Being Human or Being Philosopher?

12 Jun

The effects of philosophy unnerve me from time to time.  Seeing one’s own moral precepts from a distance is a strange thing.  Open-mindedness has its limits.

There are definitely times when I just want to say to hell with philosophy.  Let me be this one person, credulity and all.  I really understand why the path is not commonly followed, and I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone except for those high-powered minds inexorably drawn to it.

Take Celia Green in her prime.  What she was doing calls for sensational amounts of mental energy and ludicrous ego strength.  Most people don’t do it because they can’t.  Their ‘sanity’ results from their mental economy, basically.  It’s all they can afford.  Even in exceptional cases, it will probably make the philosopher in question less practical.  Is it worth it?  Is this whole ritual something worthwhile?  Yes, I believe it is, but the floor of needed ability and commitment is high.  Very few people can make anything of it.

Even prodigies such as CG and Saul Kripke struggle mightily to adequately elaborate their philosophy in the big picture.  One gets tantalizing insights here and there.  It’s wicked hard, because philosophy becomes as difficult as the philosopher’s mind is strong.  Human abilities are still far from exhausting our situation.  Imagine how complicated even a single human cell is!

I have this feeling of responsibility to attain the most voluminous moral outlook.  Even so, there are limits to what I can do.  I believe the limits, when met, tend to express themselves in stupid statements, and I’m not proud of those.  Pushing an overheated engine won’t do any good.  It may be nothing more than an ego joyride at that point.

I often get the feeling that, yes, I’m on to something.  But my fishing line isn’t strong enough to reel this reefer in.  What I really mean, of course, is that one can’t fling a blue whale into a humble fishing boat with a string of yarn.  Mostly because it’s not gentlemanly.  I should probably bow my head, do some hard studies, and strike where the iron is hot.  That’s likely the most honorable thing to do.

For those anticipating breakthroughs in consciousness:

I believe such things will come, but these endeavors will be team efforts.  Also, I think Ed Witten’s words on an enduring disquiet on the subject are very wise.  After all, what could satisfactorily explain experiential color to any of us?  Nothing I can conceive of.  Anyway, maybe someone will get it one day.  I hope they do.

Furthermore, I expect there may be theories beyond what is presently called ‘information theory’.  The concept of relevance is one I return to with regularity.  It’s also important to consider what ‘information’ is with relation to its usability, history, interpreters/computers, etc.  Thinking about things in terms of 4-D prodigality/’salience’ a more or less Darwinian fashion..may be an interesting thought experiment.  A conscientious, creative, and aggressive read of Kripke’s Naming and Necessity could reveal what I’m getting at here.  Kripke knows how to ask the right questions.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: