As I have stated elsewhere, I am not a fan of orthodoxy, nor do I accept the concept of a monolithic, unchanging structure of beliefs. Fundamentalists say "If you are to belong in my religion, here are the dogmas you must believe in." When I was in high school, I had teachers who said, "If you're a communist, you can't believe in a religion." My personal view is that it is perfectly OK to study all sorts of philosophical ideas, and accept those which appeal to you, and reject those which don't. After all, Socrates (for instance) was a wise, clever man. However, he was different from me, and had no wish or capacity to set inviolable rules for anyone's life.
I suppose I take my basic attitude from what I read of Gandhi. While he was deeply religious (a fault in his upbringing, I expect {:-)), he was also one of the strongest humanist figures we have had in history. His attitude was that all people deserve to live in dignity and peace, regardless of any characteristics they have which people can use for segregating people.
In reading the book "A Complete Idiot's Guide to Philosophy," I found that there are 3 main areas a philosophy will cover: Being, Knowing, and Doing. In other words, one should try to figure out the concepts of existence, how we know things, and how we should act.
All sorts of ideas are bandied about concerning the nature of our existence, ranging from the completely natural (remember the Scientology commercial from some months ago: "Man is an animal! AN ANIMAL!!!"?) to the completely divine (I once had a rabid but innocuous Bible-thumper tell me "I believe the world to come is the real world, and this world is only a dream.") to the weird (imagine your brain in a bottle being fed all sensory inputs).
My view tends toward the naturalistic view. I understand that various theories concerning the formation of our Solar System, and I accept that they fit the variety of known, observed facts quite well. The theories of evolution and abiogenesis admittedly have many questions left unanswered, but I'm quite happy to live with the unanswered questions that potentially have answers in preference to accepting the horrendous complexity of a supernatural explanation. The brain-in-a-jar solution is (to me, at least) laughable. Of course, with my luck, this will turn out to be the correct explanation for everything. Remembering, of course, that the brain-in-a-jar idea is true to the extent that the mind resides in the organ called the brain, and it is encased in a jar known as the skull, and this organ's ability to react with the outside world is completely dependent on interactio with the body's nervous system. Spooky, huh?
I feel at this point I should explain why I refuse to accept the existence of what is generally known as "the supernatural." Every religious person accepts and actually relies on the supernatural as a basic tenet of their belief system. The problems with my acceptance of this start at this point. Each religion has its claims of supernatural occurrences - the Jews have such things as the parting of the Red Sea, Christians have their Resurrection, the Muslims have the Battle of Badr, the Pagans have their spells, and so forth. Each group accepts only their miracles, while being skeptical (in fact, often dismissive) of the supernatural claims of all other religions. My opinion of this situation is that we should be skeptical of all claims of the supernatural. It levels the playing field and simplifies life, because we can eliminate from serious consideration the supernatural and only concentrate on the natural.
Thus, I will accept as true only that which is verifiable. The laws of nature (also known as physics) are both verifiable and universal, based on all the evidence I've seen and learned about. Does human knowledge completely describe everything in the universe? No, but it comes pretty close. I can live with the uncertainty of the discrepancies between relativity and quantum mechanics, for instance. Either the theories will be unified, or some new theory will come along that more accurately describes a universal structure that obviously is self-consistent. In either case, the supernatural has no relevance to nature, because if it did, it would be part of nature.
But what, many would ask, is the advantage of considering a human to be a "mere animal"? For one thing, it helps develop a more healthy attitude toward animals. If we are in the same category as apes, felines, canines, amphibians, and so forth, we have far less reason to treat those types of animals with the contempt that has been shown by humans, especially those of European descent. With the attitude that we are part of nature, our actions would be more likely to be concerned with working in harmony with nature, not trying to dominate it. It should be possible to obtain the necessities of life with a minimal disruption to the ecosystems we live in.
We also would be able to deal more realistically with societal changes required as reactions to the changes in our living conditions. Much of humanity's difficulties over the past 200 years (since the dawn of the industrial revolution) have been a result of attempting to live according to nomadic societal rules in a world of far different pressures and needs. Understanding our changing needs for societal structures that take into account things like mass transit, the internet, and world trade, can make adjusting to these needs much less traumatic and more sensible.
