Forward
After these years of pondering and reading philosophy, I think now is a time for me to summarise philosophy and explain its mysteries and why do people study it. Philosophy is essentially a personal experience. Philosophy is a manefestation of one’s psychological state. Without philosophy, there is still the mind, but without mind there is no philosophy. Philosophy like all sciences attempts a union, a definition of the human condition, questions in philosophy usually questions the basics of our understanding as manefested in the struggle between the empiricists and the rationalists, between the realists and nominalists, the fact that there are struggles in philosophy goes to show there is no right or wrong or there are many perspectives of the same thing in philosophy. I believe there are as much philosophy as there are minds in the world, for all philosophy is is a manefestation of the human mind, the human psychology. Philosophy can also said to be an activity, which is unique and peculiar to all other sciences in that it engages the participants to think and not just swallow. For to claim understanding in philosophy, one must think before one can understand it. But thinking itself does not produce understanding, one must first know how to think. Philosophers in the past have always held philosophy to be a higher activity, an activity that is on par with religion, only the most noble, the most educated, the most intelligent are worthy of any attempt in it. For the rest of us, we are to wait for the geniuses to give us our daily food for thought. Most people have an inferior attitude of themselves when they hold themselves under the light of the great philosophers. Much can be said, much praise can be song of the great minds of humanity, but it is ignorant to presume that only in them does flashes of genius take place, and that in the rest of humanity is condemned by birth to stupidity. We should respect the works of the great minds, but it is a grave error especially in academic circles to hold the great minds in such an esteme that all philosophy despite errors and unintelligibility flowing from the man must be right. One of the ways of argument I learned is to cite authority, I believe it is the most stupid way of thinking. I am shocked to find the concept still being taught and printed in text books as a legitament way of argument. Whoever uses such tactices is putting a sign over their head which says ‘stupid’. When we pay too much respect to the great philosophers, we ourselves may cease to think and we
ourselves become the object of our loathing whether we are aware of it or not. What I believe to be the single most grave error in philosophy over the ages and even today is a failure to see the connection between philosophy and psychology. Because it is from psychology that philosophy sprang from. Errors in philosophy are errors which failed to notice the connection between the two displines. The connection is critical as I shall demonstrate. But first, I would like to put forward my approach to philosophy which will be proceeded by a history of my philosophical development.
Personal History
I am not among the smart kids. In Australia, we have the Selective and Public school systems. To be admitted into a selective school, you must pay for an entrance exam which I have done on two occasions, one in year six and the other in year ten. But on both occasions I failed miserably. It appears that by my own stupidity I have been condemned to a public school and the priviliges of being in the company of intelligent students is forever out of my reach. But things turn out to be the exact opposite. I am the top of all my class during year 11 and 12 because I belonged to a public school, and it is precisely that which gave me confidences to think on par with the great minds for I considered myself worthy being the top of my school. I felt powerful, intellectually. During chemistry class, I had the following audacious conversation with the teacher on the question of Schopenhauer’s will to live.
Teacher: ‘we all have the will to live’
I: ‘What happens when someone tries to commit suicide?’
Teacher ‘that person lost the will to live’
I ‘no, that person has gained the will to die.’
I was being a jerk. Then I graduated high school, my grades were good enough to allow me entry to the Faculty of Commerce at UNSW, at that time being the 4th prestigious course in the whole of Australia. It is there that I found my intellectual equals and a depression, a rather deep one set in. I was no longer the top, but down at the bottom. Questions which I had previously brushed aside came back to me violently. ‘What is the meaning of life’, despite being in the commerce faculty I developed a feverish interest in philosophy which is fueled by my depression. I longed for meaning, a sense of purpose, I asked ‘what am I doing’, and I began to think. And thinking I did. Over the years in university I spend more time reading and studying philosophy than my vocation of choice. Soon I began to see the flaws in commerce, the assumptions being made, the hypocrisy of the educators and the general low intellectual standards of my fellow intellectuals. I started to believe that education, especially further education retards thinking rather than promote it. We have all done our share of swallowing, by that I mean cramming the facts into our brain without the least thought being placed on it. In university, we are to understand the concepts, but understand in a limited way. If you understand too much the whole exercise becomes an absuridty. Take auditing for example, the quality of an audit depends on the character of the director, and broadly speaking the way he kept the records. Under character of director, we are supposed to remember we are assessing the integrity, honesty and some other junk concerned with the entity in question. But don’t we require life skills to be able to actually bring what we learn into practice. What use is to know you are suppose to know the integrity of a director when you have never meet anyone resembling that description. How is anything learnt applicable in real life? Isn’t the grade given as a sign of how adapt one is at swallowing the content and the weakness of one’s will at resisting the madness being taught? I thank God I was not made into a good student, but through my rebelious attitude into an independant thinker.
