The Fundamental Epistemic Dilemma

The fundamental dilemma that anyone studying philosophy encounters is what we can truly know for certain. Philosophers throughout history have tried to address this issue, and for the most part, there is no definitive answer because you cannot answer a problem when you suffer from the problem. Basically, we can't fully solve a problem about knowledge because it casts doubts on anything we know, and since we would use anything we know to solve the problem, a paradox of sorts is achieved. This does not mean, however, that we cannot settle the issue enough for us to be able to accomplish certain things.

H. L. Mencken said, "We are here and it is now. Further than that all human knowledge is moonshine." To a large extent, this is sadly, the case. We cannot know with absolute, universal certainty much of anything. We can understand certain things for ourselves though, and thus achieve some kind of peace of mind for us. Basically, our foundations for everything originate over 3000 years ago from religion and math, math being a patterned reasoning that draws its basis from the real world. Math does not hold an actual existence; it is just the description of certain universal patterns. This, however, makes math far more indisputable in my opinion because it doesn't actually exist and therefore cannot be disputed to exist. No one will argue that the Golden Rule can't be found in nature, or other such examples. It's indisputable. It is a general observation of a pattern in nature, rather than an assumption about how something works. This does not mean that math can be used to understand the universe with absolute certainty, but the patterns it can teach us give us a place to start.

It is hard to know too much for certain. The important thing is that what we think we understand is A) useful for us or for somebody, and B) not considered the 100% absolute truth. Though I believe 100% in eternity and God and the eternality of the human mind, I am still only an effervescent being who does not have an omniscient mind, and therefore, I could be wrong. I don't believe I am though, and so for me, I am relatively content. As long as I permit other people to hold their views just as much as I hold mine, then it is all right. In truth, it is the acknowledgment of our limitations that brings us closer to true intelligence. Benjamin Disraeli said, "To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge." A huge part of knowledge is knowing that you cannot know everything. Unless you are omnipotent (and therefore omniscient), chances are that you don't know everything. Thinking that one can know everything effectively distances you from perfection by assuming that you are anything more than effervescent, and therefore greater than the universal rule which defines our reality.

Ultimately, we can only try and ascertain knowledge for ourselves. It is good to share it with others, if they are willing to listen, but futile and wrong to try and force them on other people. I do not agree with the forced evangelization of people who stand on street corners swearing that their views are the only correct views. They may be correct for them, but that does not make them correct for everyone. We must always realize that everything we know is the sum of our life experiences plus what we have observed and been taught. It is not the universal panacea to stupidity, ignorance, or uncertainty about the universe. Our knowledge is our understanding of things, and since we are not gods or deities or omnipotent/omniscient beings, our understanding does not possess universal credence or holding. As soon as we understand these limitations, the closer we can get to some kind of truth. In line with what Disraeli said, Frank Herbert said, "The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand."

We do not have to be able to understand something for certain to be able to understand certain important things in life. If we were absolutely certain of anything, it's intrigue would be gone. Our curiosity in life is always derived from not knowing something, and if we could know everything, then life would be boring. Uncertainty is not a limitation, as much as it is a motivation. It inspires us to always strive to achieve more, to always keep changing. Change is at the heart of the road to eternal perfection, and by always striving to change, we get as close to perfection in this world as we possibly can (though we cannot become 100% perfect until we are no longer effervescent).

If anything, it is our uncertainty that allows imagination. There can be no imagination on a definitively answered or ended debate or idea. Likewise with creativity. The greatest stories ever told do not come from mathematical equations, which are without dispute, but come from ideas about people, nature, life, the cosmos, reality, everything and anything we do not fully understand. I believe that I can say with almost absolute certainty that everything follows this rule. Creativity and imagination are derived from that which we do not understand, and that is why humans have such a fascination with fiction and movies and stories and mythology and etc. Imagination is our greatest gift because it always keeps us motivated to keep trying to discover, while our limitations simultaneously keep us from running out of things to discover. At its fundamental essence, it is our imperfections that make life interesting.