How do we know anything? We, when we are infants, start by learning from observation - watching our parents, exploring our world, figuring out how our bodies work. One item we observe is that the huge beings that are feeding us make an astonishing variety of sounds, and they (hopefully) spend an awful lot of time looking at items made of paper. I expect infants of these days also notice that adults spend a fair amount of time looking at glowing rectangles that have frequently-changing shapes and colors. Here is where the tricky part comes in - those sounds and those paper goods contain information. Once we learn this lesson, the real work of developing our brains begins.
The first task, of course, is to learn how to understand the information being presented by these means of communication. We are forced to trust our parents to help us understand what is going on in the world we are born into. Going back to my section on "Being," this is part of the human instinct, nearly identical to the instinct of the closely-related apes. From the moment we're born, we find the one or two beings that are ensuring our survival and imprint on them, observing and learning from them. Learning how to talk, read and write are imperatives we can not ignore.
But the information we receive when we learn to read and speak is not necessarily accurate. We are told fiction stories (my favorite was "The Cat in the Hat"). We hear opinions, see cartoons and play fantasy games (ranging in complexity from "peek-a-boo" to "Riven"). So from the beginning, we learn that the people we are growing up among have a real world and an imaginary world to deal with. Unfortunately for most children, these two worlds are not cleanly isolated from each other, with religion making for a big gray area and much puzzlement.
After we get past that initial period when we're learning the differences between reality and fantasy (if we ever do, that is), we find that there are still areas of uncertainty. We learn about math, for instance. That was a tough one for me. So how are we to know the truth of such an abstract thing as numbers? Well, we start by checking to see that things you do with numbers are self-consistent. The rules for the basic operations on numbers, such as 2+5 = 5+2 and so forth, are consistent with our experiences of the real word (you can start with 5 apples, and add 2 to get 7, or you can start with 2, add in 5 more to get 7 - it doesn't matter what order you present the items, in this sort of problem). In any case, we are forced to match our representations of the world to use the rules we find in the "real world."
Compare this with the situation we find if we try to say that the waking world is the dream, and dreams are the real world. Our memories of dreams are always of far different experiences every time we sleep. There are some exceptions to this, but by and large, this is true. Since no two dreams are continuations from one episode to another, we can safely discount the possibility that reality is the dream and vice-versa. As to the possibility of the real world being a dream of some other, indeterminate creature, or other odd theories of the nature of reality, they are not worth considering, as the structure of our reality would vanish forever upon the awakening of the imagined "higher" creature.
Our knowledge of the real world is gained, after an initial burst of personal observing and experience, by learning the information gathered by the human race in the form of formal education. We read about history, math, science and so forth. This is where the nature of knowledge becomes tricky. Subjects that are easily verified in an objective manner - say math and the physical sciences - are the safest ones to gain knowledge of. We have no problem with the veracity of the Pythagorean Theorem. We can easily perform the lab experiments combining the correct amounts of hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide to make table salt, water and heat. These parts of the knowledge base of humanity are easy to accept, and no one has serious problems with them.
The real problem comes in the more fuzzy areas of knowledge - language, history, the "soft" sciences of psychology and so forth. We'd just love to be able to say with the certainty of a chemical equation exactly why some kids decide to blow up their school. It would make people extremely happy if they could read a book and know exactly what the author meant. Of course, that might take away the fun of using your own imagination, but that's a different kettle of fish. We would feel more confident about our "roots" if they weren't wrapped up in the fog of personal interpretation and oral transmission of stories from the past. If only we had video records of all the major events of the past!
Unfortunately, this is an unavoidable part of the nature of our knowledge. In the fuzzy areas, there will always be uncertainty. We can minimize the uncertainty, but it will never be eliminated. The best way to make such knowledge as reliable as possible is through attempting to determine truth as objectively as possible. Every historian, economist, linguist, psychologist and so on, approach their subjects with some extra baggage - their prejudices. Some make efforts to leave that baggage behind while doing their work, others positively embrace them. This is (I think) the starting point where conflicts, controversies, and contradictions get their start.
