Nietzsche made a curious observation in a passage expressing his doubt as to the reality of the self. He noted that thoughts are rarely ever intentionally prompted, It is more often the thought that springs itself upon the thinker. Thinkers don't think thoughts; thoughts think thinkers.
If one reflects upon that stream flowing through one's consciousness, how many of the waves appear self-generating? One does not first intend awareness of perception and then categorize the perception. The perception presents itself. Even the more complex items of consciousness, the strands of linguistic thoughts often flow without any aid from the thinker. One sits in a waiting room, hears the sound of a woman scratching her arm, and is taken from thinking about dry skin to thinking about the American revolution. At the end of so many strands one wonders, "how did I get here?" How unruly are the contents of the mind! How often is a man's concentration broken by wandering thoughts? How easily does a train of thought become derailed! In all this, we are taken away from our "selves". In all of this victimization, we bare no responsibility. It was either a thought-object against our will or an unwilled thought-object that nevertheless took our field of consciousness over. How can there be a self that endures through the extent of one's life if there is not a unifier between a cross-section of one's consciousness? How can we proclaim the existence of a self when so much of what constitutes the purported self is involuntary and the self is fundamentally an agent (i.e., that which acts voluntarily)?
The unifier is the cohesiveness of the subjective experience. Every conscious moment contains a personal element. All of the contents of the mind, everything remembered of the reality previously experienced, and all the day-dreaming projections of the future, have the characteristic of being intuited in the same way. I can doubt the origins of a thought, but not that to be thought is the same--it is always something before me. Whether this "me" is a soul, self, mind, or body is a question for consequent investigation. At the moment of being thought, the quality of its being thought is the same.
How does one know there's something unifying one's life? One can never imagine a thought without thinking it, and thus stamps it with the characteristic of consciousness. The uniformity of consciousness is the evidence for a self.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Unseen Truth
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is near to hear it, does it make a sound? This is a hollow question. If an evil deed is performed and it is not punished, does it remain evil? Is there a more heart-rending question?! The possibility that an evil act unpunished is not an evil act is nauseating. What a horrible thing existence would be if there is no justice! Would not a sane, concerned, existing individual not snuff out her own life if it was certain that justice was a myth?
For justice to be a myth, it must not obtain universally. Human intuitions about justice include a requirement for absolute enforcement. A single act of injustice that slips by unnoticed, that tumbles into the past, and is forgotten totally and forever is enough to make justice a myth.
The desire for justice that so often resides in the heart does not entail that justice is real. The truth about existence cannot be bent by one's will (although one's will may be bent by it). Does the fact that people pine for justice make it suspicious, though? Is the appellation of 'wish-fulfillment' concerning its reality--if I may put it thus--justified?
A sense of justice need not be taught. However imperfectly, children know it and adults know it. Only sociopaths appear on occasion to be wholly devoid discerning judgment regarding justice. Every person not only knows something of justice, but wants justice to be done--at least when his or her case is in question.
The desire is so entrenched that it often is operative without one's notice. A man, finding faith completely repugnant, disavows all knowledge claims that are irrational. Accordingly, he refuses to assent to the notion that justice is real (i.e., universally pervasive) thinking metaphysics to be solely speculative and therefore irrational. Yet, how easily he takes offense when he has been wronged! When he is the victim of slander, how heavily he slams his fist on the desk and how loudly he demands satisfaction! What could be more satisfying than justice being done? To witness justice, to see an evil act derided for what it is, for merit to win the day: these events energize him. His heart acts on principles his mind rejects.
What could be more frightful than that one of humanity's highest ideals is proved an illusion?
For justice to be a myth, it must not obtain universally. Human intuitions about justice include a requirement for absolute enforcement. A single act of injustice that slips by unnoticed, that tumbles into the past, and is forgotten totally and forever is enough to make justice a myth.
The desire for justice that so often resides in the heart does not entail that justice is real. The truth about existence cannot be bent by one's will (although one's will may be bent by it). Does the fact that people pine for justice make it suspicious, though? Is the appellation of 'wish-fulfillment' concerning its reality--if I may put it thus--justified?
A sense of justice need not be taught. However imperfectly, children know it and adults know it. Only sociopaths appear on occasion to be wholly devoid discerning judgment regarding justice. Every person not only knows something of justice, but wants justice to be done--at least when his or her case is in question.
