Versions of primacy…
Estudia: Hi Phi, you were going to give me some examples of the primacy of consciousness principle as practiced by most philosophies. I know one for sure.
Philo: Good, which one of the three versions have you figured out?
Estudia: Three versions? Hummm… well most philosophy has been dominated by the church and they use the consciousness of a god as being the highest authority and the real truth.
Philo: Exactly right, that’s the biggy. We call it the super naturalistic version and its founder really is Plato. He felt that this world of entities was not the real world but more akin to shadows on the wall. His theory of forms was further developed by the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions with their Infinite, unknowable consciousness called Yahweh, God or Allah. They are all the same in that this supernatural consciousness created existence and can cause entities to act against their nature and hence do miraculous things.
Estudia: Can’t this be their axiom so to speak?
Philo: It is and this metaphysical view has epistemological implications also. It leads to mysticism which means that knowledge doesn’t have to come from looking out at existence but can come directly from the Supreme Creator, an indefinable pure mind. This knowledge can come to humans directly from God, say stone tablets left by a burning bush, et cetera, or it is sent to special individuals also known as prophets, or maybe just as some sort of instinctual pattern in our genes. You’ve heard of the God Gene no doubt. Some have it and some don’t. With the correct base-pair on a specific gene in the DNA of one of your chromosomes you will have a penchant for the mystical. You might be more easily hypnotized too… hummm. I wonder. Anyway, most philosophers have abandoned the supernatural consciousness view of the world but it is very popular with the general public. These lumpen refuse to begin with the universe we know exists but embraces the idea of an unknowable dimension like the Mind of God or just God as if this explained everything. They don’t question where this God is or came from and they don’t want to know because that would mean a higher dimension or God created the first one. It’s a circular argument and obviously a strange argument.
Estudia: It definitely is outside of any rational discussion, I can see that. But what are the other two versions of the primacy of consciousness view?
Philo: Well, there is the secularized version. If you hold that it’s the minds of men that create existence you come up with the phenomenal world of Immanuel Kant. This theory implies that there is a social version of the primacy of consciousness. This version holds that no one individual can create existence or do miracles but a group can. It takes a state or a race or a sex to will something into or out of existence. If enough people believe that something will happen, like say win a war, or fix the deficits somehow, then it will happen and you don’t have to worry about the facts. You can make reality conform to your wishes if enough of you believe it will be so.
Estudia: That’s really popular but I didn’t make the connection to consciousness. What are the implications of this social view?
Philo: Very popular and you hear it all the time. “If the people will only believe, then anything is possible. You’ve got to have faith and be optimistic and expect the best and it will happen no matter what you do or don’t do”. Epistemological implications… how ‘bout that knowledge is obtained by a survey, a collective group consensus so your perception of reality may not be correct, and isn’t correct if it differs from the consensus of the thinkers and movers of the group.
Estudia: So first, by the super naturalistic view, God can override facts and then secondly by the social view, the group can do the trick. Any thirdly?
Philo: The personal version. You know, what’s right for you may not be right for me. Each of us controls existence with our own consciousness. “Man is the measure of all things”, said Protagoras, “of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not.” We each create our own little universe and everyone in it is our creation.
Estudia: So that would imply that we are all independent of reality and don’t have to conform to any standard of truth. That’s a nice escape from responsibility I’d say.
Philo: That’s for sure. All three views are wrong because existence exists and it has metaphysical primacy. If you want to be an Objectivist, you hold that existence is not a reflection of some consciousness. It just is. Things in the universe exist and are eternal in that they conform to immutable laws. Whether it be worm holes or the major or minor strings of string theory or whatever, it simply is what it is and no consciousness is needed accept to perceive that which is and conceptualize about it.
Estudia: I want to be an Objectivist I think. So far it all makes a lot of sense to me. What do we do with this view now that we reject the primacy of consciousness and accept the primacy of existence?
Philo: Next time lets discuss metaphysics some more. For now I’ve got to run. CU later.
