A grand solution to everything
So I've been thinking. And writing. And I have now a finished product on the nature of Reality.
It came to two pages in Microsoft Word, but it seems to be comprehensive and conclusive.
So, without further ado:
On Reality, Thought, and Illusion
There is but one thing that I, perceiving myself to be physical, mortal, and human, can prove beyond doubt. The burden of proof beyond any doubt, as opposed to reasonable doubt, is one that few philosophers have forced upon their thought. Why this is so is not something I care to speculate on.
Descartes attempted this with his oh-so-famous cogito ergo sum, but Nietzsche rightfully pointed out that Descartes had wielded semantics and grammar. I assert though that Descartes’ flaw was not in the wielding of semantics and grammar to make his point, but rather in having done so without first proving the existence of semantics and grammar; indeed, without having first proven the existence of language.
Descartes was correct in the first part of his maxim, though. Cogito. The statement “I think” is subjectively true for any who can think the statement. However, it is not objectively true, because thought cannot prove a thinker. The matter of whether thought requires a thinker at all is one I shall discuss below, but even allowing that thought requires a thinker and thus the existence of thought proves the existence of a thinker, the thinking of the thought may not have been done by the one perceiving itself to be the one undertaking the thinking.
On the other hand, thought does prove its own existence. Whether or not the subject “I” is correct for the thinking, the self-proving thought proves beyond a doubt the existence of thought. There is thought, whether or not there is a thinker, and no matter what form such a thinker takes.
Thus, whether or not there is a required thinker, the statement “I think” does not demonstrate an “I am.” It instead demonstrates a “something is,” specifically, that “thought is.”
Hence, the provable fact. “I think, therefore there is thought.” Cogito ergo cogationem est.
All else fails to meet the burden.
* * *
Does thought require/predicate a thinker?
Why should it? Where in the definition of thought does it state that it must have a thinker? Oh, certainly, the fact that thinking is a verb linguistically implies a subject to perform the thinking, but we have not yet demonstrated the existence of, nor even the likelihood of the existence of language, so linguistic evidence is no evidence.
So. There is Thought. It does not require a thinker, yet though the burden of proving the thinker has not been met, nor has the burden of disproving the thinker. There may be a thinker, or several thinkers, but the Thought does not require them.
* * *
There is Thought, but what is this Thought of?
Of necessity, Thought includes the thoughts that I perceive myself to be having, although it is not necessarily limited to those. These thoughts consist of both active or conscious thoughts and passive or unconscious thoughts. The latter may also be described as perceptions, but perceptions are a form of thought.
For example, I am currently thinking that I like to drink tea and I would like to go find some. If I do this, I will perceive myself to be drinking tea and I will perceive the taste of the tea as enjoyable. Both the thought “I like to drink tea” and the perception “I am drinking tea” are thoughts, as the latter is better said as “I think that I am drinking tea.” As such, both this thought and this perception are part of Thought.
So. Within my thought and therefore within Thought is the perception of reality. Whether or not this perception is accurate, the idea of existence exists as part of Thought. The existence of things other than Thought may be unprovable, but the existence of the Ideas of these things is indisputable. Of course, this is still not universal, as for each subjective observational thinker (each perception of an individual person), different Ideas of things exist and Ideas of the same things differ in their details. My Idea of “tea” is different than another thinker’s Idea of tea, especially if the other thinker perceives itself to be not particularly fond of tea.
On another level, the Idea of Thought is part of Thought, in an endless infinite loop. Additionally, the Idea of the thinker of Thought is part of Thought. So although Thought’s thinker does not necessarily exist, the Idea of the thinker does. As such, the thinker of the Thought has as much independent reality as anything else.
* * *
Simply put, our observations are nothing more than thoughts. They have just as much independent reality as any other thought. If someone wishes to assert that one Idea is of a thing that has reality outside of Thought, then all Ideas have reality outside of Thought.
If you assert “I exist” then you are also asserting “physics exists,” “the Earth exists,” and “God exists.” Take comfort, though, my atheist friends! By asserting “I exist,” you are also asserting that “the non-existence of God exists” and “the non-existence of Earth exists,” and, amusingly enough, by asserting “I exist,” you are also asserting “the non-existence of ‘I’ exists.” In short, if you assert “I exist,” you are asserting the simultaneous existence and non-existence of the objects of all Ideas that are part of Thought. Only Thought itself is immune to this simultaneous existence/non-existence, as it provably exists regardless of whether you assert the existence of something other than Thought.
If A and B is true and A and not-B is true, then A is independent of B. Thus it is with Thought and the assertion of things other than Thought.
Therefore, Thought exists. Either all other things do not exist, or all other things simultaneously exist and do not exist. It appears that I am asserting that P = NP, but in reality I am asserting the slightly more palatable P + NP = True. Nonetheless, this is illogical. Therefore, since the assertion that all things besides Thought simultaneously exist and do not exist is illogical, the other option must be true. All things besides Thought do not exist - or, in other words, nothing but Thought exists.
Hence, the only provable fact is also the only fact. Thought exists. There is no other truth.
