If books, the internet, and language itself had never been invented, and if there were no other people to talk to and no words to use in one's thoughts, it would not be the case that people have no way of thinking about philosophical issues or truths. Every thought and every experience already depends on logical axioms for its very possibility, and thus any thought or experience could lead to someone finally choosing to discover and understand the abstract logical truths that dictate all else. There is no such thing as a person who could not think about philosophical matters, who could not come to the inherent truth of logical axioms and the enormous, many ramifications of this, or who would be doomed to remain trapped in assumptions or ignorance. Even when experiences with discussion or reading bring a given issue or abstract truth to someone's mind, there are only two possibilities. Either what was brought to their mind is a logical or introspective fact that can be known independent of all else with absolute certainty, for it is at the foundation of other truths and experiences, or it is something that, while logic still governs it, a person would have no reason to think of without prompting in the first place. Scientific concepts fall into the latter category; logical axioms, self-awareness of one's mind, and various logical truths about epistemology and metaphysics are in the former category.
Someone born without sensory capacities many able-bodied people take for granted could still have mental experiences, and their very existence and thoughts would inevitably still hinge on logical axioms, which they could identify, perfectly understand, and recognize as the only possible core of all things. From there, he or she could discover that there are other strictly logical truths which follow from the much smaller handful of self-evident logical axioms, the logical truths which are what even other logical truths stand on. This person, unable to speak or hear or see or even physically feel, would neither have the general sensory perceptions that might or might not correspond with physical stimuli nor the physical sensations that can prove the existence of basic matter. An entire avenue of perception in its various forms would be cut off from him or her, yet they would still be relying on the laws of logic and could understand them in full, which could bring them to the point of understanding that the existence of their consciousness, like the truths of axioms, could not be an illusion. At least axioms and their own mind could still be known without absolute certainty because these things cannot be false. The former would also underpin an enormous number of other logical truths they could discover even as the latter contains emotions, a will, desires, and the inward gaze that can all be known and savored in their entirety.
The same would be true of a hypothetical being that was not omniscient and yet still only existed as a consciousness without even illusory sensory experiences: it would be able to recognize the logical truths that do not depend on its own existence, awareness, or approval for their own existence and veracity, as well as its own consciousness and its contents. It would not automatically have any words assigned to any logical truths, aspects of consciousness, or unverifiable and unfalsifiable concepts. There would not be any other beings it perceives which it could have a conversation with, for it has no senses and no telepathic link to whatever other minds might exist. It would not even be able to let silent social interactions or visual perceptions prompt any of its thoughts. All it would have access to is reason and introspection. In actuality, the most foundational epistemological and metaphysical truths would still be fully knowable. It could still realize that its perceptions and preferences mean nothing except that its thoughts and preferences exist; it could still realize that logic cannot be or have been false and even the more precise fact that logical truths exist in the absence of all other things, including the mind of this hypothetical unembodied creature.
However, people with sensory perceptions and social experiences and familiarity with established languages still have access to all of these truths and to the absolute certainty found in them. Beyond this, they have the same ability to discover, rediscover, or focus on logical truths without relying on prompting from other people, from sensory experiences of any kind, or from language contrived by others or by themselves. All humans have the capacity to at least know the nature of the logical axioms and conscious thoughts they already rely on whether or not they have realized this! With or without sensory experiences in all of their forms, with or without physical media like books or digital resources on the internet, and with or without words assigned to concepts, a person can indeed still know quite a bit. The most important truths are still accessible to all, including the most foundational parts of epistemology and their more precise metaphysical counterparts such as the necessary existence of logic in the absence of all things and the immateriality of consciousness. No one is irrational for happening to have these discoveries prompted by experiences, but strictly logical truths and introspective states do not require this at all. It would even be irrational to believe things knowable through reason alone because a person or written work makes a claim, rather than because it is true by necessity and directly knowable through reason, just as it would be irrational to believe the ideas of any book or person if there is hearsay, induction, or any other kind of assumption being promoted.
No comments:
Post a Comment