A Quick Question November 25, 2007
Posted by extradocument in Philosophy.Tags: 6th sense, awareness, Descartes, Philosophy, random
trackback
Recently, I’ve been in a war with myself, and some of those around me; not a physical war, but you could consider it a spiritual one. This war doesn’t exist outside the bounds of it’s battles, there is no downtime, because if there isn’t a battle, the war doesn’t exist. This war is one of our existence.
Now, it’s not fighting for our existence against some other-worldly being, but it’s a war to prove our existence, and it’s funneled around some questions that can make you think.
1. If you were born without senses (i.e. touch, smell, sight, taste, and hearing) then how would you find the grounds to prove you exist?
Seems like a simple enough question, you could use the classic statement by Rene Descartes; “I think, therefore I am.” which was used as his grounds of his existence, to which he moved on to solve this and that and become the “father of modern philosophy”.
Descartes’ premise for this search for a proof of existence began with his belief that the senses lied to you, and therefore could not be trusted. This works well with a person who has no senses, because it leaves no way for them to lie to you, it also however gives their non-existence new meaning, perhaps them not-lying to you is itself an oxymoron, and is a lie of it’s own.
Next we come to Descartes’ firm belief that he does indeed “think”. Now, of the people I have asked, and most likely of you too, everybody thinks in a language, generally their primary language of use, for example, as an English speaker, when I think to myself, I think in English, whereas a fried who speaks Chinese in his personal life is inclined to think mostly in Mandarin. This leaves way to wondering if it is possible to think, if you have gained no language skills. That is to say, since language depends on the experiences of your life, especially the auditory components, if you never experienced anything (through lack of senses from birth) can you think? And through connection, can you justify an existence?
My next all-seeing question, comes from the first and is as follows:
2. If you were to lose your senses after having established them previously (through age) how would you now justify your existence?
Most commonly, the justification I get for this would be “you don’t” a wholly pittyful excuse for avoiding the question, and avoiding my incessant moaning about life. I do, however, feel a need that this is answered, for if you can’t experience anything, what justifies your purpose, and existence? Descartes’ basis of “I think therefore I am” now fits in quite well so this part of my question is very closely linked to answering the first, and when considered by itself, seems wholly useless. Nonetheless, it’s useful to bring up the assumption that after a prolonged period of time, we still experience thought. If for instance, there is no need for something, we can forget of it, take a physical trait for example, tails. According to the Darwinian theory of evolution, and the removal of uneeded “wind-dings” our bodies created but no longer have a use for, our tails eventually were dismissed; as a species, there was no longer a need, so we could do without them. The same may fit along with though, if you have no experiences, or reason to think, then who is to say that thought is needed? And, if you give up on the need for thought, and stop thinking all together, then by Descartes’ reasoning, you may not exist, for you are missing a vital part of his thesis.
Lastly my questions end with a final one, that again follows:
3. If our senses can be removed, or deceive us, and that a single senses can’t be wholly experienced with the other senses we are capable of, how do we know if we have lost a sense that has never been acquired in the first place?
That is to say, if you never had a sense of sight, how would you know you don’t have it? People could tell you about it yes, or you might perceive another person’s reaction, but that still won’t give you full sense of knowing you lost a sense. To give an example, someone who dosen’t like tacos, could be told that they “don’t know what they’re missing” but could that be perceived as you not having a 6th sense that is solely used to experience tacos? Most likely not, and this does a fairly sound job of giving an example about “incomplete perception” as I have called it.
Hopefully, one day, I can stop troubling myself and get to think of something else, like whether or not it’s really worth it to eat taco’s, but for now, I can continue to ask myself the question of whether or not we can ever justify our existence.
Great questions!
Here are a couple of thoughts:
1) There can be no awareness of existence without some sort of subject-object dichotomy. That means that rocks cannot know that they exist unless they have some awareness that is relatively objective. While some sort of extraordinarily primitive prehension is conceivable for rocks, it is difficult to imagine. Without the senses to mediate a sense of objectivity, there can be no sense of separate self. It is questionable that this even exists in the animal kingdom apart from language, except on a raw physiological and emotional level. So you wouldn’t know that you existed, in any language-based way, if you were born without senses; you couldn’t, because language is based on and assumes sensory awareness.
2) Given that there ARE senses operating, a sense of self can be built on top of that as a potential that was previously unexpressed. If we lost our senses, would those potentials also be lost? The experience of dreaming implies that non-sensory mediated experience continues in the absence of sensory input, at least for a while. Therefore it is tempting to answer that “yes, once potentials are awakened they do have some sort of resonance or echo that amounts to something more than sensory experience, something along the lines of Sheldrake’s morphogenic fields, perhaps.” I am enough of an optimist to believe that nothing is ever lost, even if it simply is absorbed back into a slowly awakening species unconscious.
The problem of contemplating existence apart from the senses or the mind comes in asking, “Where then is meaning?” So one might say, yes, we continue to live on as souls, whatever that means, or as kleshic attachments, as the Buddhists believe, but the statement “I exist” needs to have a referent. In the absence both senses and thought, one has to work pretty hard to find a referent that provides a teaspoon full of satisfaction.
3) If I have never developed a sense, I am ignorant of it. I do not know what I have lost; therefore I do not have a problem. Therefore, I cannot even pose this problem to myself. It exists, but only as an unrecognized, unrealized, unmanifested potential within me. There are ways that at least some of these can be brought into awareness and incubated into waking existence. These potentials seem to want to be born on their own, regardless of whether we are aware of them, want them, or like them or not. There is something much bigger than ourselves that is always working to be born in and through us. We may understand it or we may not; we may like it or we may not; we may believe in it or we may not, but in my mind the reality of those largely unarticulated and uncomprehended potentials is a given not just of human experience but of evolution itself.
It is only because you have evolved quite beyond identification with your senses that you feel a need to ask these questions; it is only because you are able to separate your sense of self from the contents of your mind and do meta-analysis: thinking about thinking, that the existential concern of justifying your existence even comes up for you. People who are not yet at this level won’t get what you are talking about because they are not at this level of objectivity; people who are beyond this point will not seek validation for a transrational process (life) from a merely rational perspective. That is not to discount the mind or the importance of your thoughtful questions, but only to say that the mind cannot grasp and does not want to grasp the final absurdity of trust in the face of fear, rationality in the face of monstrous abuse, or meaning in the face of rampant meaninglessness.
I woke up the other day because I heard what sounded like spraying water outside my bedroom. When I went to my window, I saw that my neighbors were painting their car. I was surprised how nice, and professional it looked, even in the sparkly purple color it was. Then it occurred to me that I’d seen them doing this before, and I thought maybe they were running some sort of chop shop or something. Then my alarm started screaming at me, when I looked at it, it was all jumbled. Then I woke up.
I was on the verge of a lucid dream. Unfortunately any time that I realize that I’m dreaming, I instantly wake up.
I found Descarte eerily comforting? It was almost zen like.
Every meeting at work now, every cubicle seems that much more contrived, and yet that’s ok, because the meager act of questioning my relationship with them, validates my existence, even if everything I think that I’m aware of is artificial. Is it possible to question or define the self, with out having to prove or disprove a god like creature?
Just a comment urging you to post again.