The great Albert Einstein once said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge..." We don't have to be absolutely certain of something to reap the benefits of it. We don't and won't ever fully understand the universe, but we still reap the benefits of being in it. Our imaginations keep us captivated, until that day when we become eternal, and become everything and anything. The epistemic dilemma is more viewed as a roadblock to achievement, but in actuality it prevents us from destroying the human dream. If the human dream is discovery and understanding, then fully achieving those goals is the abolition of those dreams because they can no longer be pursued. Our uncertainty is what makes everything interesting, and what makes the greatest of stories great.

I cannot know anything for certain, but I don't need to. I feel like I understand well enough those things which are crucially important for me to be able to survive and cope with life, but I cannot know them 100% for sure. When I think about it, I don't care to either. Let eternity surprise me when I die. Curiosity may have killed the cat, but all that did was make the cat eternal (that was a lame statement). Curiosity and intrigue keep us satisfied here, and imagination represents the greatest of human abilities - the ability to create from what we know - manifesting one's curiosity with everything. When I study philosophy, I find myself captivated, and the end result is that I am motivated to do certain things, which is often to work on my book series. To be honest, I don't actually study philosophy much, I just think about it. Most of everything that I think I understand about reality comes from my observations of things, not from what people tell me. And in the end, it is observations that often hold the most truth, or at least with math that is the case.

Forget the epistemic dilemma - it is a load of crap. We don't need to understand everything to understand something, and we don't have understand anything in order to understand things. Certainty does not make something correct (b/c certainty is derived the feeling of confidence of an individual, rather than an actual or universal correctness), reality makes it correct. Screw certainty, I'll enjoy my flaws. In the end, they're what makes life worth living. I don't want to stop learning and therefore I don't want to understand everything. With that in mind, I bid you all a good day.

A Brief Bit about Me

Since this blog is basically my views put on paper, in a very generalized or simplistic way (mostly to make it as bearable as possible), I decided that it might be quite useful if I discussed a few things about myself. This may lend clarity to a number of things that the reader may be made curious about, even they even care to read anything on this supremely boring blog.

First of all, I am 18. I am not a philosophy professor, teacher, nor do I hold a degree in philosophy. I am currently majoring in philosophy, but that in of itself gives no credence to anything I say. I am an 18 year old male with a huge imagination. For better or for worse, I have spent much of my life lost in my own imagination. It was only when I began to try and put these stories I had contrived to paper that I began to get interested in philosophy. It began with trying to understand the universe, and from there, my interest in metaphysics peaked. But all branches of philosophy interest me, and I'd rather not choose just one branch.

Here is the fact though: nothing makes my views any more valid than anyone else's. Basically I am just some random guy who decided to write a blog about his views on philosophy, which probably do not amount to much for anyone else. But for me, this is helping me ascertain certain things, or at least develop some semblance of understanding that helps me in life. If anything, it is pushing me away from certain things I once clearly associated with, much to my own displeasure. I'm not going to stop though, for much of what I am doing now seems very useful and proper.

For a while, I did believe that I was becoming much more assured in life and happy with life through my studies of philosophy. Philosophy was tantalizing to me because it seemed like you could understand certain things without having to experience them (one of the basic ideas to rationalism). To some extent, I do believe you can, but I began to use this in such a way that I subconsciously began to withdraw myself ever so slightly from reality. Philosophy is not a substitute for life. Karl Marx once said, "Philosophy is to the real world as masturbation is to sex." Philosophy is a way to try to understand certain things about life, but never to live it.

In the past couple of weeks, I gave special consideration to my whole "i love philosophy" attitude. I realized that through it I was justifying a basic withdrawal from reality, though the justification was mostly subconscious, done through the means of conscious thoughts eventually trickling down into subconscious action. I regret this, in all truth and honesty. A long look back at my life reveals a life not lived to the fullest. I'm still not ready to live life to the fullest. I may never be. That's the way I am.

I don't justify the weirdness of me writing about this, or my wasting of much precious time thinking about this stuff, but if it can be of use to anyone in any way, I'd be eternally grateful. I don't even need to know it's happening, but if it happened, I'd be happy. No matter what, I know that in this life I will find some sort of meaning and that I will one day die. I believe that I will become eternal, and join with eternity, becoming part of God once more. That is my personal view. I do not claim to represent any school of thought in that respect.

The day may come where I will either begin to improve my life, or further withdraw. I cannot say. I pray that I may be able to improve my life while pursuing my passions (like philosophy). However, I can never truly be sure, and for the moment, I'm largely content to just enjoy being alive and being able to think.

You all do not have to read this, and in fact, I discourage reading my blog if this stuff does not interest you. It is not the result of academia, of studies, of professors, or of supreme intellectuals. This blog is the result of one person who is attempting to clarify certain things for himself in a variety of ways, this being one of them. I pray that for those of you who ever read my blog (if anyone ever does), that it will be of benefit. I know it was for me.

I will talk to you all later.

The Nature of Death

"Is there life before death?" - Graffito

Death is often and frequently viewed as the most frightening thing in the universe. Indeed, it is riddled with a tremendous amount of mystery that hinders our understanding of it. Since we always fear that which we don't understand, death, the one thing that nothing living can ever fully comprehend, becomes the most feared concept or reality for many. Should we fear death, however? When one considers all the constant changes that occur around us and in us, death seems to become more of a natural transition from here to there, where ever there may be. I could write pages and pages about death, because death has become a terribly fixation of mine in recent days. That is not to say that I love death, or love people dieing, but it is to say that the theory or concept of death fascinates me.

The only fear of death I have is that instinctual and biological fear that nothing living can avoid. However, I do not worry much about dieing anymore. Over the last couple of years, more and more things dawned on me about death. For one, death is the one and only thing that we are guaranteed in life. A. Sachs said, "Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." Similarly, in terms of life, death makes us equal. Death proves that no matter what, we are all mortals, and subject to the same fate no matter what our status or achievements in life are. Publilius Syrus said, "As men, we are all equal in the presence of death." We will all die, and nothing in this world can ever change it.

Though that may sound all right, death is still horrifying because it is viewed as a termination rather than a transition. Granted, no one can know for sure what happens after death because no one who has ever died has come back from the grave to share their knowledge. People of all faiths fear death, largely because it is so uncertain. I am here to tell you that it does not matter what the view of death is, it is still a blessing and not a curse.

My personal view on death is that it is a change from effervescence to eternity (you here me talk about that a lot, don't you?), or a move from the material imperfection of this reality to the immaterial perfection of the next. We all came from something eternal, or changed from something eternal, and eventually, I believe that we will all revert back to this eternal state. Whether or not this eternal state is conscious or unconscious is quite impossible to say, however, if an individual became enjoined to eternity, they would be in a state surpassing consciousness because they would literally feel and be all the experiences and all the realities and existences that have ever been and ever will be (because eternity is not limited by time and it is also everything, therefore one who is eternal can feel everything at every moment). Death is the start of something we new, or something we don't remember. I don't view death as an end, I view it as something new. David Searls said, "Seeing death as the end of life is like seeing the horizon as the end of the ocean." What Searls is saying is that just because we cannot see beyond something, it does not mean that it ends. We are not able to see beyond death, but that does not mean it is the end.

My personal views aside, I think there are certain definite generalizations we can make about death. First of all, no matter what, it completes life. That quote at the beginning by Graffito expresses one of those wacky questions thinkers like to throw at people. It is relevant though. It cannot be proved that we were alive until we are dead. This is so because life would be indistinguishable without death. Imagine if we had only one color: red. We would not know it was red because there was no blue (or any other color) in existence. Similarly with death, we cannot know life until we know life.

That is not very comforting though. Some people may prefer to leave things open, and to continually find new things in life. Like a good book, movie or video game, you sometimes never want to reach the end. I've shared this sentiment, and its power is not lost on me. However, when one views death as a change or transition, it becomes evident that death is the start of a new chapter, rather than the conclusion, of life. Death prevents us from becoming stale, like a story whose events and actions become too repetitious. Let's face it, if we lived forever in a confined existence like this, wouldn't we get bored after a while? Besides, change is at the height of perfection, and I don't ever want to stop changing. Though we can sometimes become worse when we change, we'll never get better if we don't change. The road to perfection cannot be travelled by standing still. Death is the vehicle that takes us from start of the road to some other place on it, and quite possibly to the end.

Death is freedom. In the Book of Golden Precepts you can find the phrase, "The way to final freedom is within thy self." Life is what we harbor within ourselves, and that life has the ability to die. Final freedom is not found by clinging to this earth, or anything else in this universe. Final freedom, or the kind of freedom which can never be ended, is only found through death. No one can take your death from you. Once your mind and soul pass from this world with the death of the body, there is no bringing it back. No one can steal your death; it is yours alone and you alone reap the true benefits of it. Death is often depicted as a dark-robed demon, apparition, or monster who glides in cutting the life from an individual, stealing their soul. I say to abolish that image, and instead depict death as the grand liberator who sweeps in majestically and frees us once and for all from the imprisonment of mortality, giving us the freedom to do anything.

I look forward to dieing one day. I still have much in life left that I want to accomplish, and much meaning to give to it, but I am happy that I will be able to die one day. As a believer in God, I believe that the greatest gifts that God gave us were life and death, neither of which can be appreciated without the other. I am grateful everyday to be alive, and equally as grateful that I will one be able to die one day. I do not want to live forever as I am. I want to return to what I came from, so that the cycle may become complete. Rodney Yee said, "As we look deeply within, we understand our perfect balance. There is no fear of the cycle of birth, life and death. For when you stand in the present moment, you are timeless." Life and death are part of a cycle, and unless the cycle becomes complete one can never reach perfection. Death is not a limitation on my life, but the key to my prison, the sum of my life, and the vantage point from which I can observe and understand my life. I say, be grateful for both life and death, and never cherish one over the other.

Socrates, one of the great Greek philosophers who predates Judaism and Christianity, said of death that, "death may be the greatest of all human blessings." The only thing I would change would be to make it, "life and death..." Good day, and good night.

Why Bother

You might ask, "Why bother?" with regards to this whole page. It is an entirely valid question. The answer I will give is the one that satisfies myself, and not necessarily everyone or anyone else. Philosophy definitely lacks the support and utility, that say, a television has. Why? Because philosophy requires a great deal more complexity and effort than anything else, and lacks a universal applicability or even majority applicability simply because it is too simple.

Simplicity has become the most contemptible and misunderstood concept, when in fact it is the most true and pure characteristic that anything could ever aspire to have. Intelligence today is based off of the relative complexity of something. Complex mathematical equations seem to carry more weight and importance than anything else. The longer a paper is, the more intelligent it probably is. Bigger words mean greater intelligence. I'm guilty of using atrocious sesquipedalians too frequently. It's the side effect of using language and going through institutionalized education. I'm not complaining, I'm just stating. We've all seen it before. The more complex a device is, the more important it is. But shouldn't things be simple? After all, the most important things in the universe are simple.

In my opinion, philosophy is the attempt to rediscover the simplicity of reality that our minds and senses caused us to forget long ago. Philosophy is also an attempt by the mind to reconcile that which we don't understand and that which we think we understand in an effort to discern meaning from it all. Philosophy is more than anything else the personal endeavor of an individual to find that in life which they can call their own: their understanding of reality. I may write a page about philosophy that talks about my beliefs, but they are nothing more than my beliefs. I pray that they may be of use to someone, as other peoples' views have been of use to me, but I cannot really ask for much more. Few people set out in life to be a philosopher. Being a philosopher is not an occupation after all, but a way of life, a way of seeing things so long obscured by society and others.

I primarily write most of the stuff on the page because it gives me peace of mind to write. I find writing to be therapeutic, and when I write, I want to write about that which interests me. Sadly (from a societal standpoint), my biggest interest lies in the field of philosophy. I also write because I have this weird dream that one day I will be able to help people by using philosophy (definitely a weird and hopeless dream). I am human; I am entitled to my own insubstantial hopes, so long as I don't let them rule me. I may not be able to help others w/ philosophy, but I can definitely help myself. That is the best that I can hope for. If you all want to come along for the ride, please do so. If you don't, that's fine too.

My study of philosophy has led me to some startling discoveries. More than anything, it dehumanizes you I think. For someone who passionately pursues an understanding in metaphysics, you find yourself more removed from the reality which you exist in. It has caused me to question many things about my faith. It is a scary thing to challenge what you've been brought up on, and to some extent, I try to hold on to all of those things, but I am starting to think that I shouldn't. Tolkien once said in his novels, "It's a dangerous business stepping out your front door..." becuase you don't know where you may end up (I'm sorry, I could not remember the rest of the quote verbatim). It may be dangerous, it may seem scary, but I don't ever want to stop changing. Christina Baldwin, , said, "Change is the constant, the signal for rebirth, the egg of the phoenix." When I stop changing, I stop living. I always want to be improving my beliefs. I don't want my convictions to become Mill's described, "dead dogmas."

I study philosophy so that I'll change, and so that I can feel like I have some inkling, even if it's wrong, of how things work. If I am to be happy I must make myself happy. If you all feel like reading this, go right ahead. If you decide to stop reading it, that's fine too. I will benefit from writing this, and if you all challenge me or leave comments, I may benefit even more. At any rate, that's why I study this. I'll talk to you all later.

The Uncertainty of What I Say

Know that nothing I say can be wholly proven. Nothing in this world can be definitively and incontrovertibly proven to everyone. I accept this. When I write my entries and everything that appears on this page, I acknowledge that this is what I hold to be the truth, but that does not mean it is truth, nor do I claim that there is any reason to believe it more valid than any other school of thought or philosophy. I am quite certain of most things I post here, but that does not make them right.

Michael Crichton said in his novel, State of Fear, that, "I am certain that there is too much certainty in this world." Being certain of something does not make it any more right. Validity comes from the quality of the knowledge, not the certainty of the bearer of that opinion.

It is important to always respect other opinions. I respect all faiths and philosophies, even if I don't agree with them or like them. It is important to not hold their views in lower esteem. "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently." Friedrich Nietzsche, The Dawn, Sec. 297, German philosopher (1844 - 1900). Praise unorthodoxy, as long as it a) does not force its views on others or harm others and hinder their right to live, and b) respects orthodoxy, even if it does not agree. Fanaticism is born when people fail to accept other views.

Nietzsche also said, "There are no facts, only interpretations." All the material on these pages is my interpretation of things. It may be shared by others, it may not be. No one has to believe it any more than they might be believe anything else. These are MY views. You may accept them, refute them, adapt them, transmute them. Do as you please. I wish to help others find the security I feel like I've found in life.

Oppression of anyone else based on belief or opinion or anything is always intolerable. Since we cannot know who is really right in this world, we cannot mistreat people because of discrepancies in view points or belief. John Stuart Mill, the famous English economist and philosopher put it eloquently, "If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind."

"The shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no recipe for living that suits all cases." Carl Jung, Swiss psychologist (1875 - 1961). My beliefs may work for me, but they may or may not work for you. That's fine. Everyone is different. There can be no panacea to all of life's mysteries that will bring satisfaction to all.

In closing, I want to quote Adlai E. Stevenson Jr., who spoke of the pursuit of the knowledge as such: "If we value the pursuit of knowledge, we must be free to follow wherever that search may lead us. The free mind is not a barking dog, to be tethered on a ten-foot chain." I pray that I may be able to be as such. With that, I close for this entry.

Eternity and Effervescence

In order for there to be something, there must have always been something, even if that something seems to be a relative nothing. That means that there must be some sort of existence that is eternal, be it god/God, or just an eternal reality. In order for this entity/reality to be eternal, it must possess two qualities: omnipresent and omnipotent. These two qualities can only be possessed by one thing, and something can't have one if it doesn't have the other (something is not omnipotent if does not emcompass every aspect of existence, because then it has boundaries, or limitations). These qualities can only be possessed by one thing because two different things cannot be omnipotent because invariably one would have to be weaker than the other. This eternal presence would possess both qualities, and would have an existence that defies the rules of existence in our reality, because it has no point of beginning and no point of end (which everything in our universe has).

The only real conflict with the omnipresence is our own reality, which has differences and deviations that are clearly not eternal. The thing is, because eternity would have to be omnipresent, it could very well create an effervescent reality made up of its own fiber, but in order for this reality to be different from the eternal existence, its eternality had to be sacrificed. As such, all things are not eternity are effervescent. This does not mean that they cease to exist at any point, it just means that their effervescent existence will change and they will revert back to the substance eternity. The law of conservation energy states that nothing is ever truly lost. With this in mind, it is obvious that everything just changes then. Our reality is effervescent, but it will still always exist in some form or another, even if that form is the substance of eternity.

