A blog dedicated to philosophy, history, politics, literature
Pages
Sunday, September 27, 2020
Tolerance of Uncertainty
The ultimate truths are unknowable and at the base of all knowledge there is an element of uncertainty, but that does not imply that we should stop exploring the unknown—it implies that man must learn to tolerate uncertainty.
1. Would like to know what you mean by "the ultimate truth". Specifically, if it is unknowable, and hence obviously not known to you, then how do you know that it is true?
2. "At the base of all knowledge there is an element of uncertainty".
How do you justify that?
If I were to be in your place, I would make the following statements, respectively:
1. Consciousness is finite, limited, and therefore, all knowledge is so---finite, limited.
2. All knowledge is certain, definite, and as such, it has a limited scope.
Every concept refers to only a conceptual encapsulation of some aspect of existence, and due to the limited nature of the conceptual integration involved, a concept cannot be used as if you knew those aspects of the world which it doesn't subsume. This is no uncertainty. It's delineation of the nature of the concept.
The "some aspect" idea applies even to the concept of existence itself. Even if it refers to *all* the existents, and hence is at the base of all knowledge, it still directly refers to and encapsulates only this fact *about* each referent it subsumes, viz., that it exists. No other fact is subsumed in the concept of existence itself.
Our positions obviously seem to differ. So do the better passages from the Upanishad, interpreted correctly, and your apparent positions.
@Ajit, In philosophy, the term "ultimate truths" are generally used for the knowledge of the whole -- for instance, what is the ultimate nature of matter? how and when did the universe come into being? what is the nature of man's mind? what is the connection between the mind and the body? does a soul exist? is there a free will?
On these fundamental questions, philosophical arguments have been going on for more than 4000 years, but there is no agreement. Man has no way of proving or disproving the assertions made on such questions.
>>"@Ajit, In philosophy, the term "ultimate truths" are generally used for the knowledge of the whole"
No. Good philosophers don't use the terms as carelessly as you here portray them to be doing.
>>" -- for instance, what is the ultimate nature of matter?"
That already presupposes you are talking only of matter and not about existence. It's very much a specialized issue, mostly to do with physics and its philosophy---not with the general philosophy as you imply.
>> "how and when did the universe come into being? "
Qua a philosophic question (which you are discussing) and not a physics question, it's an invalid question. It has the premise of denial of existence, by inverting the hierarchy between existence and consciousness. Even the mixed-premises parts of Upanishads do not admit this question. Don't you know they say "neti, neti, neti"?
>> "what is the nature of man's mind? what is the connection between the mind and the body? does a soul exist? is there a free will? "
These are mostly to do with philosophy of mind, which is not the "ultimate" philosophy---it rests on a philosophy of existence. Mark the distinction between "sat-" and "satya".
See my reply above. If anything you claim to be true is in principle unknowable, then don't skirt the issue, but tell me how do you know it.
>> "On these fundamental questions, philosophical arguments have been going on for more than 4000 years, but there is no agreement. "
If you suggest that every one wait for agreement from every one to come in before declaring validity to any position or any answer, sure enough (i.e. I am *certain*), you would keep waiting.
>> "Man has no way of proving or disproving the assertions made on such questions. "
Good philosophers have proved their positions abundantly well, whether you understood them or not.
Don't talk about "man" in general. Talk about yourself---your positions. But do you have any?
Just commenting, and commenting and commenting, and subtly attacking this, and subtly hinting at that... Typical humanities guy you seem to be. Ridiculous!
@Ajit, There are different ways of looking at these issues. For instance, there is the philosopher called Edmund Husserl who devoted his life to trying to find a single piece of knowledge of which he would be certain. He has written several books, which are highly influential and spawned major movements in the world like Phenomenology, Existentialism, postmodernism, etc. But in the end he was not able to find a single certain knowledge. His quest was futile. More than 2300 years ago, Aristotle based his metaphysics on the theory of Prime mover or Ultimate mover which cannot be proved or disproved.
4 comments:
1. Would like to know what you mean by "the ultimate truth". Specifically, if it is unknowable, and hence obviously not known to you, then how do you know that it is true?
2. "At the base of all knowledge there is an element of uncertainty".
How do you justify that?
If I were to be in your place, I would make the following statements, respectively:
1. Consciousness is finite, limited, and therefore, all knowledge is so---finite, limited.
2. All knowledge is certain, definite, and as such, it has a limited scope.
Every concept refers to only a conceptual encapsulation of some aspect of existence, and due to the limited nature of the conceptual integration involved, a concept cannot be used as if you knew those aspects of the world which it doesn't subsume. This is no uncertainty. It's delineation of the nature of the concept.
The "some aspect" idea applies even to the concept of existence itself. Even if it refers to *all* the existents, and hence is at the base of all knowledge, it still directly refers to and encapsulates only this fact *about* each referent it subsumes, viz., that it exists. No other fact is subsumed in the concept of existence itself.
Our positions obviously seem to differ. So do the better passages from the Upanishad, interpreted correctly, and your apparent positions.
Best,
--Ajit
@Ajit, In philosophy, the term "ultimate truths" are generally used for the knowledge of the whole -- for instance, what is the ultimate nature of matter? how and when did the universe come into being? what is the nature of man's mind? what is the connection between the mind and the body? does a soul exist? is there a free will?
On these fundamental questions, philosophical arguments have been going on for more than 4000 years, but there is no agreement. Man has no way of proving or disproving the assertions made on such questions.
>>"@Ajit, In philosophy, the term "ultimate truths" are generally used for the knowledge of the whole"
No. Good philosophers don't use the terms as carelessly as you here portray them to be doing.
>>" -- for instance, what is the ultimate nature of matter?"
That already presupposes you are talking only of matter and not about existence. It's very much a specialized issue, mostly to do with physics and its philosophy---not with the general philosophy as you imply.
>> "how and when did the universe come into being? "
Qua a philosophic question (which you are discussing) and not a physics question, it's an invalid question. It has the premise of denial of existence, by inverting the hierarchy between existence and consciousness. Even the mixed-premises parts of Upanishads do not admit this question. Don't you know they say "neti, neti, neti"?
>> "what is the nature of man's mind? what is the connection between the mind and the body? does a soul exist? is there a free will? "
These are mostly to do with philosophy of mind, which is not the "ultimate" philosophy---it rests on a philosophy of existence. Mark the distinction between "sat-" and "satya".
See my reply above. If anything you claim to be true is in principle unknowable, then don't skirt the issue, but tell me how do you know it.
>> "On these fundamental questions, philosophical arguments have been going on for more than 4000 years, but there is no agreement. "
If you suggest that every one wait for agreement from every one to come in before declaring validity to any position or any answer, sure enough (i.e. I am *certain*), you would keep waiting.
>> "Man has no way of proving or disproving the assertions made on such questions. "
Good philosophers have proved their positions abundantly well, whether you understood them or not.
Don't talk about "man" in general. Talk about yourself---your positions. But do you have any?
Just commenting, and commenting and commenting, and subtly attacking this, and subtly hinting at that... Typical humanities guy you seem to be. Ridiculous!
I will leave you with your games.
Good luck.
--Ajit
@Ajit, There are different ways of looking at these issues. For instance, there is the philosopher called Edmund Husserl who devoted his life to trying to find a single piece of knowledge of which he would be certain. He has written several books, which are highly influential and spawned major movements in the world like Phenomenology, Existentialism, postmodernism, etc. But in the end he was not able to find a single certain knowledge. His quest was futile. More than 2300 years ago, Aristotle based his metaphysics on the theory of Prime mover or Ultimate mover which cannot be proved or disproved.
Post a Comment