INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
Contents:
Philosophy is, in essence, the study of the fundamentals that integrate all thought and action. Thus, to understand why we need a philosophy, we must understand why we need integration and what is the nature of integration. To integrate means to hold as one unit (through implication) an unlimited class of concretes. The key method of mental integration is measurement omission. But why integrate? Because it enables you to deal with a context that extends beyond known concretes and beyond the present moment. Doing so enables us to deal with a broader context, such as the wider environment around us, the future and life as a whole lived long-range.
How is mental integration done? It has two aspects: (1) concept-formation and (2) generalisation. Both have been shown (in epistemology’s fundamentals and expansion) as valid, i.e. objective. Now, note that concepts only integrate what is known and what can potentially be known in relation to what is known. For example, the concept of “cat” enables you to integrate (through a hierarchy of abstraction) every observation and knowledge you have about cats into one mental unit while at the same time enabling you to relate your observations and knowledge to cats that may be observed in the future. But it does not give you new knowledge about cats, it only enables you to apply old knowledge to new observations of a similar kind.
Generalisations, on the other hand, are the means of integrating new knowledge to concepts, which means they are truths that extend beyond what can be perceived and abstracted directly. In other words, while a concept identifies the known nature of a certain kind of thing, a generalisation identifies a causal relationship not derivable from the known nature of a certain kind of thing alone. Why causal relationships? Because it is causality that integrates existence as a whole, and thus, it is knowledge of causal relationships that integrates the known nature of an entity to new knowledge related to it. Hence, we need concepts to hold a vast context that extends beyond known concretes and the present moment, but we need generalisations to give us new knowledge about the things we hold in our context, i.e. we need generalisations to integrate new observations of causal relationships conceptually.
NOTE: Low-level causal relationships can be grasped perceptually to some extent, but it takes generalisations to grasp them at higher levels of abstractions that work in broader contexts.
The more a generalisation integrates, the broader the context it covers, and hence, the more long-range it allows us to be. If the context is human life as a whole, any human operating in such a context needs sufficiently broad generalisations to even consider what his long-range survival requires. Without broad generalisations, a human is unable to consider the relationships between overarching factors that would affect his life in broad contexts. Just as deer cannot consider the future or overarching consequences of their overgrazing, a human without broad generalisations cannot consider the future or overarching consequences of his actions or inaction. However, it is key to note that even a human who does not form such generalisations but still retains his mental faculties does follow broader generalisations, if only by implication. This is because a generalisation is not a mental construct but a recognition of the truth, and truth is non-contradictory. Causality implies that any result in a narrower context is caused by — i.e. necessitated by — facts in a broader context. Thus, a conclusion in a narrower context is predicated — if only by implication — on a conclusion in a broader context, and the validity of the former is inseparable from the validity of the latter. For example, a man who uses his whims as his method of choosing his values has decided, by implication, that reason cannot be the means of pursuing values, which in turn presupposes the view, by implication, that values cannot be objective. By extension, given that values are a part of reality, this view would lead to the metaphysical view that reality — in some sense — is either non-objective or unknowable.
Note that there is no way to “delimit” the effect of a generalisation on one’s own life. Either one accepts the implied broader generalisations or one accepts a contradictory mindset. If one accepts the latter, one rejects reason as a means to guide one’s cognition and actions in life, thereby accepting an irrational standard of moral and practical judgement. Perhaps one can live rationally in many areas of life while holding irrational views in others, but if so, one is living on borrowed time, indifferent to or incapable of dealing with the reality-denying, self-destructive end results of one’s ideas. An irrational life, even if irrational in a few areas, is a diminished, evasive and irresponsible existence wherein one’s own life as a human being is not and cannot be held as the standard of value. Note also that ideas do not exist in a separate realm from practical action. Ideas cannot be separated from action in any strict or practical sense; an idea held and accepted (if only by acquiescence) necessarily affects one’s view of reality, and any conscious action relies on one’s view of reality. One has no choice in forming a view of reality, even if one chooses not to do so explicitly. One’s only choice is in the particular view one comes to accept. All this is to say that, in essence, those who decry the need for broader generalisations and principles are ultimately helpless to the broader implications of their own decisions. Thus, striving to reach the right philosophy is a matter of succeeding or failing to achieve efficacy in existence, which makes it — in essence — a matter of life and death.
There are three key areas that underlie all thought and action, namely our grasp of (1) the nature of the world in which we think and act, which informs how we regard the world and the efficacy of our thoughts and actions within it, (2) the means of knowing more about the world, which informs how we seek efficacy in thought, and (3) the means of making choices, which informs how we seek efficacy in action (note that these three areas are in fact integrated, i.e. each area necessarily ties into the other). Hence, being the study of the fundamentals underlying all thought and action, philosophy is the study of the basic truths (starting from the most basic self-evident facts) and the broadest generalisations (inducing from self-evident facts) in three crucial areas: (1) the nature of reality (metaphysics), (2) the means of knowing reality (epistemology) and (3) the means of making choices in reality (ethics). These three areas cover the entire range of thought and action possible to humans, which means philosophical conclusions — being the most basic truths and the broadest generalisations in any given area of thought and action — underlie any and every thought and action humans make and can make. A human, who cannot truly live range-of-the-moment without destroying his capacity for volition and thereby his humanity, does not have a choice of whether to have a philosophy or not; by the nature of truth, he is forced to accept a philosophy in some form, if only by implication. His only choice in this regard, then, is not whether to have a philosophy but what philosophy to have, i.e. whether to choose his broader conclusions consciously or default unconsciously to the necessary implications of his more specific thoughts, decisions and actions.
