I think that the main problem that I have with many schools of Philosophy is that I consider them egocentric. I think that this is such to an extent that one would almost have to be a narcissist in order to adhere to such schools of thought.
It is my opinion that the main problem, and perhaps one of the primary points of contention in Philosophy is how each of us views the world and/or reality. I think that the narcissistic or egocentric point of view is to attempt to analyze how the world relates to us rather than to analyze how we relate to the world.
For example, it is snowing in my portion of Ohio right now and has been for some number of hours. It will continue to snow according to scientific data, at least until tomorrow morning. I know that if I were to die this very minute, it would continue to snow. My relation to the snow right now is that whatever snow lands on the sidewalk I move to a place other than the sidewalk every half hour or so. The only difference that my death would cause within the next half hour (assuming there are no walk-ins at the hotel and no guests want anything) is that nobody would move the snow and the sidewalk would not be cleared.
The skeptic could rightfully ask, “How do you know this snow will continue after you have died if you are no longer there to experience the snow?” I suppose that I don’t know this for an absolute fact. However, I do know that many people have died during snowstorms and that their deaths did not seem to stop the snow.
It seems like an honest enough question, and the question itself comes from a logical enough position, but there is an assumption behind the question. The assumption is that my death could somehow make a difference to the snow. The assumption is ego-centric (at least, if I were to ask the same question with myself assuming I might influence the snow) and it is egocentric because it assumes that the snow only relates to me where I merely relate to the snow, in a small way.
Existentially speaking, the Nihilist would agree with my position that the snow is not going to stop merely because I die. However, such a person also believes that there is no purpose to life except for the process of living. In this sense, the Nihilist views each individual human as an entity that does not matter in the grand scheme of things. Of course, there are many historical examples that prove this to be inaccurate (at least, occasionally) but also this Nihilist is suggesting that the Universe relates to us in a certain way, but that relation is still not reciprocal because we are too insignificant to really relate to the Universe in any measurable way.
I think that even though one of the most basic and necessary assumptions in Philosophy is, “I exist,” in order to properly break something down from a Philosophical standpoint we must occasionally look at it from the standpoint of after death. If not, then we must look at the Universe as something that we relate to moreso than something that relates to us, and by doing so we will be able to accept that we are largely (but not entirely) powerless.
However, the after death standpoint might be beneficial when it comes to answering more general Philosophical questions as it may help us remove ourselves from whatever bias our experiences thus far have cause us to have.
Either way, if we wish to do Philosophy in any fashion that is going to be widely understood, appreciated and received by others, then we must depart from the notion that we are the focal point of the entire Universe, or that we are so necessarily powerless as to not have any affect on the Universe.
I do see that you are somehow against being egocentric and narcissistic, at least as far as “Philosophy” of certain kind is concerned.
I do understand from the last part of this post that you probably want to see “philosophy” to be something to be widely understood, appreciated and received by others, and this view conflicts with what you see as egocentric and/or narcissistic attitude/perspectives.
Now, I’m not sure that some (or many) individuals and schools did their “philosophy” (or simply thinking) to be widely understood, appreciated and received by others.
So, it might be normal that they thought and “philosophized” in manners that can be seen egocentric/narcissistic/eccentric/etc.
For example, I consider myself to be highly egocentric and I do not care much about wide spread acceptance, appreciation, etc, much.
I choose to express some perspectives in the way I want to and I interact with the people I want to.
And I’m pretty satisfied with what I’m doing.
I think you are allocating too much certainty in the likelihood and relative importance of continued snowing, in this example.
I mean, it’s much much more likely that you have no mean of knowing if it continued to snow, after all, after the death, and even more likely that you don’t care about it (if you can care, at all,) after your death.
Also, you never know with the weather with so much certainty and I can say it because I was a professional pilot and trained and experienced in actual/practical weather forecasting as it matters to the point of life and death for myself and passengers and innocent folks on the ground.
So, I think you are making the mistake of being too sure and placing too much importance on the matter (as you would even be able to care as soon as you are dead, unless you think you may have continued awareness after the death and you would care about the snow more than what happening right after the death).
And isn’t it egocentric to even think about the “your” death in relation to the weather?
I’m not sure about your perspective of connecting “World to me” view to egocentricity.
To me, it seems both “World to me” and “me to world” views are egocentric.
Why not “world in world” view when treating something worldly?
