3. Change as Self-evident
We start from change because change is a primary postulate that is self-evident. It needs no proof. It cannot be denied nor proved. It is a primary datum of consciousness. Experience tells us that we see things that change, things that are subject to change.
Now, some changes can be bodily. These changes can be the subject matter of science. Hence, in science we speak of physical or chemical change. The great topic of motion can be under physical change. Some changes that happen, however, are immaterial. We speak of changing our mind over something. Here, we are referring to a mental change.
There are philosophers – epistemologists – who deny the unquestionable truth or self-evidence of postulates that philosophy have held dear for thousands of years. The result of course is catastrophic. We hear of “proving the existence of the door”. We hear of the BIV (Brain in Vat) dilemma. But, to deny reality, and then, try to prove it, would be futile. Hence, these philosophers not only deny self-evidence, but the certainty of the perception of the existence of anything at all.
To answer their objections, I would like to recount a true story with my daughter Andrea.
After reading many modern articles in Epistemology and Theory of Knowledge, I tried to put the skeptic objections with my daughter. The following dialogue ensued:
George (holding his palm out): What do you see?
Andrea (looks at her daddy): What?
George (continues holding his palm out): What do you see?
Andrea: I see your hand.
George: No. There is no hand.
Andrea: There is your hand.
George: No. There is no hand.
Andrea: Can’t you see it? (Touches the hand of her father. Pokes at it) This is YOUR hand!
George: There is no hand. Prove it. Prove that there is a hand.
Andrea: Can’t you see? (Looks a little troubled) THIS IS YOUR HAND! (Holds the hand violently)
George: There is no hand.
Andrea: Here, feel it! (Takes the hand and slaps it to the face of her father. Now, that slap was HARD)
George: Why did you do that? (Looks angry)
Andrea: See? There is a hand.
George: Now, I am in pain. (Smiles)
Andrea: There is no pain. Can you show me? (Laughs)
Now, that ended my foolishness with the BIV Theory. Point of story: If we deny the certainty of what the senses can perceive, we deny the truth in every proposition that is ever uttered, since it is supposed to be based on the fundamental datum of experience. Now, if the proposition “We cannot be certain about everything” is true, then, the proposition itself cannot be held as certain, because it says so. Hence, we can reduce it to “It cannot be held as certain that we cannot be certain about anything”. The result is a cancellation of the double negative, and we have the contrary proposition.
***Hence, nothing prevents us from saying that the things that are given to us in experience are subjects of change. Nothing prevents us from saying that change is something that is self-evident, which cannot be denied nor proven.
Parmenides questioned change. He said,
Being cannot be non-being
But, being, for it to be changed, must be reduced to non-being.
Therefore, there is no change.
Hence, he maintained that change is something that is a product of the mind’s illusion.
Is change merely an illusion? Let us continue with the answer of Heraclitus.
2. On the Starting Point of the Philosophy of the One
The problem is not whether to begin with experience but where to begin from the wide array of choices.
We can begin with the individuality of existents, or with their plurality. We can consider their operations or their activities. For modern science, we can focus on either structure or composition.
But wherever we choose to start, we must never forget that the fundamental datum of experience should be the basis of all knowledge. This started with the Greek philosophers (Plato and Aristotle), gradually lost by the time of Descartes – mathematician that he was – and then, reinstalled when Locke came. After Locke, Hume retorts while science was having the time of its life with Newton and the others. Now, of course, Kant, in order to dispel Hume’s skepticism employed a priori reasoning, which may have been friendlier to dogma and orthodox “truths”, but later yielded to idealism. Kant wrote the preface of the Matrix trilogy. Sartre and the existentialists went on with chapter one.
For our part, we will start with the analysis on the problem of change, as how classical philosophy started.
We must start in something
We must start in something.
I would like to start with the understanding that somehow, somewhere in the complexity of thoughts and experiences of every human being is a truth held dear. That no amount of philosophizing and intellectual, but utterly meaningless by the way, jargon can disprove. Because if we start with a skeptical mind, in the “I don’t believe in physics” crap and “prove to me that you exist” nonsense, we end up just trying to be subtle and all. If Will Durant is alive, he would castigate everyone and probably say that is “subtlety and not wisdom”. Because Philosophy is suppose to be a love for wisdom. Rather, we end up hearing/reading nonsensical lines from well-meaning (and well-educated at that!) people who are behaving like carabaos in the internet, raising points that have been already duped and taken cared in the Middle Ages. Give me something new to talk about. Because we are merely copying the anarchism and sophism of the old bunch of people that do not exist anymore – in thought, name or reference path. These same people have long been trounced and still we take up what we read from them, come up with a book, advertise like hell, and sell millions and gazillions over thoughts that will never last more than a lifetime, I tell you.
We have to start laying down something. What are we sure of? Not physics, since some ignorant bastard may tell us where we came up with the idea of quarks and fundamental particles. We cannot start from God – sorry St. Thomas Aquinas – because that idea is debatable. We cannot start from the subtle but incongrous “that greater than which nothing can be thought of”. Even if we will be killed by a host of puritans and all. Sorry, but that is not philosophy.
Descartes’ idea? Let us see. For starters, it wasn’t original. St. Augustine already came with a better, “I doubt, therefore I am” back in the 5th century. That one is for the skeptics. I should have posted that reply from old Augustine. Imagine telling me to prove myself. Hume was more kind.
If we will start with the idea of our own thought, what can we achieve? Can we accept it as a starting point? What if someone say “Hey, what if your thought is not correct?” Or,let us say that this child believes that this dumb ass is his father. You thought otherwise. And a host of other people too, of course. Where will reality be based? It will sound like probability to me and not certainty. Because in the whole world, perhaps – just perhaps – 2 or 3 will believe in various degrees – that such an ass is the boy’s father. And let us say the other people don’t. That will mean either reality is something that is believed by many, perhaps raise up democracy as a rule. Philosophy, a democracy. What is worse than this?
There are also people who do not know if their thought is unerring or not. Further, most people believe in God. Can we conclude now that there is God? What if he is just a “concept by which we measure our pain”? (John Lennon). Also, “God” as a term is not believed in the same way by all people. Moslems believe it to be Allah. Christians, the One Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Our Iglesia ni Cristo brothers (and sisters, of course – I hate this equality thing, makes me always write more – I am a feminist by the way, don’t get me wrong), the Father alone. A Buddhist will believe he is Brahma, or someone, the World Soul, or elan vital. Or the great Mathematician who designed the cosmos in measure and order. Or the unhappy, uncaring and unwhatever Aristotelian mechanical God (like the physical science God, perhaps). Hence, if we cannot be sure what this term “God” means, it is tantamount to saying that the world does not know it not believe it in the same way. Hence, thought might be a good starter for some existentialists like Heidegger, but it is not a good start for me.
For me, since I am a mathematician – but I don’t necessarily believe Russell, Newton, Leibniz outside Calculus, Physics and whatever Russell stands for, I must start with something that cannot be doubted. Something that is clear and distinct and “proving” is unnecessarily insane. We must start with a postulate that is accepted by all.
But what is this postulate?
Whether we should believe at all?
The first question then is whether we should believe at all. What is the reason for your believing? Is it because it was told by your teachers? Is it because this same faith was accepted as certain by your forefathers? Could it be that they too were mistaken? Why do we believe? Is it because we cannot sleep well at night? Is it because we find no purpose in humanity per se, that we have to go beyond humanity? Is humanity in itself, not lofty as an ideal, that we should not rest on it, but rather proceed to things that cannot be proved, but are held only by faith? But isn’t it something risky to accept a life of calumny and persecution, to suffer excruciating pains unto an ignoble death for something that is not reasonable in the first place? On the other hand, isn’t it grossly irresponsible to march on to innumerable wars and hostilities against people marching on for the same gross irresponsibilities, for something not reasonable in the first place?
Religion has – beyond lifting humanity from barbarism – put man against man the most number of times, not considering the degree of violence. In the end, religion in its realistic sense, has lifted humanity from barbarism towards more barbarism. Religion, like it or not, divided humanity. It did not help in unifying the world. According to the Evangelists (Matthew 10:34ff, Luke 12:49ff) and the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas (16), Jesus said “I did not come to bring peace but a sword…do you think I came to bring peace…? Nay, but rather, division…”
Whoever read those words must’ve translated it to mean that religion will cut to the heart of humanity. Or cause to bring humanity against its own. Much like the drawing of line in Exodus (32:25ff). But, if God causes that division among men, how then can we be saved? How then can we have a good sense of reasoning?