To expand on the above point…
The more fundamental the idea is to your view of the world, the more crucial it is in shaping your grasp of the world, and consequently, in shaping the course of your life. Grasping valid fundamentals helps shape your life more effectively, as you can deal with the world more effectively through your improved grasp of it. The study of fundamentals — of existence and human life — is the domain of philosophy. Due to how crucial fundamentals are, philosophy is and should be a practical discipline that uses abstractions to guide us in finding and pursuing the right concrete purposes so that we flourish in life.
The natural sciences are the study of the contents of observable reality. They include physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Natural sciences adhere to strict principles of evidence, reasoning and logic. Every aspect of science (i.e. every concept, law, hypothesis, theory, etc.) is identified and integrated with strictest adherence to non-contradiction, both with respect to itself and reality, insofar as it is known. In other words, the pursuit of natural sciences holds that (1) reality is knowable through our perception, and (2) logical reasoning is the only means to validate knowledge.
This adherence to logic is based on the view that (1) identity applies to any part of reality, i.e. everything that exists is something in particular that can be identified and distinguished from other things that exist, and (2) causality applies to any occurrence in reality. In other words, this fundamental view of existence and of our ability to know it is at the core of every scientific pursuit.
In my experience, as well as the first-hand accounts of many others who have had similar experiences, the education of children in India focuses on memorisation rather than concept formation. In other words, students learn to think of abstractions more as floating abstractions not tied to observations of reality, e.g. learning to solve mathematical problems without grasping the basis of the results used, or learning scientifically derived facts and formulas without delving into the methods of scientific inquiry. In my understanding, this reflects a lack of value for reason as a fundamental principle in life; reason becomes merely a tool to solve specific types of problems, particularly those involving mathematics and the natural sciences. In my understanding, this lack of value for reason reflects a mindset that accepts the status quo as the given; we learn to function under constraints without questioning or having the intellectual means to question the constraints.
Nazi Germany, also known as the Third Reich, is one of the most well-known examples of oppressive, totalitarian regimes in history. One may look upon the violence they caused across Europe, and the atrocities they committed against whole communities — most notably the jews and gipsies of Europe — and conclude that the regime was driven by murderous, megalomaniacal madmen. But it is useful to note that these madmen were people who rose to power and maintained it through the support of much of the German population at the time. It also seems that many people, who would otherwise seem quite ordinary, came to internalise and support the ideology of the Nazis; many such people do so even today. Let us look more closely at their premises, insofar as we can identify them.
A very clear aspect of their ideology is the lack of value for the individual. This is demonstrated by (1) their systematic persecution of people based on their group identities (in particular, ethnicities), (2) their idea of the superiority of the “Aryan race”, based on arbitrary, unclear definitions, unfounded claims and dubious reasoning at best, and (3) their notion that one’s value is only with respect to his race, his allegiance to the state and his service to it, as seen with their systematic killing of the disabled. This aspect also reveals their tribal mentality; they saw and judged the world in terms of groups based on superficial characteristics such as ethnicity and heritage. Note that any group of humans, especially a group that is united not by ideas but simply by a shared ethnicity or heritage, is bound to be too diverse to allow someone to judge an individual based on the group and vice versa.
What is the root of such tribalism? Essentially, it is reducing or removing the importance of individual values in favour of group allegiance. This involves denying the value of reason on a more fundamental, i.e. individual level, since loyalty to the group supersedes the judgement of an individual. Of course, people may practise rationality to some extent, but merely as a tool to advance goals beyond the group’s basic ideology; we can see this in the way some degree of science and technology advanced under the Nazis, despite their primitive ethics and politics. In my understanding, this lack of value for reason on a fundamental level stems from the lack of regard for reality as a whole. To me, the motives for holding this view do not seem too hard to grasp; if you refuse to regard objective reality as important or even “real”, you can accept and impose your own wishful notions.
All knowledge is ultimately knowledge from and of concretes. Ultimately, only particulars exist. Abstractions are objective but do not exist apart from particulars; they are the results of the selective focus of consciousness on particulars (the objectivity of abstractions is discussed in epistemology). Of course, the same holds for philosophical ideas. If a philosophy is to form the basis of your thoughts and actions, you must grasp how concretes integrate into the broad abstractions in philosophy and how the broad abstractions can be reduced back to concretes. You must grasp philosophy as much in terms of concretes experienced first-hand as in terms of abstractions.
For example, the idea that life is the standard of value in ethics must be concretised in terms of the experience you gain in life as you live it and the particular choices you make to stay alive and advance your life. Similarly, the idea that reason is the only means to know reality must be concretised by staying in focus, looking at the world in terms of essentials, understanding what concrete goals to pursue and why, and of course, exercising your mind in learning how to act within reality to achieve your goals.
Hence, to the key point: if done properly, philosophy is the most practical area of study and has no value if divorced from practice. I reject the idea of doing philosophy for philosophy’s sake. It is an area of study that is too abstract to hold meaning without conscientious concretisation and too essential to our lives to not put into practice wherever and whenever clarity is achieved.
As a final point, while it is true that every abstraction draws its meaning from concretes, it is also true that given a valid abstraction, applying logic rigorously to reach another conclusion gives the conclusion as much validity as the starting abstraction; such is the nature of logic (which is based on the nature of reality, specifically the law of identity). Hence, it is necessary to concretise the foundations of a philosophical framework, but while it is useful to concretise the derived aspects of the framework, it is not necessary to do so to grasp and accept their validity with conviction (provided the logic is sound beyond rational doubt).
Fundamental principles do not determine the exact form of their result; the result itself would be derived from various other factors as well. The principles do, however, shape the core characteristics of the result, i.e. they shape the general direction through which the result forms.