Philosophy, What Does it Have to do With Anything?

My last post had to do with how our minds work. I stated, in effect, that very few individuals ever give any thought to how they think. There are probably many people besides myself who remember the signs exhorting people to "think." Then came the funny "think ahead," take offs from them. Oh, if only people did actually think, even a few seconds, before they say something, or take some kind of action, which is, frequently, regretted at their leisure. It's the "Open mouth, insert foot" feeling.

Taking responsibility for oneself, includes taking responsibility for what we say and think. Therefore, in order to work on taking responsibility for ourselves, we must begin to examine what goes on in our heads. The many individuals who have attempted meditation, or who do it on a regular basis, know from that experience that their minds are wild beasts. It can be safely stated that, most of those individuals who haven't, do not have the least notion about what goes on in their heads, nor do they have any interest in paying any attention to it. Those individuals who actually have made some attempt to tame that wild beast, are rare.

(One can only look on in despair to the almost total illiteracy of "the younger generation," who as a group, think that "twittering" is a valid form of communication, and who cannot express a clear thought or idea, let alone interpret what they read or watch.)

One system which purports to bring about clear thinking, is that of "Logic." This system dates back to the 4th century B.C. The philosopher who founded this system, called "the Stoic School of thought," was Zeno. Those of us who took one or more courses in Philosophy in College, were required to learn about Zeno and his Logic puzzles, which purported to teach one how to think logically. Even today "logic" and "thinking" are closely linked in many people's minds. At least those of us who dwell in this ratified realm of Philosophical thought.

From my first exposure to Zeno's logic puzzles, through conversations with those modern men whose thinking ability has been warped by them, I find it hard to believe that the system of
"logic" has stood so long without being dug out by the roots. One logic thought puzzle will be familiar to anyone exposed to Philosophy, goes as follows. "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Let us examine this puzzle using my, "Examining-underlying-Belief-Systems" approach. Underlying assumption/theory number one: Since there is "no one," (by definition, a human) around to hear it fall, it does not make a sound. (The correct conclusion.) Underlying this, number two, is: There is no such thing as "reality," independent from a human's experiences.

While I am convinced that, "we all create our own reality," that is not what "creating your own reality," means! I offer, as irrefutable proof of the fallacy of this little exercise in "logic," that, as animals, when examined, are found to have ears; they are also found to have very quick reflexes when reacting to unexpected sounds, (hence they can hear with their ears) therefore, it can be concluded that, if a tree were to fall in a forest, even if there were no human types around, there would be sound, which would be noted by all the, non-human, forest denizens.

I don't know if this puzzle is one of Zeno's, or not, but rest assured, these puzzles are bizarre, yet they are the "gold standard" when it comes to examples of exercises in logic/thinking.

As I mentioned in the last blog, Ron Paul, a professor at Sonoma State University, in Sonoma County, California, has done his best to develop a method of "Critical Thinking." I do not fault him that he failed; at least he tried. His system simple goes to show that, "We all stand on dead mens' shoulders." This was a philosophical conclusion that had come to a young man of my acquaintance, and which, he told me, he had stated in a Philosophy class he was attending.

What he had not concluded, however, it that the nature of these "shoulders" are programed beliefs which we are all taught as we group up, by our parents, by our religion, by our teachers, by our professors, by the books we read, by the programs we watch on television, etc., etc.

A major branch of philosophy, mentioned in my previous blog, called Empiricism, was expounded by Philosophers from Locke to Hume, (17th & 18th Century) in Britain, (called "Empiricists"). Empiricism, based on the belief that what we personally experience, or have examined carefully, is a valid way of obtaining information about the world around us. There are many books which contain beautiful drawings of the natural world that were based on this philosophy and which are still available today; or reproductions of them. Botany, Ornithology and the theory of Evolution, in particular, are examples.

Empiricism was debunked by, then, incoming Philosophers; in particular those expounding the "scientific method" as the only way of determining what is or is not factual, without being polluted with personal biases and opinions. (Darwin's excursions on his ship was a product of the Empiricist Philosophy. His theories, derived from his findings, are, of course, embraced by the same scientists who scoff at Empiricism.) It now turns out that there is no such thing as a scientific experiment that has not, in some way, been affected by outside influences.

So, my children, the field is wide open as far as determining what is or is not real, although the scientists want you to believe that its methods are the be all, and end all, of the subject.

This ends today's blog.

Shirley Gallup