One True God (Joshua 24) causes the Israelites to drive the Canaanites from their homes for the sake of his chosen people, the Israelites. Another True God (John 17:3) wants the whole world to be saved, including the Gentiles (Acts 9). Consider that, and the followings words from the Qu’ran, supposedly from the One True Prophet of the One True God:
- O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. [al-Ma’idah 5:51.11]
- Regarding infidels (unbelievers), they are the Muslim’s “inveterate enemies” (Sura 4:101).
- “Fight them until Islam reigns supreme” (Sura 2:193).
Again, contrast those words from the ironic “Deus caritas est” (God is love). If those abovementioned words are words of love, I do not know what words of hate are. If he is considered the creator of the world, how dare he drive away the people from their homes just for his favorite nation! How dare he speak of another people as inveterate enemies! How dare he speak of so many inconsistencies!
What we have now are the fragments of lost ideologies, torn by wars and persecution. Wherefore, Marx assigned the word “opium” to religion.
The opium lost its sting in Europe after the wars and “enlightenment” (ironic that enlightenment should be in the same statement as the European wars, but it’s the real story). America still thinks it is a believer. While passing a law not to teach creationism in schools.
The world does not believe in God anymore. It wishes to but it does not.
It is the opium of the masses then. It is the opium of the poor and suffering masses now. I dare not disturb their high, however lucid they think their hallucinations are.
An unexamined life is not liveable
An unexamined life is not liveable. So goes Socrates, the mouthpiece of Plato, twenty-four hundred years ago. That examination is a sort of freedom. Men are free to question his beliefs, criticize the state. Unlike the barbarians who accepted everything taught by their customs and traditions, the Greeks dared to question even those powers that can send them to jail, or to death. This dare to question is a fundamental right, an expression of one’s own freedom.
When one examines his/her belief, he is faced with so many obstacles. First, there are family members who insist on the “right” behavior and thought. In the Filipino family system, one is not even free to think contrary to the belief system of a family. Unless of course you want to be an outcast. And man by nature is a social being. A man without family is worse than a pauper.
I remember the first time I went against the belief system of my own family. I was merely a boy – fifteen years old, not even in college. Arguing against democracy, based on what I conceived then as a better alternative – Christian Socialism, I set myself against the “better judgment” of my parents. Because of the connotation of socialism as a first step to communism, they vehemently rejected my thoughts, and accused me of reading more books than I can handle. My mother said, almost Baconian, “Little learning…is a dangerous thing”. My father did better: “Tell me if you will end up a communist, so we can stop thinking of sending you to college”. That day, I ended up skipping my dinner. But deep inside, I felt good. I stood up for what I think was correct. Ask me now if I still favor Christian Socialism, I will answer – “I still think that Democracy sucks big time”.
When you genuinely question your beliefs, there is much pain and anxiety. As the film Matrix says, “Ignorance is bliss”. As in the Cave analogy, one blissfully assumes that the world is dark and dreary. Light is a Utopian commodity. When one sees through a small hole, and perceives what no one has thought of, there is anxiety and pain. How deep is the rabbit-hole? What if in the end, there is no peace, and everything is just an illusion? What if we find no meaning and purpose in life? What if in the end, we realize that life leads to nothingness, and matter is all there is? Chaotic as that may entail, at least, we will find more meaning in the present moment. At least, we will have deeper respect for plant and animal life. At least, we will end up believing that man, far from being the most important entity in the physical cosmos, is merely a part of it, and that the totality is what is important. It is a humbling experience, but it will be an honest appreciation.
In the Joyful Science, Nietzsche painted a pathetic picture of a man searching for God. In turn, I shout “I seek truth! It is truth I seek”. I hope that the men from the bar will not ridicule me and say that the truth is dead. Indeed, if the statement is true then it will be untrue. It is self-contradictory to say that the truth is dead, because it will manifestly state that there is truth in the statement that the true is not-existent. But then, isn’t it the same as saying that the statement is itself not true?
