So often, there are common aspects of life we don’t recognize, mainly because they’re not directly in front of us. Science and philosophy always strive to minimize the gap between the obvious and the obscure, with science exploring the very bits and pieces that make up our existence. The common man will give credence to science, often because once the science is broken down and explained in layman’s terms, and then the evidence is displayed through explanation and pictures taken by telescopes or microscopes, it comes together in the mind, making relatively decent sense. Sure, there are viewpoints in science we don’t always agree with, and there are those explanations prompting more questions than answers. However, there is a video to see, a presentation to mull over, or at least something tangible to view when it comes to scientific pursuits. For the art of philosophy, however, things are not always so straightforward.
When the average person sees a young individual pursuing an education in science, be it physics, biology or whatever else, they perceive someone who is grasping their life full force, forging ahead into a life of success and, hopefully, the continuing service to mankind. But when the same average person sees a bright mind seeking the avenue of philosophy, the picture isn’t quite so dazzling. The joke is something akin to, ‘Well, there’s the next great fast food manager.’ Fewer people than ever before recognize the pursuit of the ‘Wondering Arts’ (philosophy is more of an art than science, since it requires such subtlety in order to get it) as a viable pursuit, and so many see it as the quest for the privileged; a profession for those who don’t concern themselves with potential failure. If this was the case, one would hope more of the privileged would pursue it. It would be wonderful to see great minds with secure finances pursue philosophy, because then just that many more people would be doing it.
Since there are fewer people seeking a profession in philosophy, short of those hoping to learn it just so they can teach it (or use it for the modern usage, which is so often as a counselor of some sort) and fewer people within the rank and file appreciate the depth of the wisdom gained by it, the intent of this writing (it might be the first of a series) is to impress the average reader with some basic philosophical conclusions perceived by some of the finest minds in times past. The desire is to help the reader gain some perspective on why philosophizing can be as enlightening as experimenting can be. Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of philosophy is the laboratory exists mainly within the mind.
To illustrate, let’s take a look at something many philosophy students touch on in their first day of class of Philosophy 101. We’ve all heard (and some have mocked) the question: If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make any sound?
It sounds rather silly, right? Perhaps that is why the question pops up quickly in many basic philosophy courses; if a student cannot accept this question as it stands without rolling their eyes, then the more complex questions to follow would dissuade even more. It would be best to encourage the linear minds to pursue another class down the hall rather than waste their time on such contemplations, before it’s too late. But for those open to entertaining the question, the insights leading to the answer to the question could prove enlightening. Let’s take a look and see how many readers roll their eyes (or turn to the article on the presidential race, which is, by the way, an aspect of political philosophy) and click to Animal Planet, engaging viewers with entertaining Natural Philosophy.
In a nutshell, the answer to the question is: No. The falling tree does not make any noise if there is no one there to hear it. This is because the act of hearing is a perception. This perception (one of your five senses) requires atmospheric undulations, acute ripples in the atmospheric pressure of the air, to affect the sensitive eardrum, which sends a bio-electric signal from the eardrum to the brain, where the signal is registered as a sound. The eardrum is a precision instrument, or organ, allowing the faintest changes in these waves to be perceived in innumerable ways. The reason the answer is no is because if there is no one there, no ear there, to translate the waves into sound, they’re only effects on the air. So, we do not hear sound so much as we perceive atmospheric effects as sound. Voila.
This is an abbreviated example of the subject, but should be enough to provoke an insight into what philosophy pursues. From this starting block, so many hefty pursuits into the subject of philosophy are launched. And don’t minimize the significance of this; philosophies of so many people have affected the way your society is today. Communism, Fascism, Socialism, among other serious issues, have their roots embedded in the philosophical minds of their creators. The repercussions and values of freedom are subjects deeply rooted in philosophical analysis. Love, the subject and desire to understand love, is pure philosophy.
Since this article is the first (of hopefully several) article on the art of philosophy from this humble author, it just makes sense to start at the beginning. Not the beginning of time, or the day, or the subject, but the beginning of where philosophy starts, and bears significance. This is with the individual. Me. You. That person over there.
You are who you are (duh) and that is something inherently different from anything else. I know, duh again. The point to be impressed leans towards the question of the fallen tree; it is a matter of perception of some dynamic. If no one is present to hear the tree fall, no one hears it. Okay, this is why some people groan and turn to semantics instead. But that act of hearing, or any perception whatsoever, requires someone to perceive it. Beyond that, the acknowledgement of perception takes place within the mind, the brain, of the individual, and now we are at the subject of this writing.
How many of us consider the fact that all of our perceptions of the world around us are only (this bears repeating) only acknowledged and perceived in our minds. The senses are NOT windows to the world around us, our environment, or anything beyond our bodies, but a translation of the bio-electric signals received and translated by the brain. As you read this, your eyes are not windows allowing your monitor to emit the words onto the you within; much in the way we think we see the road through the windshield. The light emitting from the screen as the photons bounce around impress upon the retinas, and then are reverted into a signal passed along the optic nerve to the brain, where the signal is translated by the mind. Would you like some simple proof? If you wear corrective lenses, take them off and then read this. If you have perfect vision, put on someone else’s glasses and read this. Which is the reality? Is there more than one reality? Aha!
We all agree that all people are different. We are each a unique individual, complete with differences too numerous to list. Sure, we have a plethora of similarities, but we’re confident we’re all different. This is momentous, because since we agree we’re all different, then we must assume we all perceive differently. This lends to why we have such a difficult history. Perceptions, points of view, are all different. His brain is different from his brain, or her brain. Okay, that’s all fine, so let’s get back to the subject. We can only perceive the world around us, the immediate environment around us, through our perceptions. Are your perceptions equal to another person’s perceptions? How is there a way to know? There is no way to know what another sees, because if you look at what they look at, you only have your perception. Even if some bizarre, high-tech thing allowed you to view the world through another (like we see in some SF movies), you’re still ultimately perceiving through your senses only. Further, once you recognize that your personal perceptions are your reality only, and not necessarily the reality of another, then you start to understand just how alone, singular, you truly are. This leads to another philosophical issue: the difference between reality and actuality. We’ll cover that another time.
The point is, your understanding of your environment, your world, and the universe you live in, are all impressed upon you ONLY through the way your brain translates the sensory signals. That is it; that’s all, folks. It all takes place within the gushy matter contained within your skull. Your assumption that you know anything that takes place beyond the sensory impulses as they impress upon your brain, is all illusion. Now you know why Criss Angel enjoys such an illustrious career. He knows how to manipulate your senses to his liking.
It all sounds like scientific theory, and in many ways it is. But it is philosophy, in that we are speculating, wondering what makes us, well, us. Science explores the nuts and bolts of the sensory organs and the brain; philosophy explores why these things are and how they affect us and our environment, and asks why. Even if science broke it down to the barest truths, why is it this way? Is it really this way? Regardless of the truth, we are only our individual selves.
As stated earlier, we were pursuing philosophy from the beginning. At the individual level is where we started, and it is as good a place to start as any. We have explored the philosophical presumption that we are in ourselves, and we cannot know anything of our environment beyond what our senses allow. There is a name for this situation. This is known as The Egocentric Predicament.
