How do we know what we know, if we know anything?
February 6, 2014 at 5:23 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2014 at 5:27 pm by Mudhammam.)
I've begun reading "Quantum Psychology: How Brain Software Programs You & Your World" by Robert Anton Wilson and in the introduction he discusses some different epistemological theories of knowledge and how humans determine which experiences are valid or invalid. The entire book is written in "E-Prime," that is, English without the word "is." As RAW explains it, "Common sense, for instance, assumes that the statement 'The job was finished in five hours' can contain both absolute truth and objectivity. Operationalism, however, following Einstein (and pragmatism) insists that the only meaningful statement about that measurement would read 'While I shared the same inertial system as the workers, my watch indicated an interval of five hours from start to finish of the job.' The contradictory statement, 'The job took six hours' then seems, not false, but equally true, if the observer took the measurement from another inertial system. In that case, it should read, 'While observing the workers' inertial system from my spaceship (another inertial system moving away from them), I observed that my watch showed an interval of six hours from start to finish of the job.'"
RAW appears skeptical of realism, alluding to Nobel physicist Percy W. Bridgman, who, according to RAW, "explicitly pointed out that 'common sense' derives unknowingly from some tenets of ancient philosophy and speculation--particularly Platonic Idealism and Aristoleian 'essentialism'--and that this philosophy assumes many axioms that now appear either untrue or unprovable." One further passage I found interesting: "Briefly--too briefly, and therefore somewhat inaccurately--when we decide on a course of action and convince ourselves or others that we have 'reasoned it all out logically,' existentialists grow suspicious. Kierkegaard would insist that you made the choice on the basis of some 'blind faith' or other (faith in Christianity, faith in Popular Science, faith in Marx...etc.) and Nietzsche would say that you as a biological organism will a certain result and have 'rationalized' your biological drives. Long before Godel's Proof in mathematics, existentialism recognized that we never 'prove' any proposition completely but always stop somewhere short of the infinite steps required for a toal logical 'proof' of anything; e.g., the abyss of infinity opens in attempting to prove 'I have x dollars in the bank' as soon as one questions the concept of 'having' something. (I think I 'have' a working computer but I may find I 'have' a non-working computer at any moment.)"
RAW is known for his mind-bending philosophical suggestions inspired by innumerable acid trips, and he was probably on acid when he wrote this book. Anyway, it should be interesting. My eldest brother (not the fanatical Christian one) has gotten into RAW quite a bit in the past year.
Thoughts?
RAW appears skeptical of realism, alluding to Nobel physicist Percy W. Bridgman, who, according to RAW, "explicitly pointed out that 'common sense' derives unknowingly from some tenets of ancient philosophy and speculation--particularly Platonic Idealism and Aristoleian 'essentialism'--and that this philosophy assumes many axioms that now appear either untrue or unprovable." One further passage I found interesting: "Briefly--too briefly, and therefore somewhat inaccurately--when we decide on a course of action and convince ourselves or others that we have 'reasoned it all out logically,' existentialists grow suspicious. Kierkegaard would insist that you made the choice on the basis of some 'blind faith' or other (faith in Christianity, faith in Popular Science, faith in Marx...etc.) and Nietzsche would say that you as a biological organism will a certain result and have 'rationalized' your biological drives. Long before Godel's Proof in mathematics, existentialism recognized that we never 'prove' any proposition completely but always stop somewhere short of the infinite steps required for a toal logical 'proof' of anything; e.g., the abyss of infinity opens in attempting to prove 'I have x dollars in the bank' as soon as one questions the concept of 'having' something. (I think I 'have' a working computer but I may find I 'have' a non-working computer at any moment.)"
RAW is known for his mind-bending philosophical suggestions inspired by innumerable acid trips, and he was probably on acid when he wrote this book. Anyway, it should be interesting. My eldest brother (not the fanatical Christian one) has gotten into RAW quite a bit in the past year.
Thoughts?