If you want to talk about “world and me” (or “me and world”) relation, somehow, what’s wrong with thinking about the possibility that snow ending because of your death (because the lack of your breathing caused some sort of “butterfly effect”, or because weather god rejoiced/saddened by your death, among other ideas, and so on)?
Sure, the likelihood of these can be considered pretty low, butt so as the probability of your death (although the probability of your death is much much more likely if we evaluate in traditional scientific method).
Again, I think that thinking about “YOUR relation to snow” is already egocentric enough.
I think there is a bit of contradiction in what you are saying because you deny the impact of your death upon the weather in one hand while encouraging other to take the perspective in which we (including our death) have some impact upon Universe, which is much larger in scale than local weather pattern.
Now, if you care about being widely understood, appreciated and received by others, I think it’s better to “present” your perspective in the way others can relate and understand at even emotional and sensory level, because the presentation done in not so common manner would certainly make it more difficult for other to understand your perspective, and because mere intellectual inputs may only influence the superficial part of human structure and thus any appreciation/understanding/acceptance might remain superficial, too.
As far as if it’s better to depart from the idea that we are the focal point, I don’t think it’s relevant.
I think the main focal point is the subject discussed, and if the point of interest is oneself, for some reason, it should remain as the focal point.
If it’s the snow fall, then even bringing in the the potential event of your death, as you’ve done, can be seen as already egocentric (applying your own way of seeing) and you shouldm’t have done it.
And I don’t agree nor understand why you think it’s necessary to assume “I exist”.
Personally, I don’t assume it and moreover I don’t assume that I understand what is “I” nor what is “existing”.
I don’t think assuming these is needed in thinking nor in “philosophy” of many types, unless you want to cater the audience who take these as granted and who would be offended and even harm you when you present any perspective that doesn’t endorse such assumption or you are subscribing and following certain school that cherishes certain presumption like these.
And lastly, it’s egocentric to think about the wide acceptance and appreciation of (your) philosophy, in first place.
I don’t think it’s “wrong” thing to do, though.
But mixing the anti-egocentric agenda/recommendation with egocentric desire (of wide range appreciation) may likely to cause contradictions on the way.
Yep. Most philosophers were rejected by a girl they liked or something, so now they use philosophy to justify their hate for the world - or atleast justify their superiority over other people.
Who is pragmatic enough to admit it?
The real tragedy is when a person takes it to this level, but then still can’t harvest any confidence or self-worth out of it.
I understand what you are saying. Simply put, I think what I am trying to get across is that I disagree with the, “I am involved in everything,” approach to Philosophy. I think that regarding most Philosophical issues, if we seek to better understand them and/or convey that understanding to others, we have to take ourselves out of the equation. Of course, this can not be true for every Philosophical issue as many of them are egocentric in their very nature, but to develop entire schools of thought around egocentricity with little to no regard for all of the relations that occur between everything except for ourselves, I view as an error.
That’s a fair point and I used a poor example. Let’s consider, then, a few scraps of paper on the floor. I intend to sweep the floor in my office as soon as I am done with all of the other things that I have to do. I ended up doing this forty-five minutes after posting last night. Now, had I died as I was composing that post, (provided nobody came in within forty-five minutes after my death) it is irrefutable that the floor would not have been swept and the scraps of paper would have remained for that forty-five minutes.
I think that many Philosophical approaches assume that the scraps of paper will always, “Care,” about you, but this is clearly not the case.
That’s a good point, but I am considering the audience here. Obviously, if I were trying to convey these ideas to a child, or to even someone not at all schooled in Philosophy, I would do so in a different way.
I agree with what you are saying here. My point is that I do not think that ourselves are always the focal point, but it seems as though some schools of thought would have us as the focal point.
You’re right. In many cases, “I exist,” is inapplicable as a starting point. Depending on the question on the table, though, it may be one of my initial assumptions.
I tend to disagree with your analysis of what I am saying here. When it comes to wide acceptance and appreciation, I’m not just talking about of my Philosophies, but of all non-egocentric Philosophies. In other words, I think that an individual, by him/her self, can only grow so far Philosophically without assistance from others. That’s why I think that if we are even going to seek answers it must be a collaborative effort requiring wide-acceptance and mutual understanding.
Is it really criticism of an egocentrism in philosophy, or of philosophers, if the form of that criticism itself is of an implicitly egocentric type? It seems the real criticism of an ‘egocentrism’ in philosophy would be to examine where/how this form leaves one vulnerable to errors and fallacies and other such cases of mistaken or inaccurate conclusions.
