Restructuring v2
This commit is contained in:
parent
4d8193c508
commit
d6a89176ae
13 changed files with 3 additions and 203 deletions
|
|
@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: "about"
|
||||
bookHidden: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# about
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: "donations"
|
||||
bookHidden: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# thank you for considering supporting
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,22 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: "metaphysiká"
|
||||
weight: 1
|
||||
bookFlatSection: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# metaphysiká
|
||||
|
||||
## introduction
|
||||
'metaphysiká' deals with the unseen, unverifiable, and infallible ideas and processes that i observe as influencing, or guiding, every day life.
|
||||
|
||||
this corpus is split into parts; the first part attempts to deconstruct logic, the second one deals with free will, and the third one with defining ethics.
|
||||
|
||||
as more parts are written this page will expand to include them too.
|
||||
|
||||
## table of contents
|
||||
|
||||
1. [on logic]({{% relref "/texts/metaphysika/on logic" %}})
|
||||
|
||||
2. [on free will]({{% relref "/texts/metaphysika/on free will" %}})
|
||||
|
||||
3. [on ethics]({{% relref "/texts/metaphysika/on ethics" %}})
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,26 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: "on ethics"
|
||||
weight: 3
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# on ethics
|
||||
|
||||
having [defined free will]({{% relref "/texts/metaphysika/on free will/definition" %}}), i can now discuss about the ethical.
|
||||
|
||||
before i do so, i first want to explain in depth why free will is a necessity for ethics to exist.
|
||||
|
||||
assuming a system with either only determinism, only random outcomes, or a combination of both, there is no adequate mechanism of choice, for there to be a capacity to commit an action. there is no possible way to define a person as anything more than a process that acts as an input/output method, much like a rock, or a drop of water. these objects, bereft of agency as they are, are unable to make a decision, and so do not deserve to be morally labelled. for what does it mean for a stone to be immoral or unethical? should we accuse water of falling too harshly when rain turns to hail? no, for there to be an ethical consideration, the subject must uniquelly be able to make a choice, and to act based of *its own volition*. for ethics to exist, [free will must exist]({{% relref "/texts/metaphysika/on free will/existence" %}}).
|
||||
|
||||
there have been many and there will be many more attemps to define ethics and morality in an objective sense, however most fail due to their flawed attempts to define good and evil in an objective manner, which requires an objective arbiter who decide which acts are good and which acts are evil, and hand out reward and punishment respectively.
|
||||
|
||||
the above necessity forms the basis of many modern religions. catholics, protestants, muslims and jews have a clear seperation of a heaven and a hell, where people are sorted into based on merit (some catholics also admit into their faith the notion of a purgatory. protestants don't form a cohesive, centralised group, and are therefore inconsistent. these are discussions for another time.). tibetan buddhism seperates reality into seperate levels, with the human level being the 'ideal', neutral point, and reincarnation moving the individual up or down the levels based on the merit of the last life, with the capacity to remove oneself from the cycle and join the buddhas. hinduism teaches a similar idea, that one reincarnates as a being of lower or higher 'standing' depending on their behaviour in the past life, without necessarily making a distinction of different tiers of existence, but rather of quality of being, again with the capacity of breaking the cycle of reincarnation and liberating the self (liberating implies that the individual is trapped in "earthly shakles" (the body) which is also a position taken by the neoplatonists. this is also a discussion for another time.).
|
||||
|
||||
all of this to say that throughout history, the prevalent mode of defining an ethic was by defining 'good' as something that brought one closer to 'the divine' and 'evil' something that had the opposite effect. this obviously is deeply flawed. not only do you need to ignore the underlying circular reasoning of "good is defined as not being evil and evil is defined as not being good", but you also need to define what and why the divine considers it to be so, which varies amongst cultures and locations. an example of this is that various mesopotamian civilisations, most notably the phoenicians, considered it moral and good to sacrifice infants to their deities, most prominently baal, which the romans of the same time period considered to be a barbarous atrocity. another example of the dynamic and therefore subjective nature of this type of ethics is the fact that the arbitrary concepts of good and evil in the current era, with the various ideas and practices that are currently tolerated by the majority of the population, vary wildly from the same concepts of good and evil from a few decades ago.
|
||||
|
||||
this does not imply that ethics are destined to be subjective, or that morality cannot exist, but rather it necessitates the foundation of a new concept of ethics.
|
||||
|
||||
a friend of mine asked me to think of this as a person placing their hand in of an open flame. irregardless of any subjective pleasure or displeasure one might derive from the event, there is an objective process that happens, the hand burning, and the natural response to this which is to pull the hand from the flame. exactly because of the existance of a free will and a capacity to choose, one might choose to maintain their hand in the flame, or remove it from it. therefore, one can define as a good thing to remove their hand from the process. while it may or may not be subjectively good for the person, there is an objective process, the burning of the hand, that can be defined as 'not good', because it damages the individual. this is the objective basis for ethics.
