quotes have been popular lately. here's one.
"Reality is that which continues to exist after i stop believing in it."
-Some guy
This would imply that even though I may not be mentally ill, if the world at large is mentally ill... then that is the reality. hmmm. this could be more true than we want to admit.
On the other hand, if we all stop believing in something like, say, numbers... well then numbers would be no more. See, there's a difference between numbers and quantities and we can make number just go away, because they're arbitrary like laws and morals. This is what the guy who sits across from me couldn't understand when i tried to explain that there are no absolutes. His argument was that as an engineer, i have to base my entire mental architecture on a system of absolutes that will continue to hold true under all circumstances. i.e, Math. Duality may include two sides, but your mental assignment of the word "two" is still up in the air. Besides, from a numbers-applications stand point, 50 is a lot closer to infinity than, say, 2, even though are numbers would have us believe otherwise. Consider i have a gun with 50 bullets and you have but 2 rounds. See: infinitely better.
The reason the older, roman system of numerals didn't hold up is because the Romans had no zero. The Arab system, on the other hand, had this key "nothing" number, allowing for a more complex type of math, which was algebra and eventually calculus.
what does it all mean? Reality is that which ceases to exist when i do?
"I bang my head against the wall because it feels good when i stop."
4 comments:
It seems to me that the guy who sits across from you can't understand the difference between subjective and objective realities. He believes in a system of absolutes while peering through a window of his own subjectivity. If the "absolute" mathematical system was developed to represent something greater, then it cannot be objective. In the abstraction from tangible reality to symbol, it becomes subjective.
I find that most engineers (and old people) err on the side of modernity and refuse to accept that the system is contrived. On the other hand, most normal people seem to confuse the issue. It's not as if the existence of physical matter is in question here, just the entire system of abstraction which we use to describe it. Calling a tree by some other label wouldn't keep it from being a tree, but there's no sacrosanct reason why we group together pine trees and maple trees.
It would also seem there is a serious difference between "arbitrary" and "necessary". I like your point about laws and morals being arbitrary. I would agree that laws and morals are "arbitrary" in the sense of not being sacrosanctly tied to "objective reality" (whatever that means). Lots of nations have different laws and most/some seem to work out okay for most/some people. On the other hand, to assume that without laws and morals everything would be "fine" (again, whatever that means) is myopic. On the other other hand, I suspect most people would not accept laws and morals defined purely to drive a social mechanical metric towards "fine". (Unless I defined "fine".)
Perhaps this guy needs a lesson in the history of thought. Comparing pre-modern, modern, and post-modern thinking helped me recognize both the strengths and shortcomings of modernity. Or better yet, maybe he should just wait until post-modernity gets old and the next thought form comes along. It would be sort of like skipping a grade in a school that only he attends and about which no one else cares.
Perhaps the best choice is to say that Socrates was an idiot and instead proclaim that "The examined life is not worth living". Seriously -- how many genuinely happy, "philosophical" people do you know?
My apologies for the long comment -- it sort of spilled out onto the screen. (Why does it feel like there's a crude comment hidden somewhere in that last statement?)
did someone say crude!!!???
I've got some arbitrary matter that just spilled on my screen!
WEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nick, you're drunk again. Go find your pants.
Munky Stephens, you redheaded bastard... I was just thinking and retelling exaggerated stories about you this week. I was at a Red Wings game and someone in the crowd got taken out in a meat wagon after eating a puck-sandwich. That's when i reveled my companions with the story of the errant puck at what i think was one of my first MTU hockey games. Little did i know that when i sat back in my seat to avoid a puck kiss, that your face would be next in line on the smooch rotation. Do you still have that scar from the bridge of your glasses? And what was up with that Jabro not giving you the puck that bounced off YOUR grill?
Later, i began to think back on that time, and started to wonder if all that really happened... it seems so long ago. Did i really live in a 15' x10' cell with two other dudes and carve a life out of the snow? What happened to all those people that lived in that hall?
And where is Nin-Jay? Or did i invent him just now? This must be what happens when you leave that place...
I do agree, you don't find many "intellectuals" who are happy. (of course, to truly understand this statement, we'd have to define "happy" but if that were the case, we might as well shoot ourselves in the face right now) The idea lends itself well to the last line about banging your head against the wall.
Either way, good to hear from you.
As someone much smarter than I once said: "Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears."
Post a Comment