Education system
I am totally opposed to the conventional education system which favours conformity to intelligence. An educatiion institution should not only teach the materials but also the facts of life. Too often, the focus is on swallowing and the students when they enter the university of life which is compulsory find themselves out of place. Depression, anxiety, sense of betrayl sets in. Despite my criticisms on ethics I sincerely believe it is neccessary psychologically speaking. Schools should teach their students ethics, strictly enforced according to the rules of behaviourism to produce adults who are well trained in the code of conduct. This not only benefits the individual who lives in society but the society can be enlightened from being in contact with the individual. Take the example of religion, which is an intellectual lie. In religious life, in my case Catholic life, we have a rule to follow, every Sunday we have a gathering of homogenous souls and sing our praises for a higher being. It is a great experience, a religious experience which can be made better if you sit in the front rows with the devouts, for often the curious comes in and they all seem to have hemiroides. But if you do have the fortune to sit with the devout and be in a closer proximity to the Cardinal and the chior, you can literally feel the spirit. Some people’s religious sense is blocked, because they have listened to much modern ‘music’, which is not music at all. If people are trained to understand the subtlty of Bach, or the strength of Paganini, they may be persuaded into having a religious experience. I do not feel alien in the Gothic cathedral, because I have developed a living connection with the place through understanding the significance of music and arthetecture. The religious experience is a rudimentary experience like sight and sound, it is not synthetic.
The view concerning the best approach to learning has been expressed in another thread, whose title I have forgotten, but since that time I have not modified my position. In short, I believe we as unknown philosophers when approaching the subject of philosophy should first get an overview of the subject, in another words the history of philosophy in your own perspective. Foucault sees all interactions as powerplay, in his history he says the philosophy with the most power is one that survives to this day. Some people would have swallowed his point, but I see it differently, usually it is the propaganda of the philosopher that enabled the survival of the philosophy. How many people has heard of Hegel and how many can boast an understanding of his philosophy, Hegel has evolved over the years and now has the stature of a demi-god in the field of metaphysics. When asked of his philosophy, people who attempted a reading would claim they found it hard. One then asks whether they found the philosophy itself hard or simply troubled by the style. Often it is the latter. So Hegel survived all these years through his style which is mystical to the point of being itself metaphysical. I have only attempted his ‘phenomology of the mind’, which in the modern manner of speaking his attempt at a psychological understanding of human nature which at that time included the category of ‘spririt’. An overview of philosophy has the advantage of giving you the main ideas which are the center pieces of philosophy. Then you read specific authors whose ideas you find attractive. Then you compare the authors. I have the privilege of knowing that Schopenhauer and Hegel taught at the same university, at that time Hegel is at the height of his fame while Schopenhauer was relative unknown until the time of Nietzsche. But when you contrast the writings of Hegel with that of Schopenhauer, you find remarkable differences. The first is the style of Schopenhauer which is similar to contemporary English and Hegel’s rambling. One must admit, if Hegel had the capacity like Schopenhauer to write in contemporary English, why did he not do so? And why did he not only not do so, why did his writings approach the limits of unintelligiblity. I will only take you thus far, to go further would tarnish one of the ‘greats’ of our displine.
My understanding
I would like to put forward my understanding of philosophy beginning with the basics.
We as unknown philosophers communicate our thoughts. What are out thoughts, but series of words. On this Monday morning, I was listening to Chopin’s Piano concerto no 1 and I had a revelation. I have studied violin as a young man, we play a piece of music by following the arranged notations on our score. The arranged notations consists of ‘notes’, a single blob on the score depending on the placement and shape dictates the nature of the note being played. The arrangements in music pre 1900s are mostly logical. By logically arranging individual notes do we hear music. There is no single ‘note’ but a note is a must combination of time and pitch. Despite the obvious differences between music and language. I see very significant similarities which can best explained with reference to music.
Language is developed out of a need to interact with things especially of like minded people. It is a habitual science for use language as an intended cause of an effect. If I say ‘give me the milk’ to three things. 1 asian 1 black 1 white assuming only the white can speak English. We won’t see any effect on the asian and black. if the white does ‘give’ you the milk, you realised that you have caused an effect. Out of habit you would only speak to the white. Similarly, I would not use language if I was the only person on this planet. I use language in relation to another entity. And I only use it if there is an observable effect. Philosphers whom have examined language in themselves are grossly mislead. I will not go further into the issue of ‘reality’ except to say that we have awareness. I will not use the word exist because as a word it has too much meanings attached to it, it has become meaningless. In front of you, you see a computer screen, but if you move closer it gets larger, if you move further away it gets smaller. How do you know you are looking at the ‘same’ computer screen. I avoid such questions by saying we have awareness. When I see a ball flying towards me, I see it gets bigger and bigger, the question is not whether I am aware of the ‘ball’ but how am I going to react to it. Psychologically I would evade the ball, preventing contact with it. I have mentioned similar objections towards universals, for even two ‘objects’ are identical but never in spacial co-ordinates. Nevertheless, we have psychologically conditioned ourselves to say they are the same. I believe that is the original madness.