The desire is so entrenched that it often is operative without one's notice. A man, finding faith completely repugnant, disavows all knowledge claims that are irrational. Accordingly, he refuses to assent to the notion that justice is real (i.e., universally pervasive) thinking metaphysics to be solely speculative and therefore irrational. Yet, how easily he takes offense when he has been wronged! When he is the victim of slander, how heavily he slams his fist on the desk and how loudly he demands satisfaction! What could be more satisfying than justice being done? To witness justice, to see an evil act derided for what it is, for merit to win the day: these events energize him. His heart acts on principles his mind rejects.
What could be more frightful than that one of humanity's highest ideals is proved an illusion?
Monday, July 6, 2009
Sorts of Killing
Propositions:
A person's life consists of, in part, consciousness over time.
The object of consciousness (what one is conscious of) determines the quality of the consciousness.
To kill a person consists of bringing the duration of his consciousness to a hastened end.
It is wrong to kill a person, in part, because consciousness is a basic good.
It is wrong to kill a person, in part, because life is a basic good.
Basic goods are good-in-themselves in the abstract (all things being equal).
Complex goods are good-in-themselves in the particular (in the life of an existing individual).
The complex goodness of consciousness derives from the goodness of that which is its object.
One person ought not directly remove a basic good from another.
Background:
Life in the abstract is good. A given person's life is not always perceived as good to him (or to an outside observer). Such is a colliding point between the basic and complex aspects of goodness. Consciousness in the abstract is good. What a given person is conscious of is not always judged as good. At such points, there is another collision. Moral quandaries arise in such atmospheres.
Question:
If it is wrong to kill a person, is it wrong to kill one's time?
Response: Yes. To consciously, consistently squander one's time is to--in effect--kill oneself. To squander one's time is to diminish the quality of what one is conscious of. Knowledge is of purer quality than ignorance. To kill one's time is to beckon unconsciousness; one forfeits the fullness of the present moment to arrive at some point in the future. Knowing that our life is limited and that the ultimate duration of our consciousness is thereby limited as well, all acts of disregard for one's attention (i.e., consciousness in the present) are, after a fashion, suicidal.
Objection 1: It is a privilege of a right-holder to waive her right. Every person has a right to live. Others must submit to that right, unless it is forfeited. To commit suicide is to tacitly forfeit one's right to live. Suicide, including the forfeiture of one's time, is permissible because on can waive one's right to live.
Objection 2: Although we have a duty to others regarding the removal of basic goods, we do not have a corresponding duty to ourselves. A good that is not wanted is not a good. We are to abstain from removing the basic goods of others because their basic goods may be presumed to be good. Knowing our own case first hand, we can conclude the apparent goodness of the basic good is so paltry that it becomes an evil. A duty would become counterproductive in our own case insofar as it would force us to endure an evil. Such a duty does not exist.
Objection 3: Killing a person is not similar to killing one's time. To kill a person is to completely, permanently relieve him of his consciousness. For an individual to kill his time is, at most, only to temporarily relieve him of an aspect--that of interested participation in an event or activity--of his consciousness.
Reply to Objection 1: Although a right-holder can waive her right, it does not follow that she ought to.
Reply to Objection 2: Although some duties to others are unique because they directly stem from the otherness of other people, the duty to not remove a basic good from another is not such a one. The duty not to remove a basic good from another is a primary duty consequent to personhood, which the self and other people have in common.
Reply to Objection 3: Isolated instances of time-killing are not immoral. The argument as stated above addresses consistent, systematic time-killing. Such would be the case with many addictions, be they substance abuse or experiential abuse. Experiential abuse consists of the inappropriate consumption of experiences, including excessive sexual experiences and technological experience. Addictions may be unto death, the possibility of which raises it to a level of gravity higher than what can only be temporary. Killing time is not as heinous because it is not always unto death, whereas all forms of murder are. When taken in isolation, the act of self-murder and time-killing can have the same motivation (e.g. dissatisfaction with recent/current consciousness). It is the intent that makes the similar acts immoral.
A person's life consists of, in part, consciousness over time.
The object of consciousness (what one is conscious of) determines the quality of the consciousness.
To kill a person consists of bringing the duration of his consciousness to a hastened end.
It is wrong to kill a person, in part, because consciousness is a basic good.
It is wrong to kill a person, in part, because life is a basic good.
Basic goods are good-in-themselves in the abstract (all things being equal).
Complex goods are good-in-themselves in the particular (in the life of an existing individual).
The complex goodness of consciousness derives from the goodness of that which is its object.
One person ought not directly remove a basic good from another.
