolute certainty. I don't know if other minds besides my own exist, or if the past has existed for more than a moment, if meaning exists, or if the entirety of the Bible is true.
DeleteActually, concerning Christianity, I am definitely a postmodernist Christian! By this I mean that I am someone who understands that outside of what is known via logic, everything I perceive is subjective and doesn't necessarily correspond to actual reality (i.e. me having a conscience doesn't mean morality exists or that my moral feelings and perceptions are accurate, I don't mean that the perceptions aren't real). But I am also committed to living for Christianity. This is because I also know that there is a vast amount of evidence for Christianity--history, science, and general philosophy either do not contradict it or outright support it (when one understands Christianity properly), and Christianity is internally consistent. Of course, none of this means that the entirety of Christianity is true, and, unlike some Christian apologists, I don't hide or downplay that fact at all. I am very open about it, and this does cause severe existential worry in me from time to time. I have also found that the vast majority of what I had been told the Bible teaches while growing up actually is contrary to what the Bible actually says, and rationalism was the great tool that brought about this realization. Without the evidence for Christianity and knowledge of this evidence, I would likely have killed myself during an existential crisis in the semi-recent past.
It is not that absolute certainty doesn't exist. It is that there is an enormous number of things that I don't and can't know because of my current epistemological limitations. But I do know that truth exists, that logic exists, that logic is reliable, that I exist as a conscious mind, and that my experiences are intelligible, and from these I can deduce other things that are absolutely certain--but only up to a point depending on the subject at hand. Sometimes all I can know is that IF a premise is true then a certain conclusion follows, not that the premise is true.
There is nothing that could be more important than rightly understanding reality, reason, and God. I wish more people took the time to consider these things as you have! :)
Thank you so much for your thoughtful response, Cooper! I’m such a novice when it comes to philosophy, which is why I sort of dove in head first, but didn’t realize the kind illogical thinking I’d be up against. It’s amazing to see how many people do not seem convinced that they actually exist, and I have to admit, I’ve been one of them during this crisis. I need the truth you wrote about, that is based on the necessary laws of logic, to sink in. Hopefully, in time, my uncomfortable doubts will fade. How could I ever worry that I might not actually be thinking, just because some skeptics posed the idea?! Good grief. I need to get a grip.
ReplyDeleteWhen you’ve had your existential episodes, does it ever take some time for your doubts to fade, because your emotions have felt so fearful about the topic at hand? Any other tips for me? :)
The largest existential crisis I ever lived through started almost two years ago, when it really hit me that just because reality exists doesn't mean anything is meaningful. It took me at least almost a year to come out of the deep emotional distress that this crisis caused! For a while, on one level I deeply wanted to die, and eventually the only things that kept me from killing myself were the lack of desire to actually be the instrument of my own death, the possibility that I could be forfeiting some future knowledge that would help me, and my love for my best friend and several other people. I didn't want to hurt them, especially my best friend Gabi. I am grateful beyond words that my best friend understood and listened to my concerns. She was honest in her responses and willing to be there for me, which was exactly what I wanted and needed at that time. It certainly can be a while before the impact of some doubts fades, even if just the emotional impact. But because of that trial I now have an even deeper commitment to Christianity and an even closer relationship with Gabi!
DeleteAn existential crisis, just like any other trial, however great or small, will either leave someone emotionally stronger or weaker. All trials, but especially existential ones, provide new opportunities to apply Christian doctrines and deepen our relationships with God! It's easy to eagerly live for God when one's theology is based on emotion and has never been challenged by circumstances or other people, but persisting in a relationship with God through hardships fosters and cements genuine commitment! Not only does an existential crisis drive someone to seek answers and to discard assumptions and errors, but it also equips him or her to answer the questions of others and guide them to the truth as well--and Christians always need to be ready to explain themselves to others when they ask us questions about reality (1 Peter 3:15).
I do my best to ensure that my crises drive me to new knowledge. For instance, last summer there was a time when I seriously doubted whether or not I have a body, only to realize one night that I can't experience physical sensations without a body, and from that I figured out how to deductively prove I am not dreaming when I am awake! And with the fact that I have a body proven, I found I could move on to learn other things because I had peace with that subject! Haha
Some people go through periods of doubt where the uncertainty is heightened because of a cultural drought of rationality. Our society is full of people who use a multitude of fallacies and often don't seem to even know or care what they are actually saying! This means that people who are pursuing truth often have to do most or all of the work themselves, which can be exhausting--not impossible, but exhausting. This is unfortunate, because relationships with other people based on mutual love for reality can really help when doubts come. Having a friend that is a rationalist Christian (or of course several friends like this) can be very relieving during an existential crisis! He or she can listen to you, converse with you, pray for you, and emotionally support you. All of these things can be unspeakably helpful! :)
Now I’m curious about something else. :) How did you deductively conclude you were awake and not dreaming?