Estudia: Bye, Phi!
Philo: Good, which one of the three versions have you figured out?
Estudia: Three versions? Hummm… well most philosophy has been dominated by the church and they use the consciousness of a god as being the highest authority and the real truth.
Philo: Exactly right, that’s the biggy. We call it the super naturalistic version and its founder really is Plato. He felt that this world of entities was not the real world but more akin to shadows on the wall. His theory of forms was further developed by the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions with their Infinite, unknowable consciousness called Yahweh, God or Allah. They are all the same in that this supernatural consciousness created existence and can cause entities to act against their nature and hence do miraculous things.
Estudia: Can’t this be their axiom so to speak?
Philo: It is and this metaphysical view has epistemological implications also. It leads to mysticism which means that knowledge doesn’t have to come from looking out at existence but can come directly from the Supreme Creator, an indefinable pure mind. This knowledge can come to humans directly from God, say stone tablets left by a burning bush, et cetera, or it is sent to special individuals also known as prophets, or maybe just as some sort of instinctual pattern in our genes. You’ve heard of the God Gene no doubt. Some have it and some don’t. With the correct base-pair on a specific gene in the DNA of one of your chromosomes you will have a penchant for the mystical. You might be more easily hypnotized too… hummm. I wonder. Anyway, most philosophers have abandoned the supernatural consciousness view of the world but it is very popular with the general public. These lumpen refuse to begin with the universe we know exists but embraces the idea of an unknowable dimension like the Mind of God or just God as if this explained everything. They don’t question where this God is or came from and they don’t want to know because that would mean a higher dimension or God created the first one. It’s a circular argument and obviously a strange argument.
Estudia: It definitely is outside of any rational discussion, I can see that. But what are the other two versions of the primacy of consciousness view?
Philo: Well, there is the secularized version. If you hold that it’s the minds of men that create existence you come up with the phenomenal world of Immanuel Kant. This theory implies that there is a social version of the primacy of consciousness. This version holds that no one individual can create existence or do miracles but a group can. It takes a state or a race or a sex to will something into or out of existence. If enough people believe that something will happen, like say win a war, or fix the deficits somehow, then it will happen and you don’t have to worry about the facts. You can make reality conform to your wishes if enough of you believe it will be so.
Estudia: That’s really popular but I didn’t make the connection to consciousness. What are the implications of this social view?
Philo: Very popular and you hear it all the time. “If the people will only believe, then anything is possible. You’ve got to have faith and be optimistic and expect the best and it will happen no matter what you do or don’t do”. Epistemological implications… how ‘bout that knowledge is obtained by a survey, a collective group consensus so your perception of reality may not be correct, and isn’t correct if it differs from the consensus of the thinkers and movers of the group.
Estudia: So first, by the super naturalistic view, God can override facts and then secondly by the social view, the group can do the trick. Any thirdly?
Philo: The personal version. You know, what’s right for you may not be right for me. Each of us controls existence with our own consciousness. “Man is the measure of all things”, said Protagoras, “of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not.” We each create our own little universe and everyone in it is our creation.
Estudia: So that would imply that we are all independent of reality and don’t have to conform to any standard of truth. That’s a nice escape from responsibility I’d say.
Philo: That’s for sure. All three views are wrong because existence exists and it has metaphysical primacy. If you want to be an Objectivist, you hold that existence is not a reflection of some consciousness. It just is. Things in the universe exist and are eternal in that they conform to immutable laws. Whether it be worm holes or the major or minor strings of string theory or whatever, it simply is what it is and no consciousness is needed accept to perceive that which is and conceptualize about it.
Estudia: I want to be an Objectivist I think. So far it all makes a lot of sense to me. What do we do with this view now that we reject the primacy of consciousness and accept the primacy of existence?
Philo: Next time lets discuss metaphysics some more. For now I’ve got to run. CU later.
Estudia: Bye, Phi!
posted by Rp | 1:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home