Background:
Life in the abstract is good. A given person's life is not always perceived as good to him (or to an outside observer). Such is a colliding point between the basic and complex aspects of goodness. Consciousness in the abstract is good. What a given person is conscious of is not always judged as good. At such points, there is another collision. Moral quandaries arise in such atmospheres.
Question:
If it is wrong to kill a person, is it wrong to kill one's time?
Response: Yes. To consciously, consistently squander one's time is to--in effect--kill oneself. To squander one's time is to diminish the quality of what one is conscious of. Knowledge is of purer quality than ignorance. To kill one's time is to beckon unconsciousness; one forfeits the fullness of the present moment to arrive at some point in the future. Knowing that our life is limited and that the ultimate duration of our consciousness is thereby limited as well, all acts of disregard for one's attention (i.e., consciousness in the present) are, after a fashion, suicidal.
Objection 1: It is a privilege of a right-holder to waive her right. Every person has a right to live. Others must submit to that right, unless it is forfeited. To commit suicide is to tacitly forfeit one's right to live. Suicide, including the forfeiture of one's time, is permissible because on can waive one's right to live.
Objection 2: Although we have a duty to others regarding the removal of basic goods, we do not have a corresponding duty to ourselves. A good that is not wanted is not a good. We are to abstain from removing the basic goods of others because their basic goods may be presumed to be good. Knowing our own case first hand, we can conclude the apparent goodness of the basic good is so paltry that it becomes an evil. A duty would become counterproductive in our own case insofar as it would force us to endure an evil. Such a duty does not exist.
Objection 3: Killing a person is not similar to killing one's time. To kill a person is to completely, permanently relieve him of his consciousness. For an individual to kill his time is, at most, only to temporarily relieve him of an aspect--that of interested participation in an event or activity--of his consciousness.
Reply to Objection 1: Although a right-holder can waive her right, it does not follow that she ought to.
Reply to Objection 2: Although some duties to others are unique because they directly stem from the otherness of other people, the duty to not remove a basic good from another is not such a one. The duty not to remove a basic good from another is a primary duty consequent to personhood, which the self and other people have in common.
Reply to Objection 3: Isolated instances of time-killing are not immoral. The argument as stated above addresses consistent, systematic time-killing. Such would be the case with many addictions, be they substance abuse or experiential abuse. Experiential abuse consists of the inappropriate consumption of experiences, including excessive sexual experiences and technological experience. Addictions may be unto death, the possibility of which raises it to a level of gravity higher than what can only be temporary. Killing time is not as heinous because it is not always unto death, whereas all forms of murder are. When taken in isolation, the act of self-murder and time-killing can have the same motivation (e.g. dissatisfaction with recent/current consciousness). It is the intent that makes the similar acts immoral.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Hypothetical Hearing
You stand before a man. He extracts from you all that you currently believe and places it on a table before you. He draws from those propositions all the logical entailments and inductive hypotheses possible and places them on a wall to your left.
"Read them," he commands you.
You review them all, both what you believe and what your beliefs bring in tow. Some of the propositions surprise you. Some of the entailments shock you.
On a wall to your right, a light appears. Then a series of events is cast upon it from a first person perspective. It is a visual display of the complete actions of your life.
"Watch them," he commands you.
You watch them all. Again, you are surprised at how what you have done looks from an outside perspective, free of the consoling monologue that transpired all the while in your mind.
"What say you?" he asks.
-
If you were to be judged, would you want to admit other evidence into the court beyond the sum total of your beliefs and actions? If you were to be judged, could you bare to look at the judge as he sentences you? Would you try to plead insanity?
Live in such a way you would not be surprised at who you have been. Try to avoid such shameful responses. Live in such a way that you could submit to the justice of the court's ruling.
"Read them," he commands you.
You review them all, both what you believe and what your beliefs bring in tow. Some of the propositions surprise you. Some of the entailments shock you.
On a wall to your right, a light appears. Then a series of events is cast upon it from a first person perspective. It is a visual display of the complete actions of your life.
"Watch them," he commands you.
You watch them all. Again, you are surprised at how what you have done looks from an outside perspective, free of the consoling monologue that transpired all the while in your mind.
"What say you?" he asks.
-
If you were to be judged, would you want to admit other evidence into the court beyond the sum total of your beliefs and actions? If you were to be judged, could you bare to look at the judge as he sentences you? Would you try to plead insanity?
Live in such a way you would not be surprised at who you have been. Try to avoid such shameful responses. Live in such a way that you could submit to the justice of the court's ruling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)