|
||||
|
||||
since the above holds for the individual, we must extend this to interpersonal relationships. such a task is easy; knowingly putting another person's hand in the flame, or leading them to do so, counts as an unethical action. of importance is to note that the action is unethical, not the person. this is thusly because a person has the capacity to act in both an ethically good and an ethically bad manner. at the same time, a person might regret their past actions and seek forgiveness; this cannot be seen as anything but atonement, and therefore since a person has the ability to regret, there can not be a universal, permanent ethical alignment of the individual, at least up to and until the point of death.
|
||||
|
||||
because of the effective societal pressure in interhuman interactions, there is an additional claim concerning objectively ethical actions. any attempt to nonconsensually interact with a person, violating their capacity to voluntarily engage, can be labeled as a malicious act; even if the person acts unknowingly, they have deprived the other indeividual of their free will and have therefore commited a bad act.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: "on free will"
|
||||
weight: 2
|
||||
bookCollapseSection: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# on free will
|
||||
|
||||
## introduction
|
||||
in this part, i attempt to present free will as a mode of action. multiple times throughout long discussions with others, and with myself, i have run into issues pertaining to the definition and the idea that such a mode even exists.
|
||||
|
||||
moreover, to be able to move ahead with discussing moral, societal, and human issues, i need to define free will, since, in every other mode of action, the aforementioned cannot exist; one needs to be able to *choose* in order to have a moral status, form relationships, and even define themselves.
|
||||
|
||||
due to the infallible nature of free will, the discussion concerning the existence of free will leaves much to be desired; it is nevertheless important to the rest of the text.
|
||||
|
||||
## table of contents
|
||||
1. [the existence of free will]({{% relref "/texts/metaphysika/on free will/existence" %}})
|
||||
|
||||
2. [defining free will]({{% relref "/texts/metaphysika/on free will/definition" %}})
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: "defining free will"
|
||||
weight: 2
|
||||
---
|
||||
# defining free will
|
||||
|
||||
if we accept [the idea of free will existing]({{% relref "/texts/metaphysika/on free will/existence" %}}), we should be able to define it, in order to be able to self reference and call upon to make use of this idea. this also helps in clarifying the meaning, which in everyday speech is muddled, much like most of language, due to the nature of communication (this is a discussion for a later time.).
|
||||
|
||||
alongside free will, there are two more modes of behaviour in nature, determinism and pure randomness. discussing these first is necessary to properly define free will, since these are directly observable in the outside world; free will is only directly observable in the inner state of the self, with the admission that others behave similarly.
|
||||
|
||||
the first term we will explore is determinism, the idea that things in nature behave in a predefined, preordained way. this mode of action is generally linked with non sentient or better yet non living things, such as rocks, metals, everyday objects that we make use of etc. by claiming that they move deterministically, we claim that there is, theoretically if not literally, a way by which we can obtain every single bit of information about the past and the future of the object under study, subject to an adequate amount of information about the current state. here, by theoretically one can imply the existence of a perfect measurement device, that can give accurate measurements up to any level of significance one might care about. this does not guarantee absolute and complete knowledge of a system, but rather guarantees that the object in question behaves predictably, under a known or unknown set of laws, physical in nature. this means that a deterministic object cannot operate on its own, as it is fully under the influence and flow of the external world.
|
||||
|
||||
true randomness is the exact opposite. true randomness implies that under any circumstances, there does not exist a mechanism or set of predefined laws that we can use to guarantee that the outcome will be aligned with any prediction one might make. in this way, true randomness can only be partially predicted with the use of mechanisms that predict expected, or average behaviours, without the possibility to definitively correctly guess a single outcome. as a truly random behaviour cannot be dictated by external factors, since it would be just an extremely complex deterministic system, true randomness is not dictated by any factors.
|
||||
|
||||
both of the above mechanisms appear to influence the individual. determinism creeps in as pressure, both environmental and evolutionary, while truly random behaviour might manifest as a spontaneous, if instantaneous, change.
|
||||
|
||||
these however do not provide for a mechanism that allows for the individual to be influenced by their own inner state. since deterministic behaviour has a set output for a given input, and random behaviour is nonsensical by definition, there needs to be a mechanism by which the person can, by observing and acting on themselves, change and manipulate a behaviour or outcome.
|
||||
|
||||
this mechanism is free will.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,27 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: "the existence of free will"
|
||||
weight: 1
|
||||
---
|
||||
# the existence of free will
|
||||
|
||||
in order to define and then converse on ideas relating to free will, one must first convince themselves on its existence. truthfully, one can simply make a definition, as well as talk about the emergent system much like any other metaphysical structure, but there is merit in being able to argue for its existence.
