California Zephyr—May
2011:
Cross-Country Reality Check
LEARNING VERSUS KNOWING
Ever since meeting Alvin in Hong Kong, I have become more
interested in philosophy, but perhaps not what the universities mean by
the word "philosophy" these days. Alvin was "putting the pieces of the puzzle
together" on a personal level through a daily discipline of examining
issues of importance
while wondering around Hong Kong looking for bargains to eat. Unlike
contemporary university philosophers, he was on a very limited budget.
And since "support systems" for independent thinkers do not exist,
his task was a difficult one. He was
contemplating economics at the time—this was around 2008—while I was inquiring into the nature
of reality. Coincidentally I ran into a book by Stephen Hawking that
surprised me. He discussed how conclusions could be drawn without "solving all
the equations."
Later on in San Francisco this led me to read his
book The Grand Design. There he explains how reality in one world can be
different in another, especially the subatomic. In short, while Newton's
laws may apply here in this world, they don't necessarily apply there
in another. In Hawking's thinking and work, physics and philosophy come together.
At the same time, I
was reading a book called The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant. I liked
Durant's historical writing but did not like his book on philosophy. He
presented too many philosophers with many of them using vague language that only they, the
philosophers, really
understand. Moreover, he seemed too worshipful. In his philosophical writing, unlike
his historical, Durant did not have the ability to rise above a concept and elucidate
it. He waddled, struggling for clarity. Given my love for his
historical writing, I was slow to come to this conclusion but reluctantly
did.
In my
quest to "know," I downloaded a couple of books on modern philosophy—I
still prefer paper but was on the road—and began reading. I searched wikipedia.org as well.
I learned some strange, interesting, and bizarre things:
In the strange category
I learned that Martin Heidegger, the great German existential philosopher, was also
a Nazi. Did his theoretical work on the "question of being" have no
relevance to his own regards for actual fellow human beings? Astounding!
I learned that Descartes believed that animals did not have feelings, so he
practiced vivisection on them without anesthetics. Did he take their
pain and discomfort as a merely mechanical reaction? It appears so. I learned something
about Spinoza's
concepts of substance, attributes, and modes. They were interesting concepts but complete
understanding seemed always just out of reach. Per Bertrand Russell and
Ludwig Wittgenstein, I learned the difference
between the word "the" and "a" and the true meaning of the sentence, "The King
of France is bald." Or I thought I did. I learned about linguistics and,
though abstruse, found linguistics interesting. It was at the center of many
discussions.
I am still
reading these books and exploring what I can say I truly know versus what I have "learned." To know
requires work, personal experience, and exploration. You can read for
answers but to know you have to think too. To learn means to believe what someone
else tells you is true with the idea of taking an exam. To know
means to discover the truth on your own. There is literally a world of difference.
Or should I say "worlds"? Would you understand what I mean? Or would you
laugh?
"Can you believe? He seems to think there are other
"worlds" or some such ... Jeez!"
I have also developed a respect for logical argument. Logical argument must
obey certain rules of deduction or induction; and for the results to be
true, an argument must also be based on facts, not pet notions or
prejudices. Most political debates would end in seconds if these rules were followed and
"facts" were
checked. It is the nature of politics to avoid such rigor at all costs. I am
not advocating a perfectly logical world. But a politician who argues for
the enrichment of his or her constituency at the expense of others, usually
the poor, should be held
accountable for his or her reasoning.
I have also noticed, while on the road, that many young
people eschew all standard sources of news and information—"You actually
believe that?" I hear when I quote something from the New York Times—while claiming an esoteric source of their own. The result is some fairly
unusual ideas. It pays to be skeptical but not throw away everything. You
must read a lot, then examine what you read. Accepting as truth the opinions
of some eccentric blogger with an axe to grind is not the way to enlightenment.
In short, I have become aware of the undercurrent of
meaning in any statement and question it. When I hear House Speaker John
Boehner say, "The fact is you can't tax the very people that we expect to
invest in the economy and create jobs,” I look for the real meaning. I
reduce his statement to a logical proposition:
Higher taxes on the rich will cause less job creation.
And I ask if it is true. I find that his proposition is historically false. Then I seek his real meaning: Don't tax my constituency.
Speaker Boehner has "learned" to say things that further his cause. For him, furthering the cause is the test of his knowledge. He "knows" nothing. A Grand Deceiver? You be the judge. I'm still studying the issues.