If philosophy is a ‘love of wisdom’ then the proper criticism of a philosophy or philosopher is whether or not their “wisdom” is inaccurate or flawed in some manner – not what their personal motives are for entering or using philosophy. One might love wisdom while using it secondarily as a shield against reality - or one might love wisdom because it is such a shield, but this in no way belies the fact that one does indeed love wisdom.
This is something that could be examined, and at length. I don’t know that it necessarily makes one more prone to errors or fallacies as what it effectively does is limit such a person’s Philosophical reach, but I think that is where the criticism is valid. I think that in a world or reality that we view strictly from an egocentric standpoint, we cannot successfully see the, “Bigger picture,” of things which is how all things not relating directly to us (or, not doing so at that time) relate to all other things not relating directly to us.
I guess that’s my fundamental argument about a strictly egocentric Philosophy. It is true that there is always some external thing relating in some way to us directly at every point in time, but it is not true that we are directly relating to every external thing directly at every point in time in some way, yet that seems to be what some egocentric Philosophies propose.
This is especially the case for a Philosopher who wants to assume contrary to, or at the very least question, the existence of something that he is not experiencing in the here and now. Basically, what that Philosopher is suggesting is that he must be involved, directly, in whatever is going on in the external world, or it may not exist. Of course, this is not a point of view that can necessarily be proven absolutely wrong, as it is possible that things only exist provided the, “I,” is experiencing them, but common sense and experience dictate otherwise as we look at things changing from one point to another in our absence.
If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound if nobody is there to hear it? The egocentrist would answer no, in my opinion. I would answer yes.
Here’s the problem, The Last Man, an individual’s personal motives for entering Philosophy will necessarily create a bias of some kind which will have an influence on whatever, “Wisdom,” they acquire.
Secondly, I don’t think wisdom is ever a shield against reality, at least not true wisdom. In my opinion, the more an individual knows/understands about reality, the more wise that person is. What could possibly matter more than reality?
Where philosophy is concerned properly with seeing the larger picture, yes, egocentrism is indeed a limitation. But not all of philosophy does or ought concern itself with the larger picture – the microcosm, microscopic, molecular is always of philosophical relevance, and insofar as these operate with their own rules and logics of dimension then a primarily egocentric approach can not, necessarily, be seen as engendering one to fallacy or error.
Of course as soon as one wishes to relate this niche to anything beyond itself, error must abound and multiply ad infinitum.
My view of egocentric philosophy is that the focus is on the central subject itself, a certain closed field of operations that excludes all other forms not falling within this domain. Perhaps this egocentrism also posits the direct relatability of all possible externals to itself, but this would not be a necessary prerequisite for an egocentric philosophy. A properly egocentric philosophy might merely exclude all non-centered approaches, methods, conclusions – it might emphasize the concrete at the expense of the abstract, the internal at the expense of the external, but I do not think this need always come at the additional price of a totalizing of relations or of a psychological narcissistic inflation, universalization of the subject or an absolute anthropomorphism. These would seem possible, perhaps even in some cases likely outcomes of most egocentric approaches, but they certainly are not necessary ones.
On the contrary, experience dictates that “things exist” only when we are experiencing them, because none of us has ever known a thing to exist which we have not had experience with. We cannot experience a thing without, ahem, experiencing a thing – thus the circularity of the human subjective perspective. So to assume that “thing exist” after we are finished or prior to our experiencing them is a wholly unjustified assumption, or at the least, one not based in any way upon personal experience (in fact this assumption itself must come from an egocentric position which assumes the equal existence of other subjects and their experiencing in the same manner as oneself, ie. a psychological narcissistic projection and appropriation of the other into oneself and one’s own sphere of perception and psyche).
I dont think the egocentric need have a definite answer to this. I do not see why the egocentric would not, and perhaps sometimes necessarily so, claim the opposite of this.
But then again perhaps we conceive of egocentrism differently. If it consists of the positing of the subject itself into all external relations then, where the subject is absent, these relations must seem insubstantial or nonexistent or, at the least, inconsequential. But is it also not egocentric to posit one’s ‘yes’ within any unknown context where one admittedly has no personal experience of which to speak? How can one assume, let alone conclude the existence of any outcome that one has no experience with as a subject and not be operating with an implied or assumed egocentrism, one that infers one’s own centrality of speculation and thought is capable of acertaining to any conclusion of the relations of objects to each other, no matter how distant or unknown these objects in fact are?
But a motive always exists, and so a bias always exists. One needs to examine the bias itself, therefore, to determine the error therein – it is insufficient to declare “There is a bias!” and thus use this fact alone to exclude an entire form itself without additional specific knowledge of that form and its relation to “wisdom”.
This is a wholly egocentric viewpoint. Does that not bother you, considering how fundamentally-placed this assumption is within your entire philosophic perspective?
After reading your replies to others, I think you may come across differently than you mean to here. Are you suggesting that it is necessary to refrain from considering “Me” as the focal point of the universe, or refrain from considering “humanity” as the focal point? In other words, are you questioning personal or general egocentrism?
I’m saying that with respect to reality, there isn’t always a focal point. I do believe that many Philosophical questions are best approached by taking, “I,” into account, to wit, there are some Philosophical questions where to do so is absolutely necessary. To answer a question adequately, or to even begin attempting an answer necessitates a correct approach to the question and I am simply saying that the egocentric approach is not always going to be the correct approach. Also, the non-egocentric approach will not always be correct either.
I agree with everything that you have said. There are certainly some questions where an egocentric approach is necessary, especially when being asked about one’s own beliefs or something that is directly related to one.
I agree that they are not necessary outcomes, but agree also that they are likely in many cases. The point is that there are certain times for an egocentric approach and other times where it is not applicable. The problem lies in the fact that there are some Philosophical schools of thought where the egocentric approach is the only approach taken and some people that only adhere to the ways of that school, or schools.
There are some questions that will then have applicability to an egocentric approach and should be answered that way and some questions that should not be answered that way. In my opinion, they should not, I mean.
For example, there is a HUGE difference between the following questions:
“Is there a God?”
“Do you think there is a God?”
The latter question demands that whatever experiences one may/may not have had with God be taken into consideration. If not so much that, it demands that the answer be a matter of conviction, belief or disbelief.
Those same things could be applied to the former question, but I don’t think they should be. The same question could exist and have the same meaning without the, “I,” being in any way involved. These two questions are not the same. I personally think that the best approach to the former question is to take whatever pre-conceived notions of God one may have, and whatever experiences one may have or have not had with God completely out of the scenario and only accept external evidence and external relations in attempting to come to a conclusion.
In other words, there is either going to be a God or not be a God whether or not the, “I,” is in anyway involved. It then becomes the case that the, “I,” is not pertinent to the question, so if you consider the, “I,” in the question you are putting something in the question that doesn’t need to be there and making it even more complicated than it already is. For the second question, the, “I,” must be considered, or the question itself makes no sense.
That’s a fair argument, and as I have stated, logic also supports the opposing position as you have just pointed out. However, in driving from Ohio to Kansas City one time, I stopped and had dinner at a little place in Greenup, Illinois. I can tell you that I had no empirical experience in any way, shape, or form with Greenup prior to coming to the sign that says, “Greenup, Next Exit.”
What I’m getting at is this Greenup had a hotel, a few little restaurants, and a couple of gas stations. It was a pretty small place, but in my limited experience of building things I do not think that this whole town could have been built in the time it took me to leave Ohio and arrive where Greenup is, just because I was heading there. There were places, people and things in the town that predated me, and certainly predated any experience I had with the town.
Prior to being there, I agree that I would not have assumed that there was specifically a, “Greenup, IL,” without having ever experienced it anyway. However, I have run into so many things that have necessarily predated me or my experience of those things that I do assume and will continue to assume that there are things out there that exist independently of me having ever experienced them.
You know, Chile had that big earthquake. I heard about that, but I assume that there are some fallen buildings or houses in Chile now, though I have never (that I recall) seen any pictures or video of Chile to know absolutely that there were ever buildings or houses there to begin with.
That’s exactly what I mean. If not that, then assuming that these other things are somehow reliant on the, “I,” in order to be.
You do make a great argument with me stating that my answer is, “Yes,” and how that position can be viewed as egocentric. While I agree that the position could be viewed as egocentric, though, I think that any answer here would be somewhat egocentric, but mine is the least egocentric. I think that the, “No,” answer is basically to state, “I am not there, so it did not make a sound,” while the yes answer states, “It makes a sound, it doesn’t matter whether or not I am there to hear it.”
Either answer, when made definitively implies certainty, which in itself is egocentric though, so I agree to that much.