© Timothy Sullivan, December 2008
It came to two pages in Microsoft Word, but it seems to be comprehensive and conclusive.
So, without further ado:
On Reality, Thought, and Illusion
There is but one thing that I, perceiving myself to be physical, mortal, and human, can prove beyond doubt. The burden of proof beyond any doubt, as opposed to reasonable doubt, is one that few philosophers have forced upon their thought. Why this is so is not something I care to speculate on.
Descartes attempted this with his oh-so-famous cogito ergo sum, but Nietzsche rightfully pointed out that Descartes had wielded semantics and grammar. I assert though that Descartes’ flaw was not in the wielding of semantics and grammar to make his point, but rather in having done so without first proving the existence of semantics and grammar; indeed, without having first proven the existence of language.
Descartes was correct in the first part of his maxim, though. Cogito. The statement “I think” is subjectively true for any who can think the statement. However, it is not objectively true, because thought cannot prove a thinker. The matter of whether thought requires a thinker at all is one I shall discuss below, but even allowing that thought requires a thinker and thus the existence of thought proves the existence of a thinker, the thinking of the thought may not have been done by the one perceiving itself to be the one undertaking the thinking.
On the other hand, thought does prove its own existence. Whether or not the subject “I” is correct for the thinking, the self-proving thought proves beyond a doubt the existence of thought. There is thought, whether or not there is a thinker, and no matter what form such a thinker takes.
Thus, whether or not there is a required thinker, the statement “I think” does not demonstrate an “I am.” It instead demonstrates a “something is,” specifically, that “thought is.”
Hence, the provable fact. “I think, therefore there is thought.” Cogito ergo cogationem est.
All else fails to meet the burden.
* * *
Does thought require/predicate a thinker?
Why should it? Where in the definition of thought does it state that it must have a thinker? Oh, certainly, the fact that thinking is a verb linguistically implies a subject to perform the thinking, but we have not yet demonstrated the existence of, nor even the likelihood of the existence of language, so linguistic evidence is no evidence.
So. There is Thought. It does not require a thinker, yet though the burden of proving the thinker has not been met, nor has the burden of disproving the thinker. There may be a thinker, or several thinkers, but the Thought does not require them.
* * *
There is Thought, but what is this Thought of?
Of necessity, Thought includes the thoughts that I perceive myself to be having, although it is not necessarily limited to those. These thoughts consist of both active or conscious thoughts and passive or unconscious thoughts. The latter may also be described as perceptions, but perceptions are a form of thought.
For example, I am currently thinking that I like to drink tea and I would like to go find some. If I do this, I will perceive myself to be drinking tea and I will perceive the taste of the tea as enjoyable. Both the thought “I like to drink tea” and the perception “I am drinking tea” are thoughts, as the latter is better said as “I think that I am drinking tea.” As such, both this thought and this perception are part of Thought.
So. Within my thought and therefore within Thought is the perception of reality. Whether or not this perception is accurate, the idea of existence exists as part of Thought. The existence of things other than Thought may be unprovable, but the existence of the Ideas of these things is indisputable. Of course, this is still not universal, as for each subjective observational thinker (each perception of an individual person), different Ideas of things exist and Ideas of the same things differ in their details. My Idea of “tea” is different than another thinker’s Idea of tea, especially if the other thinker perceives itself to be not particularly fond of tea.
On another level, the Idea of Thought is part of Thought, in an endless infinite loop. Additionally, the Idea of the thinker of Thought is part of Thought. So although Thought’s thinker does not necessarily exist, the Idea of the thinker does. As such, the thinker of the Thought has as much independent reality as anything else.
* * *
Simply put, our observations are nothing more than thoughts. They have just as much independent reality as any other thought. If someone wishes to assert that one Idea is of a thing that has reality outside of Thought, then all Ideas have reality outside of Thought.
If you assert “I exist” then you are also asserting “physics exists,” “the Earth exists,” and “God exists.” Take comfort, though, my atheist friends! By asserting “I exist,” you are also asserting that “the non-existence of God exists” and “the non-existence of Earth exists,” and, amusingly enough, by asserting “I exist,” you are also asserting “the non-existence of ‘I’ exists.” In short, if you assert “I exist,” you are asserting the simultaneous existence and non-existence of the objects of all Ideas that are part of Thought. Only Thought itself is immune to this simultaneous existence/non-existence, as it provably exists regardless of whether you assert the existence of something other than Thought.
If A and B is true and A and not-B is true, then A is independent of B. Thus it is with Thought and the assertion of things other than Thought.
Therefore, Thought exists. Either all other things do not exist, or all other things simultaneously exist and do not exist. It appears that I am asserting that P = NP, but in reality I am asserting the slightly more palatable P + NP = True. Nonetheless, this is illogical. Therefore, since the assertion that all things besides Thought simultaneously exist and do not exist is illogical, the other option must be true. All things besides Thought do not exist - or, in other words, nothing but Thought exists.
Hence, the only provable fact is also the only fact. Thought exists. There is no other truth.
© Timothy Sullivan, December 2008