|
||||
|
||||
on this matter, there are many different arguments, however i will focus on the three that i find the strongest; this does not mean that one can prove existence, but these seem to strongly suggest and support that free will is indeed part of reality.
|
||||
|
||||
before i express these arguments, i would like to take some time to explain why the existence of free will is an unprovable claim. apart from the ideas discussed earlier [on logical fallacies]({{% relref "/texts/metaphysika/on logic/fallacies" %}}), and [on axioms]({{% relref "/texts/metaphysika/on logic/axioms" %}}), there is another reason, metaphysical in nature, and inseparable from the existence of the god.
|
||||
|
||||
if one is to believe in a god that loves them fully and unconditionally, one must also believe that such a god would never force them to believe in him; rather he would give them the option to choose to do so. in such a situation, any factual proof for the existence of god is unwanted, both by him, and by any believer, since any such proof would ***force*** them to believe in him, rather than ***choose*** to do so.
|
||||
|
||||
in the same vein, the existence of free stops any unrefutable proof from being possible, since every person would be forced to accept it as a factual truth. thus, the existence of free will is as unprovable as the existence of god.
|
||||
|
||||
having said the above, i can now present the arguments.
|
||||
|
||||
the first argument has to do with the simplicity of the system, and involves creating a system in which free will is absent, which makes said system much more complex and obtuse. this, because one must explain why and how the constructs (since we don't talk about living things if free will is absent, but mere constructs) came to be, as one might observe them. as a very good friend mentioned, without free will persons are but functions, receiving an input and producing an output. however, "***i***" (a concept that does not exist without free will) can both observe, and change the "output" before it is ever expressed, which is easier explained with free will than without.
|
||||
|
||||
the second argument is concerned with aesthetics, and the relation between the nature of beauty, and that of truth. in due time these will be expanded upon, but for now one may use the idea of "*beauty is truth*" as is.
|
||||
|
||||
the second argument thus is as follows; it is much more beautiful for there to be free will, than for there to not be.
|
||||
|
||||
obviously such a statement is extremely subjective, but such a statement is true for the totality of knowledge. unfortunately the nature of communication makes it impossible to describe beauty and sentiment, so i choose not to expand on this argument.
|
||||
|
||||
finally, we can simply make an admission, without any extra argumentation. besides, it is obvious that there is no need for a person to justify or rationalize every aspect of their faith, nor are they obligated to answer to anybody except for themselves. it is therefore possible, and maybe even proper, for someone to define the existence of free will axiomatically, ignoring any other argument for or against it.
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: "on logic"
|
||||
weight: 1
|
||||
bookCollapseSection: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# on logic
|
||||
|
||||
## introduction
|
||||
in this part, i attempt to deconstruct logic; with one singular purpose, to prove that logic is not self consistent, and therefore fails the necessary condition set by logic itself for a mode of thinking to be useful. this is done since, if logic itself is paradoxically true and false at the same time, it probably does not exist.
|
||||
|
||||
this is beneficial, because with the existence of logic one is extremely limited to the ideas that they can discuss; truthfully one can only speak of mathematical concepts given that logic is the only way to approach reality.
|
||||
|
||||
to show that we can talk about the unobservable and infallible, i create a weak and a strong claim of axiomatic reliance. the weak claim deals with the nature of axioms as a matter of faith, whilst the strong claim deals with the axiomatic reality of all knowledge.
|
||||
|
||||
## table of contents
|
||||
1. [the nature of faith]({{% relref "/texts/metaphysika/on logic/axioms" %}})
|
||||
|
||||
2. [concerning fallacies]({{% relref "/texts/metaphysika/on logic/fallacies" %}})
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: "the nature of faith"
|
||||
weight: 1
|
||||
---
|
||||
# the nature of faith
|
||||
|
||||
the words "logic" and "knowledge" are often connected in the minds of humans. in the sciences, logic is used religiously, in an attempt to obtain knowledge, in the same way that it is used in religions.
|
||||
|
||||
in truth, logic is unable to lead to complete, general knowledge inside of a system, which fully describes the truth.
|
||||
|
||||
every logical system, by definition, must exist within some constraints, to prevent it from collapsing onto itself, and these constraints must be considered true and fixed, without the need of proof, since otherwise the initial system should have to begin under new, different, unalterable truths.
|
||||
|
||||
such truths, which can define a logical system on their own, are called *axioms*.
|
||||
|
||||
the need for axioms is simultaneously the strength and weakness of logic. on the one hand, through well defined axioms, one can fully comprehend the system under study, while on the other, axioms are a poison in the minds of humans, since humans will inevitably use them and will define them in systems where logic is unable to work.
|
||||
|
||||
one of these systems is reality.
|
||||
|
||||
it is undeniable that we now know more about the world we live in than our ancestors, but this knowledge is superficial.
