the illusions of teleology and perfection

Is it fitting for humans to think and speak? In one sense yes - it is fitting that a human can speak or speak well, as we are the animals on the planet that do that. As such it is fitting that we do. We have a human nature, that in the most general sense can be learned and defined. Basically it is that we think and communicate in abstract terms, build tools, and live in social groups and desire to do these things to one extent or another.

But this does not mean that there is a certainly justifiable end goal or perfection of humans. We can be good at these human things, and we can train to be better at them, but that doesn't mean we ought to or have to for any reason other than we may or may not want to. It simple does not follow. In the most general sense people do want to be happy - but from this fact it does not follow that we therefore ought to seek happiness, or that we ought to seek happiness for anyone else. I think Aristotle knew this and we have interpretted him wrong.

Why do we do this? Why do we assume intuitively that things ought to be better? Where does the "ought" come from? In most cases it comes from a preceeding hypothetical supposition: If we want to be happy, then X follows (X being that philosopher's argument on how to be happy based on their supposition of what human nature is - and this changes throughout philosophical epochs). But no one can prove that "All humans want to be happy all of the time" or that "All humans ought to be happy all of the time". These are undemonstrable propositions. We can make them plausible by surveys and inductive reasoning, but not certainly or necessarily true.

(Why does it need to be certainly or necessarily true? It doesn't - only for us who worry about such things such as the truth. Feel free to seek your happiness, I won't stop you).

Yet it is assumed quite often. People always seem to think things ought to be better, things ought to be made perfect or as perfect as possible. If it is broken it must be fixed. Why is this assumed so often? Because, humans have another root bias which causes this - the idea of perfection. Take two people making a bed. One says, "Just flop the covers over the cats, that's the way to do this [as the cats cannot be controlled and it is easier to make the bed around them as they play fight in amongst the covers as they are want to do]". The other responds, "No, that's not the right [correct] way to make a bed" and moves the cats off the bed.

Why? Who was right? The answer is neither was right. There is no correct way to make a bed. There are ways which get the job done better and faster, but whoever proved that was the correct way? That assumes things in the material world ought to be perfect - that perfection can and does exist. I love Plato, I think he was the best philosopher ever and I would do almost anything to vinidcate his thought - but I'm sorry he was just wrong here. There is no Idea of Perfection - at least, not in the realm of the forms as where he would put it (meaning a permanent a priori concept existing independent of human thought).

The notion of perfection is a by product of human thought - perfection is an imaginary concept we language speakers subconciously invent and relate to the physical world. We need it because we need nouns to relate to whole, perfectly contiguous concepts (whether the thinsg the words corelate to are or not or we can know with dedictive certainty they perfectly corelate or not) such as "1", "door", etc. We cannot think (as a verb - ie: process thoughts correctly) without there being a notion of perfect wholeness. And just because there needs to be this mental understanding for us to understand our perceptions of the world, does not mean this mental appirition (perfect contiguity) exists outside of our thought. A perfect circle does not exist outside the world as far as we know and even our understanding of our perceived world is imperfect so we can't even be sure of that. Mathematics are perfect in thought, and seem to have a margin of predictable correspondance to the world, but there is nothing guarenteeing this won't change or can't change. And the predictable variables are just that - predictions who may change and do have a level of variance for each moment in time.

One has responded in antiquity and the middle period: Yes, but we do have a notion of perfection and we are imperfect beings, therefore perfection must exist independant of our minds as, if not, then where does it come from? My answer would be: how do you know you are imperfect? Fallible yes, but how do you know perfection is enduring? The human conception of perfection is perfect in that it is contiguous and coherent with the rest of our thought. 1 = 1. Perfect. I think; I am. Perfect. And contained in our thought entirely. Why do we assume it must extend beyond our thought? By definition it cannot and does not.

One has also responded in post modernity: yes, but if the corelation of our thought (our mental idea of "1") ever changed with the world (a single stone [if such a thing exists]) we would never know because thought itself would no longer function. It would be utter unknowable chaos if suddenly A did not equal A, or 1 did not eqal 1, or A & ~A were true. We wouldn't know, therefore what we cannot think is impossible for us to experience.

My answer would be, maybe. How do you know that? Given how you think now you correctly deduct this conclusion, but this does not mean that perfection ought to be. True, it means why worry about it as we would never know if it ever happened or is happening, but it does not prove therefore there must be order in the universe just because a universe without order would not make sense to us. Who said it was supposed to or has to make sense? Prove that to me. It cannot be done as the proof requires a knowably, deductively certain corelation between thought and the reality. No such conduit exists.

Oh, I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that "the outside world" does not really exist and the perception of it each of us has is in truth "reality" or as much reality as we can ever know. That there is no objective truths, as objectivity assumes knowable certainty in the physical world which any scientist will tell you is not the way it apparently works. But that does not mean that notions such as perfection exist outside human thought, even though it seems to be consistenly inter-subjective, or a consistent inter-subjective truth. Perfection is nothing but an invention, a language speakers thought by-product, and when all the language speakers are gone, perfection ceases to exist.

Antiquity responds, but perfection cannot cease to exist as if it ever did then it wasn't perfection to begin with.

I (with post modernity) respond: Exactly. It wasn't. We imagined it.

So I'ze-a-thinkin'...

Informal education is very powerfull. What do I mean by informal education Mr. Unknown Interlocular? Well, let me tell you.

By Informal educaiton I mean the unofficial education one receives daily from pop-art. The media of the masses and for the masses so to speak. Not official - so that includes the little sayings people say, the colloquialisms, and also the advertising campaigns. Movies, music, etc.

Take this blog for example. The sub-title is Philosophy, Art and Gung-Fu. Philosophy is an old Greek word which means (the pursuit of being a) friend/lover of wisdom. Art is a "creative" or stylistic / imagistic expression of the truths intuited or reasoned from philosophy, and gung-fu is chinese for the "internal power" (or that's what I was told).

Three types if education, one for the rational, one for the appitetative, and the last for the spiritied - three portions of the Platonic tri-partite soul that consist of us all, one of these facets being our dominant psychological portion. Philosophy cultivates your rationality, your reason. Art cultivates and diminishes your particular desires, and gung-fu (internal style martial arts when practiced correctly - ie: including the fighting aspect) cultivates and moderates your spirit, or thymos.

So there.

People Only Believe What Flatters Them

I have observed that generally people only believe what flatters them either implicitly or explicitly. However if a proposition is too obviously sycophantic they will disbelieve it (even if it is true) as overly sycophantic suppositions are usually meant sarcastically, and as such the interpretting mind will want to disbelieve it for fear of being tricked or fooled (ie: their intellect insulted, the converse of flattered).

This seems to me to be because the human mind is a weak, insecure little thing that dislikes the truth of it's own nature, and is willing to believe just about any proposition that does not display that weakness. It seems to attempt to preserve its integrity - both the integrity of its belief as to its superiority or satisfactory nature, and to the truth of its own beliefs (as believing false beliefs shows one to be a fool, and this is not flattering). If they admit they are a fool they do so in a ruefull or sarcastic way - or in a way that they think flatters themself, like when Socrates says he knows nothing - he actually does not mean that and he does not mind saying it as he thinks it is a more honest and wise position to hold than thinking one does know something when they do not.

A much more honest intellectual position is to say "Some very few things I know, many things I am sure of, and many more things I know not." And a courageous position would be to tack on to that, "But I seek that which I do not know and attempt to root out the truth no matter what it means about me and no matter where I can find it."

Only a true philosopher can truly say this and honestly mean it. And that flatters them.

The Good, The Blog, and The Ugly

Blogging is retarded. However, I need a place to collect my thoughts. And Levon wanted to know what I was thinking lately. So here it is.

In the strictest sense every philosophical epoch, has not attained what I would call the bare truth and all suppositions are dependant on a base level proposition which is nothing more than a moral bias on the part of the philosopher.

For example, although Plato and Aristotle are two the best and most true philosophers ever (the others being Lao Tsu, and followed closely by Al Farabi and Confucius, Shakespeare, then Nietzsche) they still relied on a moral bias: excellence is good. Therefore, there is a final cause or goal for all things. Therefore we can definitively say human life ought to seek the Good for the purpose of Eudemonia. This is undemonstrated, because they never proved excellence is good.

(note: there are readings of Plato and Aristotle that need not rely on this bias - I prefer those readings. But the majority of the history of thought includes this bias - and therefore they are all wrong and have wasted our time)

This bias I believe stems largely from the nature of the Greek language. The Greek language has a number of additional tenses that English does not - such as the "Perfect" and "Plu-Perfect" tense. When a word is used in this tense it is supposed to mean the thing has come to "perfection" or completion, or for the plu-perfect, past perfection or completion.

This is a lovely grammatical device allowing us to "accurately" describe by a certain ending on a word that this process has completed (and presupposes it is something which *may* be perfected). But it can beg the question that a) anything may be completed, b) what completed is in this sense, c) that completion for all things is possible, and even d) that completion is desirable or good.

Like me saying "I have blogger-ness" this ending "ness" adds a certain meaning to those words which may not make any sense or may be interpreted in a plethora of ways, hence tempting equivocation or question begging that a "blogger" as a thing can have a "ness". Just because I can say it does not make it so.

Similarly, the ancient Chinese as far as I understand the language, had a similar problem. The language was not very subject / prepositional. To my knowledge, the language did not have a very "X is Y" feel or flow to it, hence they did not think in those terms. Hence Lao Tsu said, "The Tao I can speak of is not the Eternal Tao" and basically that the Tao cannot be named, the same way Plato named "The Good".

The Middle period for Eurpoe had the bias of a Divinity whose properties they could know (although It is supposed to be impossible to know them), or well enough that they can know that their interpretation of this Divinities Will (as if it has one, or one that is anything like a human will or like it would care about us if it did) is the correct one or anyone not following them should be burned at the stake. Their bias was that the after-life was more important than the current life, and that moral certitude grants moral action.

The "Enlightenment" that the material is all that there is, that science and progress are "good". Any of these biases could very well be true - my point is they are all undemonstrated.
The Post-modern period, that will is good. That good is not good. That the previous epochs did not prove that anything is good and therefore we ought not following them, although there is no reason we ought to do anything. Therefore you ought to listen to me. etc.

So things basically get more screwed up from the classical period as we move on. There is a solution of course. Topic for another post.