One method used today to minimize these problems is the process of peer review. This is used in all areas of science, and it's vital in making sure that knowledge is kept as objective as possible. Of course, the method is not perfect. When a group of people get together for the purpose of agreeing among themselves about a subject, the problem of internal politics is never far away. Factions favoring one interpretation of the evidence over another will often (possibly not always) work to gain ascendancy, thwarting the search for objective knowledge. I know of no way to avoid this. In my opinion, objectivity should be the ultimate goal for any searcher after knowledge, but thay's just my idealism showing through, I guess.
My reason for saying this is simple: There are two sets of information we should be concerned with. The information that completely describes reality, and the information we accept as description of reality. We can't impose our views on reality, so we should do our level best to make sure we view reality correctly.
I saved the best for last. While this is the most contentious area for people to discuss, it occurs to me that the issue of how a person should act should be a fairly simple concept. Simply put, my opinion of this issue is in two parts. First, do nothing that will harm other members of your society. Second, always try to act in your own best self-interest.
These two statements are loaded with meanings, which I will try to expand on, so that misunderstandings can be kept to a minimum. I believe that these basic statements are completely in keeping with a naturalistic view of humanity, and they can lead to a better relationship between a person and the society she or he lives in. This is a vital goal, and one that I hope to work toward as long as I'm able.
In pre-historic times, the species Homo Sapiens was a rare one, spread over wide expanses in small groups, living at first the nomadic lives of hunter-gatherers, later changing their lives to elementary agriculture and animal husbandry. Each small group developed a set of rules for keeping their group together and surviving. Most of the rules they developed were similar across all groups. The murder of a member of the society was forbidden. Each person had possession rights to various things that were respected by all. Family structures were defined, to make child bearing and rearing as efficient as possible under the circumstances each society found itself in. These societal structure were not defined by governmental councils, handing out or voting on laws - they were developed over generations of trial and error, then handed down to succeeding generations during the child-rearing process. So long as the circumstances of each small group of people remained unchanged, there was no need to change the rules of the society.
The down side of this situation was that other groups of people were considered a threat to the society - competitors for food, wealth, and so on. In areas where food was plentiful, and the other necessities of life were readily obtained, there was little need of conflict. However, if conditions changed, through climate changes, increases in population, or what-not, conflict between competing societies became inevitable. These conflicts had a variety of outcomes - sometimes there were victories where one society was completely exterminated, other times, the losing society was driven to other territories. Sometimes, the societies merged to form new social groupings, and sometimes the conflicts were never resolved, developing long-term enmities that became hereditary hatreds. The most important part of this heritage was the attitude that has remained with us to this day, that only "our" society is worthy of respect. The societies of "outsiders" are, in the best of circumstances, held in less esteem. Often, they are considered potential enemies, and their members are seen as being non-human.
This situation was an acceptable negative in the affairs of humanity, so long as societies could move away after being defeated, or so long as successful societies could expand into new territories. Also, until recently, the ability of the human race to maintain its safety in the face of these problems was based on the fact that the conflicts were usually on a small scale compared to the extent that humanity had spread out across the world. All conflicts were local in extent, and small numbers of people were endangered when they did occur.
All this changed with the coming of the Industrial Revolution. The population of the world started to explode as production of the necessities of life became more efficient. Communication and transportation became faster and less expensive. The old barriers that had limited the scope and power of human war-making abilities started to come down. By the middle of the 19th century, wars were becoming far more deadly and ferocious than any that had occurred before. The trend continued into the 20th century, with the first "War to End All Wars." The fact that the Great War turned out to be just the first of two World Wars (so far) merely reinforces this point.
Humanity's ability to order its affairs is continuing to break down. Societies are being weakened and degraded in their ability to unify people by the changes that have occurred during the past two centuries. In many places around the world, peoples of different cultures, nations and societies are living together, competing for the necessities of life. Communications are allowing ideas to be exchanged far more quickly than in the past - and they are allowing news of offenses to travel more quickly. The old way humans acted and reacted are still in place - but the tools for engaging in conflict are far more powerful, far more easily transported and used.
