It seems like there is a lot more to our universe that we have yet to find out, and some things we just may never know. It is interesting, however, to think that less than a thousand years ago the Earth and the Sun were the extents of humans’ universe, and even then they thought that the Earth was in the centre!
We can keep on discovering more and more every day, and as science and technology improve, the things we learn will increase. For this reason, I believe that epistemology’s base is in the observable. We can only know what we can sense in one way or another.
This still begs the question, “Are all our realities the same?” Taking something simple, like colours for example. I know that this text is black on a white background. I know that the sky is blue and that fresh grass is green. One thing to note is that I cannot see the world as another person sees it, so I cannot know if my “blue” is the same as yours as that is something that depends on the way your brain processes the photons that hit your retina, therefore even something we see as obvious is subjective to the individual. We can see a clear example of this in people with colour-blindness who have difficulty perceiving the whole range of colours, and people who are blind who cannot see colour at all, and therefore may find it impossible to comprehend a colour in the first place.
For some people, reality goes against logic, such as those who strongly believe that the earth is flat. While it is possible to disprove this misconception, there are people who will fight till their last breath to convince you that they are right. We cannot discredit the reality of these people however we can put these things into a more global perspective and make judgments on some universal truths or realities.
I don’t believe that we can ever know the “truth” related to issues which are not physical, such as ethics, religion, feelings, etc. The reason being that each of these things is very individual and will change from person to person, and while some trends may emerge it would be impossible to find a universal truth (or “Perfect Form” as described by Plato).
Ethics
As mentioned above, I feel that ethics are a very personal and individual issue. It is something that should adapt based on the situation following a few guidelines. Most major religious try to give an outline as to what morals should be, and claim that only they hold the truth about right and wrong. Isn’t it strange for the open minded individual that gay couple’s are sinners who deserve punishment or even death (as is believed by many conservative factions). Isn’t it as interesting as it is scary that people would join extremist Jihad groups who want to eliminate anyone who’s ideologies do not align with their own, and think they are right to do so?
My philosophy is based mainly on two principles;
The Epicurean philosophy which states that the sole purpose of our lives is to enjoy and make the most of the limited time we have on Earth. The philosophy has two main beliefs that help followers lead a life without fear which they could enjoy to the fullest potential –
- Do not fear god. This is because there is either a benevolent loving God who will accept you if you lead a good life and therefore should not be feared, or there is no god at all (or one that does not interfere such as the Aristotelian god mentioned above)
- Do not fear death. As when you are alive death isn’t present, and when you are dead your consciousness isn’t present to care.
The Epicurean philosophy sounds like a selfish one, and in essence it is. It’s a philosophy of ethics focused around making the individual as happy as can be. There is also, however, another rule which states that we should enjoy our lives to the fullest potential without diminishing the enjoyment of others around us. This means that if I want €1,000 I’m not allowed to just steal it to make myself happy as theft would affect someone else’s rightful happiness. Many people also find great happiness in selfless acts of making others happy which is well in line with Epicurean thinking.
When discussing ethics I like to merge Utilitarianism with Epicurean ethics. Utilitarianism states that in considering any action, the best action is the one that causes the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people. At this point a lot of intricacies arise, including “who do we consider people?” With people arguing it’s all those alive today, or all present and future people, with some even including animals. The next question is “how can you know what the effect of your actions will be both now and in the future?” We can think we are doing good but actually be causing a lot of harm and sometimes don’t have time to think all our actions through… Still, adding Utilitarianism to what Epicurus taught allows for some flexibility of personal happiness for the greater good, for example as opposed to lying in bed relaxing, going to help a friend in need if they call.
I will try to do my best to enjoy my life, which is why, for example, I don’t work a full time job I believe that all I have is one, limited life, so I should make the most out of every minute, trying to leave a trail of positivity as I go.
Does free will exist?
In a previous topic, we discussed ethics and spoke about which choices are right and which are wrong. The question we will deal with now is if that choice if even real, or just an illusion which we give ourselves.
I find there to be three possibilities, and I will outline each below.
Free will exits – this is probably the most conventional view however I think it is highly limited. For free will to truly exist every individual would need to have full control over everything they do. Even if we ignore basic things like instinct, which kicks in without us even knowing, or subconscious movements there are still many things that one wouldn’t do. Take me for example, if I have free will I would be able to kill any of you as I please and then not have any regret, and since it is not in my nature to kill, and my mind would not allow me to go through with the action, I can say that I do not have complete free will.
Free will exist in a heavily limited scope – to me this is much more realistic, we do have some choices which we can make for ourselves but these choices are all very heavily biased by multiple factors including nature (what is inside us from when we were born), environment (our physical surrounding), and nurture (the way we were brought up, including things which we learn and take in every day). Physical situations, such as illness, poverty, etc, also play a huge role in freedom and free will. All these factors narrow down the possibilities for every individual, which implies that while they can choose their next moves, they are predisposed to a small fraction of options compared to the infinite possibilities that would be possible with true free will.
We aren’t free at all and the universe is deterministic – this would imply that the universe, being made up of a number of subatomic particles, can be understood fully using mathematics. This means that if we know precisely how the universe started,we can from then calculate the action of each particle through time. Remember that even people are made up of particles that form solid mass, including our brains which send out physical electrical signals to make our bodies do things. While this theory appears to make sense, randomness is not taken into account, however true randomness is still yet to be proven, meaning that this theory is still scientifically plausible