ReplyDeleteThanks for being there for me with all of this. Also, for what it’s worth, you do not sound like a post-modernist at all, because you believe in both truth and certainty. That’s a good thing!!
I realized that proof right around when I figured out I have a body. After proving that my experience of physical sensations by necessity means that I have a material body that my consciousness inhabits, I started wondering about how to discern dreaming from being awake, since consciousness is present in both cases. I thought about what a dream is--a series of images in the mind while the body is asleep--and how when awake, my senses are processing actual stimuli in the external world, while when asleep and dreaming, I am merely perceiving immaterial images in my mind. Thus, if my senses are active, then my mind has not retreated into itself like in a dream, but is presently aware of physical stimuli, meaning I am awake! I was so relieved when I figured that out! Haha
DeleteYou're very welcome Katie! I'm so glad that we could talk about these things! I always welcome questions about reality, whether about the issues we've discussed or other things. Anytime you want to ask something about anything else, feel free to do so! :)
As for that last question about postmodernism, postmodernism is not relativism. According to relativism there is no such thing as objective truth (which is a self-refuting impossibility). But postmodernism is a form of skepticism that acknowledges the utter subjectivity of many perceptions. Postmodernism itself doesn't hold that there is no reality, or that reality is subjective, or that no knowledge is possible (necessary truths and logical truths can't be false). It is just an admission that many beliefs are social constructs, that perceptions vary wildly from person to person, and that many truth claims are beyond our ability to verify or falsify. This is what I mean when I identify as a postmodernist; I don't mean that reality itself is subjective or that no knowledge is possible or that nothing is true, because those things are all impossible!
Thanks much for everything!! :) On the dream thing, I would also add that things don’t typically make sense in dreams like they do in real life.
ReplyDeleteYour definition of postmodernism seems different from what I’ve heard. What you described sounded more like what any reasonable person should be doing in the first place before accepting the status quo.
I will absolutely remember you if I get other philosophical questions! It’s awesome to know I have someone to ask who gets these types of things. :)
You're so welcome!! Oh yes, there are other distinctions between dreams and being awake! Waking experiences are governed by scientific laws and logic, whereas dreams are only governed by logic. And waking experiences allow us to recall information from memories that might be muddled in a dream.
DeleteEven if it's things about the Bible and not strictly logic, I love discussing that stuff too! :)
Hi Cooper! I’ve been trying to understand the answers you gave me, but I’m still not sure on a few. You said it would be impossible for any reality not to be governed by logic, but how does that make you sure that within that reality, it may not be rational? You said it couldn’t be irrational within that reality, but why? Maybe the first question should be, how do we know our idea of rationality is the correct one? Maybe there could be another reality greater than what we’ve come to know as rational (sounds like God, which is true, but just entertain the idea as if it weren’t), that’s the ultimate true reality, which could differ from ours, maybe even negate ours. I hope you can understand these questions. :) I just feel very uncertain about the nature of reality and logic, and how we can be certain our ideas of it are true.
ReplyDeleteSo the doubts came back (or they never left)! Sorry for the late reply, I had some classes today I had to read for.
DeleteNo part of reality can be free from logic in the same way that no part of reality can be free from truth--if there was a part of reality where there is no truth, then it would be true that that part of reality is a certain way, which means that it really still is governed by truth. Truth cannot not exist, regardless of location or time. It's impossible for there to not be a way that reality is, however distant from us or different than our everyday experiences that part of reality is. For an area to be alogical, it would have to be governed by logic, since all of the laws of logic would still apply by necessity--the area would still be what it is and not be what it isn't. Thus it cannot be outside of logic. There could be a realm with no minds and no matter, or a realm with entirely different scientific laws, but never a realm without truth/logic. I can't legitimately say that scientific laws are the same in some other part of the cosmos because I am not observing those areas right now, but I don't need to be omnipresent to realize that logic can't be avoided or false.
The idea that God is somehow beyond logic is nonsense, since God is God, God cannot exist and not exist at once, and God either exists or does not not exist. God cannot bring it about that there is no such thing as truth, and he cannot be fully morally perfect and even slightly morally imperfect at the same time. Just because something is supernatural doesn't mean it is outside of or above reason! It just means it is supernatural and not a part of the material world (things like consciousness and logic are also not part of the material world since they are immaterial, but most people don't use the word supernatural to describe them, reserving the word for references to deities or unembodied spirits).
Even if God did not exist, it is not as if truth or logic would not or could not exist; it would then be true that God does not exist. Truth and logic exist by necessity, whether or not any minds exist to grasp them. However, if God did not exist then there would be absolutely no metaphysical anchor for values, and thus there could be no such thing as morality, meaning, or beauty. But logic and truth would still exist. Anyone who argues against them can only be right if he or she is incorrect, meaning that person is arguing for a self-refuting impossibility.
Hope this helps! Is the crisis not any better?
The crisis ensues. :) I think I’m having a hard time really putting a finger on how to describe what’s bothering me so much. Maybe I don’t even know myself. I think it’s the idea of multiple realities, and if truth could be different in each of them. Could there be multiple realities at once? For example, the idea of multiple universes. Could each one have its own, different truth and reality?
ReplyDeleteAlso, people who act like quantum mechanics defies logic have also disturbed me, though some scientists say QM isn't illogical, but it can definitely go against human intuition.
Quantum physics reveals that particles behave differently on a subatomic level, which I've heard some people say demonstrates that normal ideas about causality are not necessarily true, with some even saying that a thing does not need a cause in order to come into existence. But this is impossible, and one does not need to look into science to know this. The only four options with causality are 1) a thing has always existed and has no beginning and thus no cause, 2) a thing created itself, 3) a thing was caused to exist by another thing, or 4) a thing began to exist without a cause. Option 2) is impossible, because a thing would have to exist before it existed to create itself. Option 4) is impossible, because if nothing produced the thing then it would be unable to come into existence; from nothing nothing can come. The only possible options are 1) and 4), with option 1) describing what people refer to as the uncaused cause that brought the material world into existence, otherwise called God. An uncaused cause is necessary, as I will explain when I address the multiverse issue below.
DeleteBut quantum physics is still quantum physics, and not something else, and quantum particles are quantum particles, and so on. Nothing about quantum physics escapes or contradicts logic. Remember, it's impossible for that to happen! It's like saying "quantum physics shows that truth doesn't exist on the subatomic level"; it's not possible for that to be the case, and it is inherently self-refuting to deny it! At most, quantum physics would challenge the already idiotic idea that scientific laws are necessary and apply to all aspects of the material world, but no one needs quantum physics to realize this, just logic. But not even causality can be escaped on the quantum level, even if causal relationships somehow appear very different from what we normally experience.
It is definitely possible that there is a multiverse, but there is absolutely no way to prove anything about this either way. Still, if there was a multiverse containing numerous universes, logic would necessarily govern each universe, though the scientific laws might be drastically different--each universe within the multiverse would still be what it is, and so on. If there are multiple types of realities, as you hypothesized, then all of the necessary truths still apply inescapably. The different dimensions/universes would all be real, and would each be a certain way, and would each not be ways that are different than what they are, and so forth, and so the only things that are uncertain about these realms would be the scientific laws that apply to them. And the multiverse itself would still have a finite beginning, since an infinite past and an infinite number of past events in the cosmos are impossible (if there was an infinite number of past moments the present moment could never arrive, and the present exists), and thus the multiverse would have a beginning, and would thus require a cause, and so an uncaused cause still exists (God).
Quantum physics and the multiverse are definitely some topics that interest me! As for your crisis, does anything at all seem to be resolved so far? Do you at least realize that you exist? You can't have an existential crisis unless you exist after all! ;)
Thanks, Cooper! What you said makes sense. I think one of my main issues is that I don’t understand well enough how we really know/prove something with certainty versus just accepting the most probable option (which I should probably get a better grasp on). My mind is so stuck on how all these existential ideas have made it feel so anxious and uncertain, so I think it will take some mind renewing before I feel significantly better.
ReplyDeleteIt’s so annoying, because I have been feeling more certain about my existence, but when I read your question about if I at least realize I exist, doubts still crept back, and I had that horrible, anxious feeling in my gut. I’ve confused my poor brain with all the idiotic things I’ve read from people who don’t think anything is certain, and who act like even existence can’t be proven. It’s so dumb. I do believe I exist, because I know I can’t deny myself. I know I’m a thinking thing, so I have to exist. I need to stop being afraid of people who don’t agree with what I’ve intuitively know and never questioned my entire life, until now.
Also, I’m still bugged about the illusion stuff. I see what you said, as far as not everything can be an illusion, because that would be reality, but I still feel creepy thinking about any remote possibility of anything possibly hinting at being an illusion.
I keep having thoughts where I question who decides what ultimate truth and logic are, even though I know God’s very nature is truth and He is where logic originated. It’s kind of like a constant bombardment of ‘What if what you think is true to reality/life is a lie? How do you know you’re right about anything?!’ Thank goodness truth is true, no matter what. I need Jesus to help me. This is a nightmare. :(
Thank you for your help, Cooper, but it’s not your responsibility to help me, it’s God’s. I don’t want to burden anyone.
I'm so sorry about what you're going through Katie. But please don't think that you have been a burden! You haven't been at all! You've really needed to talk about and be honest about your recent struggles. Sometimes just discussing things with other people can help, at the very least, bring about a kind of resolution or acceptance of reality. For now, just rest in the fact that truth exists and is true no matter what some self-defeating moron says. I am not bothered by this at all, and I'll never turn you away if you need answers or just someone to bring these issues up with. :)
DeleteAnd can I ask how long you've been a Christian for? I'm interested in hearing about how you became a Christian too. :)
DeleteThanks you so much for understanding. I feel lost in confusion. I’ve even had a few Christians tell me I can’t prove I exist, so I keep wondering if perception could possibly only be obvious, huge evidence. I know it’s so stupid. I wonder what defines absolute proof, and it annoys me that not everyone agrees on what defines that total certainty. I guess I’m a control freak of sorts, and I crave absolute certainty, especially over things I had no idea some people questioned. However, even those who said it can’t be totally proven, we’re still sure they exist, and weren’t worried about it at all. ;)
ReplyDeleteI’ve been a Christian since I accepted Jesus when I was 5 years old. I think all of this is just satan attacking me, because he knows I’m a very sensitive person, and also a black and white thinker.
Many Christians I've met are extremely inept as logicians and are very philosophically ignorant. One thing I have found very amusing and frustrating about the people in my life who have told me "You can't know anything" is that they are very surprised when I reject things that they can't prove! They think I'm irrational for acknowledging that truth MUST exist or that consciousness CAN'T be an illusion, and then they think I'm irrational for refuting their arbitrary emotion and culture-based beliefs, like when I point out how asinine their moral epistemologies are. Even within their own self-defeating framework, they are telling me on one hand that I can't prove/know anything and then on the other hand that I should believe what they are telling me anyway! And, unfortunately, almost every single one of them has identified as a Christian. Out of all the people I've met in my life, those who call themselves Christians have often been by far the dumbest ones. Thankfully their fallacies do not represent actual Biblical Christianity at all!
DeleteI have long had a sense of frustration when I'm around most Christians. They often don't know what they're talking about when it comes to either the Bible or extra-Biblical philosophy, they believe in things contrary to both proof and evidence, and they do a terrible job when it comes to interacting with the culture. One of the damaging results of their irrationality is a very distorted understanding of Scripture. In fact, when they use fallacies, they are violating the direct commands of Scripture to exercise rationality (1 Thessalonians 5:21, 1 Peter 3:15). It's so deeply saddening and infuriating sometimes--people can be very hurt by their nonsense, both inside and outside of the church.
I’m sorry for my stupidity. :) I got myself into this mess by studying world religions. Once I got to Hinduism, there was a lot of stuff about reality being an illusion, so as I was researching that, there was a garbage online about not being able to prove our own existence. Being the philosophical novice I am, I wasn’t prepared to answer, and it turned into this horrible obsession.
ReplyDeleteI’m agree that a lot of Christians don’t do us any favors, and they ultimately make Christianity look like it’s for idiots. I’m sure you’ve delved into a lot of apologetics, as I have, and there is overwhelming evidence, so it’s very sad when Christians themselves can’t present a good case for it!
I emailed one of my friends, and asked him to explain how ones’ perception wouldn’t prove their existence. Should be interesting. He might say that logic must be assumed first, but as you’ve said, it HAS to be true that logic exists and governs everything, because truth exists.
Oh, I don't think you're stupid at all, and I'm sorry if I came across that way!! Haha I wish more people were like you! It would be very nice if more people simply cared about discovering reality instead of assuming that their preferences are true, or agreeing with their society or family by default. Doubting/considering something, even for a lengthy period of time, and coming to the correct conclusion is enormously different from actively rejecting and denying things that can't be false over and over, despite repeated proofs! You definitely aren't in the latter category! Lol
Delete