If we are to avoid the errors of the recent past, major changes in human behavior will be needed. A global economy has been on the minds of people for years, as the trading ties between all nations have become more involved and extensive. Maybe it's about time we started thinking also in terms of a global society. True, there are many cultural differences between people living in all parts of the world. However, the differences all people experience need not lead to conflicts. If each person took the time to learn a little about the rules, and maybe even the reasons behind those rules, of the surrounding cultural groups, it would be easy to lower tensions between cultural groups.
For instance, I remember hearing about tensions between the Korean and Black communities in South Central Los Angeles some time ago. One incident I heard about was very telling. A black woman was in a Korean grocery store to buy fruit. She went about this task as she always had, picking up several items, examining them. This offended the Korean shop owner, because in his culture, people only touched items of food they intended to buy. Apparently, he asked the woman to stop the behavior he found offensive, and she refused, leading to being told to leave. A little understanding and toleration for cultural differences in this situation could have kept this situation from becoming an altercation, a fight, and later a bone of contention between the whole of the two comminuties.
The main point to make in this section, then, is that in order to make the best effort to prevent conflicts between people, it is becoming vital to redefine our concept of "society." We can no longer live with the polarizing attitude that our home community is all that matters, and that the communities outside our chosen sphere are potential enemies. A better solution is to define all of humanity as one society made of many diverse parts. In order to solve the problems of the society, all parts should cooperate in the problem-solving process. The natural extension of this concept is a world government (something I've always thought necessary). But we are at the point that covers the first of my blanket statements on ethics: "Do nothing that harms members of your society."
Since I am personally define my society as all humanity, I have to be careful of all people, to make sure I do nothing to harm them. Naturally, I can't know for certain which possible actions of mine are harmful. Also, I am able to perform actions (such as creating and maintaining my web site) that I think do no harm, but are viewed as harmful by other people. This is where my taking the time to learn about other cultures will come in handy. My actions are checked against my knowledge of other cultures. As my knowledge grows, I get better at decision making. One good piece of advice I have heard is, "If you're not sure whether an action will harm someone, don't do it."
As far as the issue concerning a person's judgment of the benefits of my actions, this is an area for future consideration. In my opinion, I can only accept my personal decisions on the issues of whether my actions are harmful. I learn from my experiences and what I read and hear in my conversations. I make my decisions based on what I've learned. If someone decides that he thinks my actions are harmful, I am receptive to hearing his reasons. If I accept his reasoning, I think it's my responsibility to stop the action I now agree is harmful. Still, this area may require further thought.
My other blanket statement on ethics was on a more personal level. Each person should act in her or his own best self interest. This sounds selfish, and for a great many people, it probably is. However, we must remember that there can be a greater context for statements like this that change the meaning in interesting ways.
For instance, each person normally has an intimate relation with the community. This has always been the case with humans, and it clearly holds true for other social animals. Where one person would be hard pressed to obtain all the necessities of life alone (though it is possible), sharing the necessary tasks with other people lowers the burden of work for each person. Naturally, when the human condition is viewed this way, self-interest become more complex than simple selfishness. If it is in the best interest of a person that his community works smoothly and successfully, he should make an effort to contribute to that success.
Does this mean that being a member of a community requires absolute conformity to the rules of that community? On some rules, yes. Most communities eventually develop sets of rules, either codified laws or accepted customs, that permit life to proceed peaceably. Many rules are essential for the survival of the community and its members. Others are made to define the way people interact, and often are less than ideal. These rules should be subject to change, depending on changing standards and conditions within the community. Here is where the function of the skeptic becomes advantageous.
Because people generally resist changes, it can be good for the community to have people willing to question the rules. As Socrates is reported to have said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." The same can be said today, for the lives of people as well as communities. It can do people a world of good to ask, "Why must women wear skirts?" or "What's so wrong with squeezing a cantaloupe before buying it?"
As you can see, even the most basic examination of the issues of life is a complex process. We can easily compress the basic thoughts down to a couple of sentences - then spend several pages trying to explain what those sentences mean. This essay is a preliminary exploration of how I view the essentials of philosophical thought. I haven't expressed myself perfectly (I don't believe anyone ever does - wait, this needs to be added to the "epistemology" section!), but I have made my best effort at present. As time goes by, and I learn more on these subjects, I'll modify my philosophy, and share this journey with the folks who are interested - if any.