I will talk often of eternity and effervescence, as they are crucial themes for me when trying to understand the many aspects of reality and our minds. With that in mind, I'll talk about more later.

The Establishment of Something: Why Nothingness does not Exist

This blurp will be about why the concept of nothingness is wrong, and why there is necessarily something, which means there can be anything.

First of all, the theory of nothingness contradicts any kind of something, because if nothingness exists then only nothing can exist. The basic reasoning behind this is that if nothing exists simultaneously as something, then it becomes a relative something in the sense that it becomes comparable because there is something else that allows differentiation. The sensation of nothingness should contain no qualities other than that it is devoid of anything. Everything in existence is described in terms of its relativity to something else (think of big/small, dark/bright, dense/not dense, and many other things), and therefore nothingness can never be juxtaposed with something lest it lose its quality of being nothing.

Moreover, the concept of eternity stands in direct contrast with nothingness. This is so because eternity means some of kind of eternal existence, and nothingness cannot be branded with a quality like eternality. Nothingness would be nothingness, with no beginning, end, or anything. Nothingness means nothing, which is a hard quality to describe with words because words automatically make it into something. But nothingness cannot be eternal, it is simply nothing. Eternity exists whenever something has existed at any point because in order for something to exist there must have always been something, even if that something was eternity. Basically, if something existed or exists, then eternity exists, and both contradict nothingness. If something can be proven to exist, then nothingness is false.

To prove that something exists, I rely heavily on the Cartesian school of thought and on my theories regarding difference. Descartes classic "Cogito ergo sum," or, "I think, therefore I am," may sound simplistic and worthless, and may have been cliched by modern day society to the point where it seems to have lost value, but its message is still the same. When Descartes said this, he indicated that if a person can recognize they exist, then they must exist to be able to recognize their existence. It is somewhat similar to the cause/effect explanation that is often employed to prove the existence of God or other things. There must be a cause to every effect, and in order for there to be an effect, it necessarily entails that something exists to cause or effect. The basic counterpoint is that everything we think we perceive is not real. But if anything, even something false, can be distinguished from something else, or described, it is inevitably something. For instance, the essence of one atom is invariably different from the essence of another atom. Even if our senses were deceiving us (Descartes), it must be noted that if we can think that we think, then we think (in the sense that we think we are thinking), and therefore we exist. We do not create our own existence, we merely verify it. I am certain that I exist, and at another time, I will delve deeper into my theories abotu things being different. Anyways, since something exists, something always existed (eternity), and therefore nothingness is a false concept.

With that, I'll post more later.

Opening Statement and Starting Point

Hi. I established this blog primarily to talk about my philosophical views about life and the world around me because that is what I think about all the time. Please note that these are just my beliefs, many of which are based on what I've experienced in life. I will try to not convey the idea that I am more correct than anyone else. I would love to have people comment on my views, and even challenge them, because it is only through being challenged that I will get any better. At any rate, here it goes.

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." -Rene Descartes

In order to find certainty and meaning in life, we have to be willing to question everything, including the beliefs that we have been brought up on. I think it is even good to question our religious beliefs, as long as we do it intelligently. I did so, and it actually made my core religious beliefs stronger. Despite this, I found that an emphasis on a philosophical interpretation of life and reality tends to lead to a different (not drastically different) outlook on things. The outlook is not so much scientific as it is logical. I do not believe in questioning everything like the skeptics did/do. Skepticism creates questions without attempting to find answers, and implies that nothing can really be ascertained with certainty. To me, that is wrong. Many, possibly even most, things cannot truly be known, but really important things can be definitively ascertained. Those things, for me anyways, is life, death, the soul, eternity, God, and existence. Skepticism and nihilism strike me as drastically wrong and groundless. Anyone can ask why, which is the skeptic specialty, but it takes far more effort to explain why. At any rate, each day or so I will try to post more and more of what I truly think. Anyways, in closing is a quote by Thomas Jefferson.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson