“Philosophy” is a subject usually discussed relative to something or someone in the past. At the same time, we do have contemporary philosophical influences that color our understanding of the world we live in – Science being our influencer-in-chief. We all owe a debt to science, without which many of us alive today would not even have come into existence, especially in the modern world. That appreciation has also arguably become a bit of an obsession, which must bear critical examination.
Scientists have to embrace an underlying dilemma of their profession: they are focused on making our world understandable to humanity in terms humans can understand, which means all their knowledge must resolve back to human senses (even when enhanced by electronic and other means), by default discounting everything in the Universe that cannot meet this requirement. You see the problem here for “believers.” (The point here being you might want to believe in other things, which hopefully would be uplifting, based on, for example, independent study of ancient truths, untethered from religious bias.)
Meanwhile, most educated people today are scientists by either their actual training or profession, or because we were taught the “scientific method” for confirming truth – truth in science, that is. But it is easy to extend this kind of truth to Truth, period, unless we are attuned to the possibility of a difference between the two. We simply have to accept that science has nothing to say, at least not now, about the nature of “higher powers” in whatever form, and is unlikely to ever go there. If you go there (and I would suggest this is part of everyone’s self-education, if nothing else) it’s probably best to do it on your own.
At the same time, scientists have raised intriguing questions about the nature of “reality” (on their terms) that actually reinforce the argument that scientific views should always be kept within the perspective of the possibility of broader interpretations of reality. For (a very simple) example, we can all agree that “matter” is really energy bonded in various ways. If we could immerse ourselves within an atom of most any material, we would experience essentially emptiness. We would never make such a deduction if we were stuck with investigating rocks by holding them in our hands and imagining their inner consistency. We could go on with examples far more exotic, such as quantum physics and its seeming paradoxes.
We also must accept that while science and technology, through their shared self-interests, are the wheels of the modern world, the vehicle driver is either missing or very distracted. Human beings can be devilishly clever, and through the tools of science and tech eagerly disgorge all manner of stuff, both occupying their time and the attention of the rest of us. This has led naturally to us all belonging to a society of specialists, narrowly focusing our efforts to maximize individual efficiency, and thereby a form of group efficiency. This works wonders for productivity, creating wealth in the short run and especially for the “insider” group. It is disastrous for long-term survivability precisely because efficiency in individual things does not necessarily add up to success overall, unless someone is looking at the full scope of those individual (either personal or in-group) efforts summed up – in other words, the Big Picture. This is not happening, to state the painfully obvious, and is one of the failures of Science precisely because it also promotes these insular modes of thinking and functioning.
Tackling humanity’s really big problems (if we want to think about this for a moment, as something that could gainfully occupy our time) requires us first to acknowledge that such issues exist and are in fact important, and second to be willing to sub-optimize our individual efforts in favor of the “global community” good. But since we don’t believe everyone is on board with such common purposes, we default to maximizing our own individual (or insider group) position, even if we know at some level this eventually leads to system degradation. Examples of this kind of behavior abound so the subject needs no further elaboration, and is only stated here as a reminder that our failure to see the “oneness” in all is not only shortsighted from a “are we missing a bigger picture” point of view but is also very threatening to the planet.
Religion might help us to have this attunement, except for the most part (those of you have it right know who you are) religious institutions only perpetuate their particular forms of ancient beliefs. Societies were taken in the direction of ritualistic religion long ago as the means by which religious leaders carved out their turf and also complemented the power of political rulers, in an unholy (and sometimes uneasy) alliance. The concept doesn’t work as well as it did in older times when people were illiterate, so the current emphasis has shifted to the socializing function of religious institutions. Fragmentation of the family in the modern world dovetails with this idea of religion as a social refuge – a confirmation that we have a legitimate place in the world because we are participating in traditions that go back many generations. If you are uncomfortable both (or either) being outside of any of these socializing cocoons and not willing to buy into their corresponding belief systems, think about what is being said here as alternative ways of positioning yourself within the world.
Comments