That’s an excellent point, I also believe that there is a motive and/or agenda for everything that we say/do/think, I may have to take some time to try to determine what my motive is for wanting to take the, “I,” out of many questions. Unless you have a starting point for me, in which event I’d be most interested to hear it.
In the meantime, I think that the purely egocentric approach would say, “I am reality, and that is it,” whereas the mostly egocentric approach would state, “I and everything that I experinece at the time I am experiencing it is reality.” I think that you will definitely find some reality (and thereby gain some wisdom) using purely the egocentric approach. I am not declaring the approach entirely useless, but I also believe that some questions are better answered with the, “I,” taken out of consideration as it opens us up to a better understanding of more of reality, which thereby results in more wisdom.
No, some viewpoints are going to be egocentric. I already know that I am not going to be able to wholly remove the, “I,” from every single Philosophical question, but it is a worthy endeavor to strive for, in my opinion. I am also definitely not going to be able to remove the, “I,” from my conclusions, because my conclusions necessarily have to do with me and are going to be egocentric. I’m talking about as much removal of the, “I,” as possible in the process of coming to an answer to the question, but not in the answer itself.
I wanted to try to use an example with values to attempt to illustrate what I mean here.
Let’s say that answering any question is like attempting to solve an Algebra problem. I understand that this would necessitate that everything be quantifiable and everything is not quantifiable (at least not in every way) but work with me here.
Let’s posit that the value of oneself is, “Y,” I was going to use the last letter of the alphabet, but I figured Faust might be reading this thread, so it’s y.
Anyway we have two problems:
15 * (x - 97 / 2) = 28 + y
15 * (x - 97 / 2) = 28 + a
The goal in the first problem is to try to determine how x and y relate to one another, the goal in the second problem is to try to determine how x and a relate to one another.
(Problem One)
15 * (x - 48.5) = 28 + y
15x - 727.5 = 28 + y
15x - 755.5 = y
or
x = y/15 + 50.366
Now we know how x relates to y and how why relates to x. In other words, if we are, “Y,” then we know how we relate to x.
If we attempt to do the second problem, it will be the exact same except the letter a replaces the letter y, but the result is the same in terms of how a relates to x.
That’s the first possible way to do it, and that makes the most sense.
The second way to do it is to use the value we came up with for x already, which is y/15 +50.366 and replace the letter x in the problem with x’s relation to y. This is what the egocentrist does, he wants to make sure that he is somehow incorporated into every problem. In this case, it will work (it makes the problem more difficult) but it will work provided the relation of x and y is constant:
15 * (y/15 + 50.366 - 97/2) = 28 + a
15 * (y/15 + 50.366 - 48.5) = 28 + a
15 * (y/15 + 1.866) = 28 + a
y + 28 = 28 + a
y = a
or
a = y
Because the relation between x and y is constant, we can use this relation to incorporate y into the problem and see how y relates to a. Of course, there is no reason to do this because the question is not how y relates to a but rather how x relates to a.
Even worse is if the relation between x and y is a non-constant (and in a reality outside of math, relations are typically non-constant) where even if we absolutely KNEW at one time how x related to y, incorporating that relation into the problem would solve nothing because the relationship by now would have changed necessitating a new problem for x and y. Of course, by the time that problem was solved a new problem would again be needed and so on and so forth ad infinitum…
The point is that we are lucky to know for sure how any two things relate to each other at any specific point in time, so by deliberately placing ourselves into a problem in which we do not belong we are merely adding to the confusion and unliklihood of realizing an answer.
I am still unsure what you mean by “egocentric” and “non-egocentric.” I understand that egocentric philosophies in your view place specific emphasis on the subject and arrange the world in orbit around this central figure. My question is what kind of philosophy can avoid this configuration and still hope to appropriate knowledge? Our knowledge is all with regard to things “in the world,” and the world only makes sense when we consider the world as arranged around the subject. That is, the subject is the abiding condition of the world and in its absence the world ceases to exist as well, and all we are left with is some vague realm of indistinction like the Dao (note that I don’t mean that things themselves disappear when the subject does, but that the world as a particular interpretation of things that man undertakes ceases).
Of course, many would argue that this is wisdom, and as such this would achieve just what you hope, but I wonder whether this sense of wisdom corresponds with your own. The type of wisdom we are talking about here would be nebulous and inarticulate and would fail to contribute to the already available “stock” of wisdom that is available to us now, particularly in the form of scientific knowledge. In fact, this type of wisdom would directly undermine scientific knowledge because it approaches things holistically while science approaches them analytically. However, this situation doesn’t preclude the possibility of reaching some sort of middle ground where, instead of investing ourselves in a wholly egocentric or non-egocentric approach, we utilize varying gradients within this spectrum according to the nature of the problem addressed. Your use of the phrases “more” or “less” egocentric in regard to methods seems to allude to this possibility.
So would it be fair to say that some problems require an analytic approach while others require a more holistic approach? Holisms seems implicit when you talk about more “non-egocentric” methods of inquiry. If we are to follow this line, then perhaps more egocentric methods would be appropriate for the study of inanimate things (physics, for example) while reserving non-egocentric methods for things studied in the life sciences and psychology. I wonder if this is the sort of thing you have in mind.
Everything that you said here is correct, in my opinion. What I am suggesting here is that there is a difference between knowledge, wisdom and assumption. Knowledge, in its very nature, is egocentric because you cannot know a certain thing without knowing that certain thing. Assumptions will sometimes prove valid and sometimes they will prove invalid, my primary argument here being that the egocentric approach is not always the best approach when trying to find an assumption, but sometimes it still is. It just depends on the question.
If it is a question involving the, “I,” then of course to come to a conclusion (whether that conclusion be knowledge or assumption) necessarily requires taking the, “I,” into consideration. If the question itself does not directly involve the, “I,” though, then putting the, “I,” in the question where it does not belong can lead to a false assumption.
When it comes to wisdom that is not knowledge, I think that wisdom that is not knowledge could be defined as correct asasumptions. Since they are not knowledge, though, we do not know for sure that the assumptions are correct, but if they are, then there is wisdom. The other part of wisdom, of course, being actual knowledge.
We’ll probably have occasional false assumptions anyway, which is fine because when the assumptions are proven false then the proof against the assumption becomes knowledge. I just think that knowing when to adopt the egocentric approach and when to avoid it (to whatever extent possible) will help us limit how many false assumptions we make.
And again, there is nothing wrong with the purely egocentric approach in seeking actual, empirical, knowledge, just that there occasionally is when trying to form an assumption.
I consider wisdom two-fold, the first part of it is actual knowledge and the second part is correct assumptions that have not yet proven to be knowledge. The question that may follow is:
If we do not know whether or not the assumption is correct, how can we know for sure that the assumption is wise?
We can’t, but one thing we do know is that some assumptions have become knowledge and some assumptions have been proven incorrect, a condition by which knowledge is still derived.
I think that life sciences and psychology are strong examples that apply to what I am relating here, but there are many other examples. In fact, the study of inanimate things relies on empirical evidence which is definitely an egocentric approach, though correct in this case. That is if we are searching for knowledge, if we are looking for just an assumption, you could go either way depending on the question and whether or not it (the question) actually relates directly to us as individuals.
This is interesting because what you are suggesting is that a methodology based exclusively on egocentric approaches to things inhibits our capacity to make assumptions about those things, which, as the primary source of knowledge, then impedes the advance of knowledge, despite the fact that knowledge is innately egocentric. In other words, non-egocentrism is a sort of preliminary effort the product of which culminates in the work of egocentric methods. Wisdom means that both of these inhere in a two-fold approach to the world.
So then you agree that empirical methods are the only way to test assumption and acquire knowledge? Obviously knowledge has no inherent superiority over correct assumption simply because it is determined to be knowledge if you can give such priority to the question:
It seems that in your view our lives hinge on correct assumption as much as they do knowledge, perhaps more so because knowledge is not really a problem. So far you’ve stated that knowledge is empirical in character. What is assumption, beyond as a precursor to knowledge?
You can’t assume something if you have no knowledge of that something. Actually you do not know anything about that something, about life, other than what you have been told, the knowledge that has been given. Knowledge is the basis of assumption. The constant utilization of knowledge to give continuity to your experiencing structure is you. What else is in you other than that? How else can you maintain the continuity of the self? Since it stands to reason that false knowledge leads to false assumptions, it’s incumbent upon yourself to question the knowledge that has been handed down to you since it is not from you. Careful scrutiny must be applied.
The reality of the situation is such that questioning the cyclic process will cast you into such a state of disillusionment that you refuse to think the cyclic process is invalid. That is what you are. You are not different that that: knowledge creates the assumption behind your experience; in turn, assumption and it’s companion, experience, strengthens the knowledge. Questioning that would put an end to yourself as you have come to know and understand yourself.
That’s exactly right. I’m advocating a non-egotistical approach in coming to assumptions because it increases the liklihood of the assumption being correct and decreases the liklihood of the assumption being dead wrong.
That’s another reason that I used that Algebra example, things are assumed in Algebra, that the variables actually can be related to each other, for example.
So, non-egocentrism produces these assumptions, but if you want to have empirical knowledge then you need to approach it in an egocentric way. The benefit now is that you know exactly what it is you are approaching, you have a better idea what could probably be and what probably isn’t. At this point, you can directly apply your own experiments, and in some cases yourself, to what is now the new question and hope to achieve knowledge in coming to an answer.
Or, you will prove your assumption wrong, but will have achieved knowledge in knowing whatever proof it is that disproves the assumption.
Or, you will do neither, and then may well decide not to assume anything as it relates to the subject matter.
It has superiority in the sense that you can be confident with knowledge. You can’t be 100% confident in an assumption without knowing for sure whether the assumption is correct.
Our lives to not really hinge on correct assumption, because you can have empirical knowledge of something without having ever assumed anything. In fact, this is the course I suggest be taken for someone that wants to operate strictly in an egocentric fashion.
Assumption may be more than two things other than a precursor to knowledge, but for now I am going to say that it is two things.
1.) Assumption is the accepting of a positive (or negative) without knowing whether it is a positive or negative. Usually for a specific purpose.
2.) Assumption answers one question and simultaneously asks another. It answers the non-empirical question with a possiblity, and then asks for the person in question to now empirically prove it.
By the way, knowledge is not a problem, but to come to knowledge requires (sometimes) that you solve a problem.
Of course, this was not always accepted as the Truth, and was once thought of as a ridiculous and heretical theory.
Many years ago, strictly taking the egocentrical approach and applying our Empirical observations, “I walk across the Earth, not around it,” it was actually considered common sense and knowledge that the Earth was flat.
But, who had ever walked or sailed to the, “End of the World?” Nobody did. With the egocentrical approach all that was really being determined was, “I walk across this plain,” or, “I sail across this ocean,” but without having experienced the end of the Earth, it was, of course, merely an assumption.
There would be some warning signs, “Danger, End of Earth, Continue at Own Risk,” or, “Drop Into Oblivion, One Mile.”
The only possible way the Earth could be flat is if it were infinite, and even if the Earth was believed to be infinite how would we ever be able to prove it?
Then a man came along and decided to take his experience of walking, “Across the Earth,” out of the equation. He non-egocentrically determined that because of the law of gravity, the Earth must be spherical.
It is true that he had Empirical evidence of the apple falling to the ground, but took the non-egocentrical approach and determined that he, himself, had nothing to do with the apple falling to the ground. He did not even need to be there for the apple to fall to the ground; the apple would have fallen anyway. He asked the question, “Why did the apple fall to the ground?” He related three things, the apple, the ground and the space in between the apple and the ground. He did not consider his relation to the apple, ground, or whatever in-between in doing this.
He assumed that the Earth was round and it was later proven, but regardless of what stance any person may have had on it we all gained knowledge.
Those who assumed the Earth was round had their assumption validated and turned into knowledge.
Those who assumed the Earth was flat (considering only their relation to the Earth) were proven wrong, but also gained knowledge via this proof.
Now, the Earth is round and this is something we know.
Can we use words without indulging in abstract concepts. I say we can. But I do not, at the same time, mean that it is a non-verbal conceptualization. There is no such thing as non-verbal conceptualization at all. The methods of thought prevent understanding the limitations of thought as a means to directly experience life and its movements.
But, how can one understand the limitations of thought? Naturally, the only instrument we have is the instrument of thought. But what is thought? I can give you a lot of definitions, and you know a lot of definitions about thought. I can say that thought is just matter; thought is vibration; and we are all functioning in this sphere of thought. And we pick up these thoughts because this human organism is an electro-magnetic field. And this electro-magnetic field is the product of culture. In order to be in your natural state of direct experience, all that man has thought and felt before you must be swept aside and must be brushed aside. And that means the culture in which you are brought up must go down the drain or out of the window. Is it possible? It is possible. But, at the same time, it is so difficult, because we’re each the product of that culture and you are that. You are not different from that. You cannot separate yourself from that culture. And yet, this culture is the stumbling block for us to directly experience.