It is truth then that I seek. And if in the end, the theologians will be smiling that the map revealed to them specifically stated – thousands of years ago – that truth came and men crucified him, and that as Augustine said, all truths are true because of that one truth, at least a sigh of relief will escape my lips. Truth is not freely given, but must be sought at a great cost.
I refuse to accept as certain everything given to me by my predecessors. For one, I am fed up with their debates and inconsistencies. I refuse to believe everything on the ground of assumption from arguments not evidenced by experience or experimentation. I will always put to mind that the theory of Aristotle on falling bodies stood for almost two thousand years unchallenged. I am not afraid to go against Aquinas, Newton, or even Einstein because I am standing on their shoulders.
And I am not afraid to be mistaken. Because I know that the next generation, starting from Andrea, shall forgive my ignorance, and correct my mistakes and those of my age.
It is clear that I am not seeking to put reasons to the so-called articles of faith. In the end, perchance, we could get to the question of reasonableness on the revered doctrines of faith. But, unless we get to the reasonableness of the very act of believing, we are merely babbling like babies. It is then my desire to verify the truth of whether there is reasonableness at all in believing.
The purpose of this literature
Literature may be considered an art form. Every art form comes from the longing of man to express his deepest self, which sometimes, he himself doesn’t understand.
Literary art belongs to an age, and it will be the height of idiocy to apply the writings of Moses or Homer a hundred percent to an age that has a wider perspective of the cosmos. Sometimes though, they amuse you in that things somehow remain the same despite the discovery of quarks and dark matter, for example.
When one reads Genesis for example, he reads the “order” of multiplication of species. One priest quotes those words now to argue against contraception or abortion. Yes, without considering that those words were uttered when there were supposedly a handful of people. And yes, now with almost 9 billion people on earth. It is utterly foolish and simplistic to reason from those words written almost 4,000 years ago, applying them in full force.
This is the 21st century. Eight centuries ago, Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) wrote his Summa Theologica (1265-1274), crowning Aristotelian Metaphysics to its encyclopedic completion. Eight centuries before that, Augustine (354-430) wrote several writings for the faith, particularly Confessions (397-98), City of God (426), and Christian Doctrine (397-426). A further eight centuries before Augustine, Socrates died (399 BC), Plato founded his Academy (about 385 BC), and Aristotle wrote Metaphysics (350 BC).
Aquinas was dubbed as the most learned of the saints, and the most saintly of the learned. Indeed, he compiled all available science of his day, in the service of his faith. In the Middle Ages, only two books are put side by side at the Tabernacle – the Scriptures and his Summa.
But, Aquinas did not know the arguments of Duns Scotus and William of Ockam. He did not see the Reformation, nor the Enlightenment. He did know the ontological resurrection in Descartes, the sharp tongue of Voltaire, the insistence of Schopenhauer on the essence of the will, and Spinoza’s Substance, Attribute, and Mode. He did not see the fall of reason, starting with the Enquiry, and ending with the Critique.
Alas, he did not know Sartre, and the Brain-in-Vat arguments.
And yet, we still hold on to the reasoning employed by Aristotle and Plato 24 centuries ago.
All because we cannot put reasons to the needs of our heart. One such need is to be able to rest with a good night sleep believing that our soul survives the dissolution of our body, and shall rest in the pearly gates of our air-conditioned heaven, shamayim, Paradise, Olympus, or Elyssian Fields.
This is my letter, my literature to my clan forever. First, it is my letter to my own self. In order to get some good sleep maybe. Or rest with the peace of my eternity – knowing that I did not blindly participate in the legends of the ages, of Santa Claus and Rudolph the Red-nosed reindeers, of Talmuds and Twilights of Gods, of Unity and Trinity of God, or the labors of Hercules.
This is my liberation from that shackling. This is my profession of faith. I know not where it will lead me, but I know in the end, I shall be at peace.
And even though at the last moment, I shall see smiling theologians beyond the final rock of this impossible mountain, sitting there for some millenniums with their given – I mean, revealed maps, I shall smile the same with my gained knowledge, sweeter than the priceless wine.
Bring the hemlock of disapproval as I start with the Augustine-like reformat of my beliefs. I start with a clean slate.
Or so I hope.
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!
Comments
perennialtrance on An unexamined life is not… Mr WordPress on Hello world!
One World 