|
||||
|
||||
the proof for that statement is simple. if someone asks an authoritative figure in physics a simple question such as "what is a magnet? how do magnets work?" they will receive many plausible answers, none of which will truly satisfy the responder, even if they satisfy the questioner. the responder knows that the provided answers are nothing but approximations of the truth, each varying in complexity, with some being closer to reality than others, but none of them being the actual truth of the matter.
|
||||
|
||||
at the same time there are a lot of zealously religious persons, that neither know the axiomatic system nor the knowledge base of the system, that stand for scientific truth, without understanding that in essence, they make a conscious choice to **believe** in its truth.
|
||||
|
||||
these people have, therefore, as an axiomatic system for their personal truth the words of scientists, not knowing that with this choice, they are similar to any other religious group that exists in our time.
|
||||
|
||||
to paraphrase a quote
|
||||
>are you not a hypocrite?
|
||||
>
|
||||
>do you not trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you that they are chemicals?
|
||||
>
|
||||
>all knowledge ultimately comes from that which is unprovable.
|
||||
>
|
||||
>will you fight? or will you perish like a dog?
|
||||
|
||||
given then that one can never know the truth *a priori*, and all axiomatic systems are unable to describe the entirety of reality, what can one do?
|
||||
|
||||
the only way that exists is faith, which is the principal decision one makes before even choosing an axiomatic system, and which occurs due to the fact that, before you can study the system, you need to belive that it is well defined and founded, and also that to some extent it is capable of representing the truth.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
title: "concerning fallacies"
|
||||
weight: 2
|
||||
---
|
||||
# concerning fallacies
|
||||
|
||||
to conclude the [discussion on logic]({{% relref "/texts/metaphysika/on logic/axioms" %}}), i would like to examine in depth the propagation of knowledge, in order to present the greatest result; the fact that most appeals to logic are themselves a logical fallacy.
|
||||
|
||||
logical fallacies are, like all named things, characterizations; and they grant a person the ability to understand if a proposition is logically consistent in the broader system of an axiomatic system.
|
||||
|
||||
the fallacy that is most worth discussing here is the one committed when appealing to an authority, which should not and cannot stand as a logical argument. this is because every authoritative figure, being human, has the capacity to make mistakes, or to not express themselves in a perfect manner, or to even act maliciously. at the same time, every individual appealing to said authority might have misunderstood the content of the argument, or act maliciously for personal benefit.
|
||||
|
||||
besides, such techniques have been used countless times throughout history, in order to convince and manipulate individuals to surrender their liberties, their properties and themselves to others.
|
||||
|
||||
this is the main argument used by the supporters of logic; in favour of it, and against other religions.
|
||||
|
||||
nevertheless, logic itself not only appeals to authority, but this fallacy is necessary for it's continued existence and propagation.
|
||||
|
||||
the evolution and spread of logical ideas is based on continuity. every new generation receives scientific knowledge, folklore, theology, and using these as a foundation is able to expand the collective understanding of the world. through this action, humanity does not need to start from zero, but rather they only have to rely on the authoritative guidance of the people before themselves to advance.
|
||||
|
||||
it is this very act however that, according to logic itself as born by this very process, is fallacious.
|
||||
|
||||
even worse, the very act of propagating knowledge, as well as any form of communication, must appeal to an authority, for why else would a person communicate unless they felt like they had something to say.
|
||||
|
||||
under this realization, logic is incapable of logically leading an individual towards the truth, except for possibly a single path.
|
||||
|
||||
this path demands for each and every individual to have a non-finite time, so that they may explore truth on their own, without any prior knowledge, using only their own internalized logic and deriving the truth themselves, as they understand it, using a series of logical arguments. knowledge earned in this manner asks of the individual to verify the claims made along the way themselves, which seemingly leads, finally, the individual to the truth.
|
||||
|
||||
i say 'possibly' a single path, and 'seemingly' leads to the truth, because even in this scenario appealing to authority is unavoidable; for does a person not have to trust themselves that the knowledge they have is valid? do they not have to rely on themselves as an authoritative figure to explore past the beginning of their reason?
|
||||
|
||||
alas, this is the greatest and most subtle flaw of logic; that even in the abscence of others, you need to have faith, at minimum to yourself.
|
||||
|
|
@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ enableGitInfo = false
|
|||
# (Optional, default docs) Specify root page to render child pages as menu.
|
||||
# Page is resoled by .GetPage function: https://gohugo.io/functions/getpage/
|
||||
# For backward compatibility you can set '*' to render all sections to menu. Acts same as '/'
|
||||
BookSection = 'texts'
|
||||
BookSection = '/'
|
||||
|
||||
# Set source repository location.
|
||||
# Used for 'Last Modified' and 'Edit this page' links.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue