Because the information at your disposal defines your world view... I am writing this particular post because of the confusion I've noticed there is when it comes to the handling of new information. Especially controversial information. The internet is nothing but information. Some of it can be applied to one's life and reality and some can't. The following is a method for coping with information. Not just any method, it's really a philosophy which simply provides a way of viewing things, an approach that enables one to look at information with an unbiased, honest and open mind.
When confronted with information that is - let's just say - out of the ordinary, one is compelled to either believing it or not believing it. But it doesn't have to be this way. First of all, keep in mind that what’s 'ordinary' is defined by the information one already contains. And this information is everything one has received throughout life. So, if something’s 'out of the ordinary' it’s just something one hasn't heard of before. Of course usually one says that a piece of information is 'out of the ordinary' if it doesn't fit into ones current picture of the world. But that it doesn't fit into the picture doesn't mean it can't be true or that the probability of it being true is small. It simply means that one doesn't contain the information that makes it fit.
Here's an example. Suppose it's the 15th century - the Earth is flat. Someone comes up to you and says "Dude, the world is spherical!". You'd probably respond "Shut up mate! You mean like a ball? If that were true, people on the other side would fall of the bottom!". Then suppose he introduces another concept; gravity... He says "No no, because the world has this force called gravity - it's what keeps everybody on the ground! Including the people on the bottom!". Whether or not you'd buy this or go into a state of denial doesn't matter, because today a great chunk of the information that ties your world view together is composed of these basic notions, the Earth is spherical and there is something called gravity etc.. The point is that the first piece of information doesn't make sense before you receive the second piece of info that makes everything fit coherently into the big picture. But keep in mind, now that it fits it doesn't mean that you know some truth! As the example shows, a new piece of information might just come around that turns everything on its head.
According to Websters Online Dictionary a belief is "Any cognitive content held as true.". When I am informed of something I can choose to believe it or not to believe it - but I can certainly also choose neither. It's called "entertaining a thought". This would be the proper approach in the above example.
Personally I have found what Socrates found, that I really cannot know anything. That of course doesn't mean that I can't have reasons for supposing something or reasons for acting on information [in theory everything can be doubted, but it's not everything that needs to be doubted], I'm not going to engage in a great philosophical inquiry concerning the TV-Guide. But besides that which I cannot doubt (and that is what it is like to perceive) I can't know anything with certainty [I'll get back to this]. Therefore I find no reason to hold any thought about the world as true - since I don't know if it’s actually so. And then again I find no reason to hold any thought about the world as not true – because it might just be! I can't know... The best thing I can do, is to build a coherent framework of suppositions and reasons, while keeping in mind that it's all theory, really just an educated guess, and being ready to change it in the next moment. What then determines the probability of the theory being accurate is the coherence of the system, the internal consistency, and of course all the usual scientific parameters like capability of prediction and so on. [This is of course just one of many epistemological theories - if you're not convinced, do your research - it's all out there.]
This is all bound up on / grounded in perception. Perceiving is knowing - directly. I have no doubt in my mind if I burn myself on a cup of hot chocolate. Well, it might be coffee, but that's besides the point since I have no doubt when it comes to what's it like of that perception. One perceives both thoughts (else one wouldn't know what one was thinking) and that which we call the world, therefore both are indubitable in themselves. [Read "The Observer and The Observed" for more on this subject.] But what one also sees clearly is that thought and the world are two different things - that should be obvious. If thought and world are two different things they are not identical. And thus, nothing "out there" is what one thinks it is. In other words: that which we call a cup is not itself a cup. "A cup" is a description which indicates something that is not itself a description but something else. Something which we describe with symbols, words and thoughts but that is different from the given description.
But don't take my word for it. Look at what's in front of you. Ask yourself: Is that which I see here in front of me not different from what I would call it? Is is not something which is not the same as the sound I make with my mouth to signify it to others? Are these thoughts in my head as I read this text not an internal dialog just talking about the world?
Next time you receive information, how will you treat it?
If you feel that you are ready to handle some information-out-of-the-ordinary visit one of the following sites. You'll most certainly find info there that is pretty hard cope with - unless you suspend your judgement!
Test your thought entertaining abilities by following one or more of the links listed below:
No comments:
Post a Comment