IT

Some really interesting concepts and food for thought from last week’s reading was reinforced by tonight’s lecture.

Xenophanes defined the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and it advocates that knowledge can only be attained through Justification, Truth and Belief (JTB). Justifying that something is true, believing that it is true and it turns out to be true, that’s knowledge. Therefore, everything that we do is based on hypotheses. Without any of the factors, we would not be able to “fabricate” knowledge. Xenophanes also thought that God is perfect. This would mean that he is at a perfect spot and he does not move. If God has to move to change his position, the act of him making a change could be translated into a flaw as imperfection was the impetus for the change. Of course, this is assuming that God is omnipotent and all of him thinks, sees and hears from where he is. This concept ties in well with the phrase “change for the better” I guess. When we all make a conscious effort to change a part of us, or to change something, it always stems out of the desire to improve. The converse is rarely true. No one changes with the intent of deteriorating.

The really interesting part from tonight’s lecture was on the conundrum of identity. We were given the scenario of a ship of Theseus. Let's call it Ship A. Ship A circumnavigated the world and replaces all the planks, sails and nails as it goes around the world. Ship A returns to the port. Is this the same ship that it was when it left the port? There is a second scenario. Ship A went on a tour around the world. Ship B follows Ship A and it tours the world together with Ship A. Whenever Ship A replaces something, Ship B keeps every single thing that Ship A replaces: planks, sails and nails. Ship B now returns to the port and uses everything that was collected from the trip to build up a new ship. Which is Ship A now?

There are 2 theories to support this; namely the Mereological theory of identity (you are the same if you have the same parts) and the Spatio-Temporal Continuity theory (you are the same if you maintain continuity through time, even if constituent pieces change). I am skewed towards the Spatio-Temporal Continuity theory. I believe that Ship A is still Ship A in the second scenario. Even though another ship was built with the disposed parts of Ship A, it does not assume the identity of Ship A due to the fact that the Ship A did not have an intermission in continuity. When the parts are disposed, they lose their identity, until their new owners come along. When the parts are made into a new ship, they then take the identity of the new ship. The Mereological theory is tantamount to having organ transplant patients change their identities to that of their donors; unheard of, and bordering on ludicrous. However, hearing both theories gave me a better perspective of where the other train of thought is coming from. I think neither theory is wrong and that they both bear some element of truth, depending on how you look at it.

The deductive argument that Parmenides came up with is really interesting and I have yet to find a false premises to prove that a conclusion is false. This entire concept was really profound and hard to grasp.

That it is not and it is necessary for it not to be.

The concept of nothing and nothingness. Nothingness doesn’t exist; otherwise it would be called something. If something were to cease to exist, it would become nothing. This would mean that nothing has come to existence and we had earlier determined that nothingness cannot exist.

That it is and it is not possible for it not to be.

If something exists, it will always exist. This leads to implications that denies the existence of change (to change results in a loss of a certain quality and a quality cannot disappear), motion (to move, nothing must be there and nothingness cannot exist) and differences (differences would mean a lack of quality in another). In my humblest opinion, the theory surely cannot be all encompassing. We do know that mass cannot be created or destroyed, so change can exist if we are referring to an object, because the mass is transferred to another form of mass. However, if we are talking about something intangible, like a quality, how does one classify the ‘disappearance’ of something intangible? Also, motion does not necessarily mean that nothing must be there in order to move. Motion can take place when there is something there to block, however, what does not take place is displacement. Once again, differences exist not necessarily because one exudes a quality that another doesn’t. Qualities are relative, and different people have varying degrees of that quality. For example, if I am smarter than the boy next door is, it doesn’t mean he lacks my intellectual capacity. It just means he has a watered down capacity, as compared to me. In this case, differences can exist.

With all these theories jamming up my brain, there is no more space for anything else now. Nothing can fill up my brain now. Then again, nothing doesn’t exist, does it?

Realism

Off the cuff, here are a couple of thoughts and ideas that totally blew me off in tonight's philosophy lecture.

Anaximenes and Occam's Razor both advocate that the simplest explanation is probably the right one. With that theory in place, Anaximenes came to a conclusion that everything originates from air and figured that it is through the processes of rarefaction and condensation, that air becomes the following elements: fire, wind, water and earth. He felt that his theory was better and more accurate compared to Anaximander's, due to the fact that his explanation only consisted of 1 item while Anaximander's theory consisted of 5 items: fire, wind, water, earth and apeiron. Anaximenes was inclined to subscribe to the notion of simplicity, rather than complicated theories. Perhaps in life, it would make so much easier if we believed in the simplest of explanations. However, one has to reconcile the multitude of intricacies that come with everything, which are simply, not that simple in nature. Believing in the simplest explanations definitely simplifies things, but it may not always be right.

I am an engineering major, and hence naturally, most of my thoughts are ruled by science and logic. I believe that naturally, I am more of an Empirist, (best kind of knowledge is experience by senses and experiment) and the idea of Rationalists (no need for senses. by reason) is totally new to me. The idea of Realism is also foreign to me; that intellectual "things" are considered to be real objects and have truth of independence of human existence. The idea of that if a tree falls in the wood, it does not make a sound unless there is a receiver of the sound. In other words, sound does not exist unless it’s perceived. When a tree falls in the wood, sound waves are generated but it is not a sound unless there’s someone there to perceive the sound. It is a very abstract theory that disregards science, or common sense. Though my thoughts are very much skewed towards the scientific side, I am quite receptive to this new concept. After all, in all things, there is a giving end, and there’s the receiving end at the other side of the spectrum. When the receiving end is non-existent, whatever is being given out is inconsequential?

I may be blogging all these thoughts down here, but if there is no one to read what I’ve penned here, the blog doesn’t really count for much, does it?

Pythagoras

I had my first class in Philosophy last week and it was rather enriching. I learnt that the word "philosophy” means the love of wisdom. Prof Wayne shed some light on the topic of Philosophy; a subject that has eluded me all these years. Prof Wayne also told us more about himself as well. I was reading the assigned reading for the week and I felt somewhat inspired and amazed by what the ancient philosophers said. In the reading, I gained some insight about Pre-Socratics, Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes and Pythagoras.

Thales came up with a very interesting theory that caught my attention. The theory revolves around water, and he believed that our earth rests on water. He also believed the "quakes" that the earth experiences are a result of the water movement, which I thought was intriguing. In my heart I was thinking, “How could someone conceive such a revolutionary concept at that point of time when there was little or practically no science at all?” Although we now know that the theory holds no truth, we cannot deny that his idea probably served as a precursor to our plate tectonic theories today. We know that modern day "quakes" are due to plate movements and the plates can be said to rest on magma, somewhat similar to the “water” that Thales mentioned. Hence, in that sense, his theory did hold some water (pun intended).

I had learned the Pythagoras theorem before and have been using it since algebra came into my life. I use the theorem for most of my math classes, but it never occurred to me that the Pythagoras theorem was found by Pythagoras himself! I had always thought that someone much later on discovered it and named it after him. Anyway, it is really inspiring how he managed to come up with that given the limited resources and technology of the ancient times. 10 is the very nature of number as all Greeks and barbarians alike count up to 10 and then revert again to the unit and that the power of number 10 that lies in the number 4 are really interesting ideas. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10, if 1 exceeds the tetrad (number 4), 1 will exceed 10 too. I would have never have thought of something like that. So he said that 1 will make up the number 10 and the power of 10 lies in 4. It is mind baffling and amazing, how these ancient thinkers could come up with such brilliant theories that were way beyond their time.

All these make me wonder what I could have come up with, had I lived in those days. In mean time, I will continue to mull over those theories. If philosophy means the love of wisdom, I couldn’t agree more. I love feeling wiser with all these newfound knowledge.