We would not have intented words if there are no people around. When I mention the word ‘shoe’ I am attaching it to a visual ‘object’ which gets larger if are close to it and vice versa. But to use the word ‘shoe’ when there is no one around and in no context is psychologically absurd. Words such as ‘is’, ‘being’ are connectives, they are to be used in relation to rational psychologies because they produce an effect in them. If there was no one around I would not even use words, as I usually do. I listen to the authors but it is frustrating because you can’t communicate with them. Books say and you listen. Not very interactive. The modern linguistic analysis attach great importance to the means of communication but not the ends of communication. We analyse sentences but what meaning is there without it having an end? Problems with universals are not really problems as long as the receipents knows what you are saying. The word ‘words’ and ‘sentences’ in themselves are ambiguous because there are so many words and so many sentences, how do you define a word and a setence without it becoming a particular word or sentence? Our psychological construct allows us understanding of universals, there is no definition as such, but an agreed definition. This is a very important distinction, it also high lights the fact that to have an agreed definition, you must have two or more people. Modern linguistic analysis runs into problems because it has negated the psychological origins of language. I must make a personal admission at this stage, my writing style is heavily influenced by Adolf HItler, I nearly finished his book and I apologise to readers whom are unacustomed to my way.
I believe above contains my view on language in their entirty. If we apply that to problems of language.
Sentences
I like words
I like setences
True or false
Since the time of Plato authors have endlessly argued the veracity of propositions, till this day, we are still concerned with whether a statement is either true or false. The psychological treatment of ‘true or false’ is simple. If the premises corresponds to the facts, and is logical, we say a statement is true. But remember, this is only for the rational human beings. This does not apply to animals. Reason stems from our knowledge of cause and effect. When we ask ‘what is your reason’, we are really asking what is your ‘cause’ for an action. But the cause can be any cause. If someone prays and rains, all the time. that person might perceive a cause of the rain. The causation principles is not logical, but another habit. Reason is closely linked to causation. A statement that is always true, i.e premises true and logical must be a tautology. Consider this statement.
All cats are animals.
- All is by induction
- cats is universal
- are is connective
- animals is universal
This statement is not logical, and is ambiguous. But then such analysis which is often carried out by linguistic experts are psychologcially incomprehensible. We have already defined cats to be animals. We say cats are the same because they are psychologically congruent. The statement if said to an animal has no meaning, because the animal is psychologically different. But we arouse a reaction from a human being. Even though all things are different strictly speaking, for I have never observed two objects to occupy the same space, we psychologically are mad in believing them to be identitical. Yet such is our psychology.
Psychology in language
This is one part of the essay that requires the reader to have experienced language in the manner I am about to describe. There are many ways of saying the same phrase, there are rhetorical ways of expression. When in a high class resturant, the waiters addresses you by ‘sir’, which is what they are suppose to be doing. But one can not feel abit insulted when being addressed sir at a news agency. For those not familiar with the subtlties in language as the way it is spoken must have had limited experience in dealing with people. In away, it is not what you say but how you said it that is indicative. In fact, to convey the same basic facts, many number of ways can a sentence be arranged, but all sentences not only say the basics but also additional information. Thus analysing a setence in an analytical sense is insufficient to derive at the true meaning of the sentence without the sentence being actually pronounced. If we go further, we find that no only does the sentence needs to be pronounced, but by whom, whereabouts, in relation to what preceeding setence, in what context? The significance of a sentence can not be entirely understood apart from the basic information it conveys. Analysing a sentence while ignoring its psychological implication is amaturish.
Psychology in philosophy
Philosophy as all aspects of life is governed by psychology. Our reason, logic, observations, are psychological constructs, and they all seek one psychological condition, that of certainty. The rational doubts aimed at reaching a point of certainity by which no doubt can surpass. They say you can not doubt you are doubting, similarly you can not doubt what you are seeing is what you are seeing. They are really using logic and observations for the purposes of dispelling a psychological unplesantness, that of doubting. Feelings of uncertainty is as much a feeling as that of love. The whole thing is a question of confidence, if someone has failed one million times, he would most definately doubt the success of his claims. Even if he said ‘A is A’, which we regard as a tautology, he would still have doubts regarding that assertion. While someone on drugs, i.e changed psychology could say A is B with great confidence. This is why I regard philosophy as a self-indulgent exercise as much as it is for someone who enjoys sins. I see the history of philosophy, on both strands of philosophy rationalists and empiricsts as human beings seeking psychological satisfaction through the means of philosophy as an activity more than anything else. The end, no matter how subtle it is is always a psychological one.
