Ah, good questions! I'm interested to see what others have to say about this. I think the second question is easier answer than the first one. And I'd add a question:
HiLo, I really enjoyed your presentation today, despite the lag. (Your slides were nicely set up, very interactive!)
I like that Hume has a practical side with regards to the problem of induction. What I was getting at with my question "What's the point of this?" was, essentially, pragmatics. I love philosophy and I think we shouldn't limit ourselves to what is practical, but occasionally a theory strikes me as useless when there's nothing we can do about it. (And it poses such a potentially huge problem - that we can never truly know our world, even ourselves.)
For such a weighty proposition, it seems trivial to me because (a) we'll never know and (b) there's nothing we can do about it, so it can't and won't change the way we conduct science.
Olive: I understand your worry/ frustration over a theory that has little-to-no practical consequences, and yet, isn't there something to be said for knowledge for knowledge's sake? Why should a theory have to have practical consequences for it to be worth thinking about? If someone could provide a good argument that showed you you couldn't know that there were mind independent objects, or that you didn't know the sun would rise tomorrow, wouldn't that *bother* you at some level?
Let me ask you this question: does the thought that all of life might be as a dream bother you? Is that something you would want to be true? How about living in the Matrix? I think most people are disturbed by this idea. But why? It makes no difference to one's experience. As far as one's experiences go, living in the Matrix might be preferable to one's own life. And yet, I don't think many people would choose to live in the Matrix. Why? I think it is because we value knowledge for its own sake. We want our beliefs to be true. This is one of the things that motivates the philosopher to deal with these questions about knowledge of the external world and future, even if there is, in some sense, no "practical" issue at stake.
Besides, one never knows when a heretofore unforeseen practical application of an idea will emerge. Initially, non-Euclidean geometries were thought to be mere mathematical curiosities. It was only much later that their practical significance was recognized.
Also: here is a practical effect thinking about any topic, no matter how far removed from everyday life-concerns: the improvement of the intellect!
Dr. W, I am in complete agreement that there is no such thing as too much knowledge.
BUT to be perfectly honest, the idea that life might be a dream doesn't bother me. Why? Because if it is a dream, then the illusion is so exact and so complete that I don't see any way out of it. There isn't anything I can do about but carry on as I see fit. In fact, if I get wrapped up in trying to figure out if my life is real or not, I would probably go insane and waste the time I have anyway....
I was about to wax and wane poetic about the feeling of the insignificance that any person's life won't matter in the grand scheme of the universe and time, but I'll spare you all that.
I realize I'm being contradictory. Perhaps what I mean to say is that it's good we know of the possibility that we'll never truly understand anything, but I don't think that will stop us from trying to understand.
I'm really curious as to what other people think about this... hint hint :)
I rather think both of you have a point. Not to play the peacemaker necessarily, but because I think with the assumption that, as Olive said, this was an illusion "so exact and so complete," many people will choose the illusion when given the knowledge that it is a dream or an illusion. We have an insatiable thirst to know, just because then we can at least feel if not be actually in charge.
I'm thinking this, largely, because Dr. W brought up the idea of people being disturbed about living in the Matrix. It occurred to me that this issue is kind of addressed for those who've seen the second and third films with the Architect. So long as we have the knowledge, I don't think its practical utility matters. It's enough just to know. We're like cats. :) Even if we can't change it, we just like knowing.
And apologies if this comment is a bit incomprehensible. It's getting late and my trains of thoughts have always been rather jumpy.
Now that we've read Nozick's piece on the Experience Machine, I thought it was time to revisit the question Irene raises: would you choose to live in the Experience Machine? Why or why not? And what does your answer reveal about your own values?
Ah, good questions! I'm interested to see what others have to say about this. I think the second question is easier answer than the first one. And I'd add a question:
ReplyDeleteIs Hume's answer to the problem satisfactory?
HiLo, I really enjoyed your presentation today, despite the lag. (Your slides were nicely set up, very interactive!)
ReplyDeleteI like that Hume has a practical side with regards to the problem of induction. What I was getting at with my question "What's the point of this?" was, essentially, pragmatics. I love philosophy and I think we shouldn't limit ourselves to what is practical, but occasionally a theory strikes me as useless when there's nothing we can do about it. (And it poses such a potentially huge problem - that we can never truly know our world, even ourselves.)
For such a weighty proposition, it seems trivial to me because (a) we'll never know and (b) there's nothing we can do about it, so it can't and won't change the way we conduct science.
Olive: I understand your worry/ frustration over a theory that has little-to-no practical consequences, and yet, isn't there something to be said for knowledge for knowledge's sake? Why should a theory have to have practical consequences for it to be worth thinking about? If someone could provide a good argument that showed you you couldn't know that there were mind independent objects, or that you didn't know the sun would rise tomorrow, wouldn't that *bother* you at some level?
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you this question: does the thought that all of life might be as a dream bother you? Is that something you would want to be true? How about living in the Matrix? I think most people are disturbed by this idea. But why? It makes no difference to one's experience. As far as one's experiences go, living in the Matrix might be preferable to one's own life. And yet, I don't think many people would choose to live in the Matrix. Why? I think it is because we value knowledge for its own sake. We want our beliefs to be true. This is one of the things that motivates the philosopher to deal with these questions about knowledge of the external world and future, even if there is, in some sense, no "practical" issue at stake.
Besides, one never knows when a heretofore unforeseen practical application of an idea will emerge. Initially, non-Euclidean geometries were thought to be mere mathematical curiosities. It was only much later that their practical significance was recognized.
Also: here is a practical effect thinking about any topic, no matter how far removed from everyday life-concerns: the improvement of the intellect!
Dr. W, I am in complete agreement that there is no such thing as too much knowledge.
ReplyDeleteBUT to be perfectly honest, the idea that life might be a dream doesn't bother me. Why? Because if it is a dream, then the illusion is so exact and so complete that I don't see any way out of it. There isn't anything I can do about but carry on as I see fit. In fact, if I get wrapped up in trying to figure out if my life is real or not, I would probably go insane and waste the time I have anyway....
I was about to wax and wane poetic about the feeling of the insignificance that any person's life won't matter in the grand scheme of the universe and time, but I'll spare you all that.
I realize I'm being contradictory. Perhaps what I mean to say is that it's good we know of the possibility that we'll never truly understand anything, but I don't think that will stop us from trying to understand.
I'm really curious as to what other people think about this... hint hint :)
I am also curious to hear what other people think about this! Who do you agree with, Morgan or Olive? Neither? Need clarification? Let's hear it!
ReplyDeleteI rather think both of you have a point. Not to play the peacemaker necessarily, but because I think with the assumption that, as Olive said, this was an illusion "so exact and so complete," many people will choose the illusion when given the knowledge that it is a dream or an illusion. We have an insatiable thirst to know, just because then we can at least feel if not be actually in charge.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking this, largely, because Dr. W brought up the idea of people being disturbed about living in the Matrix. It occurred to me that this issue is kind of addressed for those who've seen the second and third films with the Architect. So long as we have the knowledge, I don't think its practical utility matters. It's enough just to know. We're like cats. :) Even if we can't change it, we just like knowing.
And apologies if this comment is a bit incomprehensible. It's getting late and my trains of thoughts have always been rather jumpy.
Thanks Irene! Great comment. What do others think? Would you choose to live a life that you knew was illusory? Would you "choose the Matrix"?
ReplyDeleteNow that we've read Nozick's piece on the Experience Machine, I thought it was time to revisit the question Irene raises: would you choose to live in the Experience Machine? Why or why not? And what does your answer reveal about your own values?
ReplyDelete