Universals its definition is a language game. To define anything, we are defining a particular. To see this point clearly, when asked to define something. Could you define a ‘desk’ for me? You would list all the characteristics usually visual, but auditory, sensury belonging to the ‘desk’. But such a definition, and definition as a priori is for a particular. When asked to define a ‘chair’, you simply point to a chair. But when asked to define ‘chair’ as a universal, you are effectively being asked to point to a class of things. The trick here is being asked ‘what exactly you are pointing to.’ Further clarification would lead to pointing to a particular.
It is known that Nietzsche had syphillis, probably due to his blasphemy. But you can see in his writings, his idea of power must have been a result of his psychological condition at the time of writing. When we are told to examin things in their context, we are instructed to examin them in context of psychology. People who study epistemology is really trying to see the world through the eyes of the author. Kant has a psychology for he consciously grouped things into categories, his theory of epistemology is a relection of his psychological inclinations. As I will explain in a short while, there is no time. But all the philsophers, except Aristotle who said time is motion, which is not correct, for time is change. And by ignorance, words such as ‘time’, ‘exist’, they are completely unaware of the psychological nature of the words and refer to them as if they derive from senses and not from innate psychological madness. They see the world in a particular way, and we are psychologically compelled to see the world in their madness. What a better way of demonstrating that but through the text book case of ethics. In ethics, our prejudices are revealed. Many even tried a rational explanation of the problem without realising that the problem is essentially psychological. The deer, the bear, cat, mouse, keyboard, flower, bed, doctors have no problems with abortion. But religious followers like me do. The difference in opinion is purely psychological. But the fact the dispute goes on shows and re-enforces my point that we have a will to uniformity. We are constantly trying to win others to our side, be either friends, foe, by arguing we are trying to establish an intellectually homogenous society. Now if we examin issues concerning ‘human nature’ we find many variations claim to be the truth. They may all be true to the authors, it just goes to show the difference is psychological observation. The final issue concerning reality, the world, universals again comes down to psychology. If someone is psychologically unaware, can that person make claims about reality. If I close my eyes, can I claim the computer ‘exist’? For some psychology no adapt at philosophy may be shouting yes, but others with different psychology would say the statement is ambiguous. We all have our philosophies and by habit we are forcing them onto others.
Schopenhauer has criticized Hegel’s style, he seems to have an as one author calls it, an unremitting hatred of the latter. When we found nothing, there are two possibilities, 1) there is something we have failed to find it 2) there is nothing. My psychology inclines me to 2. Another thing, when we mention authors, we should do so out of respect not as a reliance on authority. This comes to another point, why is authority important? Even accepted in arguments because it establishes certainty. It meets the psychological demand of certainty. Reason, authority aims at establishing certainty, why can’t I establish certainty through ignorance?
An important consequence of the theory is that since we derive understanding from psychologically similar people, we should try to make all people similar to us. This is infact a very natural and reasonable psychological position, I call ‘the will to uniformity’. In fact, the will to uniformity is found in all rational beings. Women’s rights campaigner tries to educate men about the importance of women’s rights because the men did not have that opinion and are psychologically different. We are afraid of tigers because it is psychologically different, we psychologically speaking do not want to eat us, but the tiger do, therefore different psychology whom we are afraid. We would not be afraid if the tiger thinks like us. If I wanted to be eatten by tiger, then I am no longer afraid because I would be psychologically congruent to the tiger. All emotion arises out of observable differences for the rational individual. But that does not imply all individuals must be rational. In fact, if we apply our understanding of particulars to psychology, there are as much psychologies as people on earth, no one can claim rationaity without himself being declared insane.
Other thoughts
Music
It is meaningless to read notes and not being able to hear the music. The same piece of music produced by two musicians are different. Words being spoken in their originanity has tone, they are not simply signs. The same word uttered by different people have different meaning as expressed in confidence level of the speaker. The analysis of language in itself is doomed to failure because language is understood in relation to the receiver.
Concepts
Metaphysical concepts are all psychological manefestations.
Paradoxes
This sentence is false
The first thing one should do is to explain the meaning of the terms. What is ‘this sentence’ what is false
If ‘this sentence’ refers to ‘this sentence is false’ then what is ‘this sentence’? this is the example of China doll question.
Russell’s paradox
word game, what is member of itself? and not a member of itself? Can there be a set of all sets that is not a member of (itself), the key question is what is ‘itself’?
How DARE you presume such things!! Music preference has absolutely NOTHING to do with a person’s “religious sense” (whatever the hell that is). I personally am a deep lover of many Baroque-era compositions, including Bach’s, and to read you saying something like this is BLASPHEMY! If you truly believe all this, you seriously need to take some Orff up your ass…