Proof of External Existance

This is what I just wrote for a philosophy class I am in, the prompt is to write a proof of existence.  I thought I would double dip and add this to my blog.

         Does reality exist? Really?  Really, really?  This is the question that René Descartes asks us in the beginning of his work Meditations on First Philosophy.  He attempts to draw everything into doubt – every aspect of what we conceive to be reality.  He then wants to move us from this realm of absolute skepticism to a realm of extreme certainty.  The first aspect of our reality he attempts to confirm is that we exist.  This he does fairly successfully.  He establishes that the subject that draws things into doubt, thought, cannot also be the object of that doubt.  We must exist because we are thinking beings, and thus either receive or create thought.  But regardless there must be something that thought exists within.  It was when he attempted to prove a reality external to the thinker that he ran into trouble, and developed viewpoints that many philosophers after him have picked apart.  But the question still exists, how do we bridge this gap, the one that exists between what Descartes has confirmed as the “I” or the thinker that exists, and the external reality that the thinker perceives?  The answer is through a search into what is intrinsic to how human’s formulate the world and what is extrinsic to it.  If we can prove that objects that are extrinsic to human consciousness, or to our thinking process, help to shape those processes, then there must at least be minimally a “something” that is doing the shaping that goes beyond the thinker that develops ideas.

            Descartes attempts to prove that there is nothing extrinsic to our consciousness when he argues that the “finite” nature of human beings makes it so that we can create other objects that are finite.  He states that the “chief and most common mistake which is to be found here consists in my judging that the ideas which are in me resemble, or conform to, things located outside me” (26).  This is to suggest that there is no reason to believe that there is anything that exists outside of the self.  We cannot know that the ideas formed from our perception of external events necessarily present themselves from those external events or from some aspect of our own consciousness.  He then, in his attempt to prove that there is a g-d, argues that “if the objective reality of my ideas turns out to be so great that I am sure the same reality does not reside in me…it will necessarily follow that I am not alone in the world, but that some other thing which is the cause of the idea also exists” (29).  Thus, in order for something to exist it has to possess characteristics that could not exist within the reality of those who perceive the existence of that object, or formulate an idea of it.  It has to be qualitatively extrinsic to the individual who perceives it in order for it to definitely be real, since in that way the individual cannot manufacture it from him or herself.  Descartes argues that there are few things that can even be perceived clearly at all, and of these things all of them such as “substance, duration, number,” and one can perceive a stone from the knowledge that both the “I” and the “stone” are a substance (30).  G-d exists because g-d possesses qualities that we do not, namely that g-d is “infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful” which are characteristics that cannot be accounted for since Descartes is a “finite substance,” whereas g-d is infinite (31).  Thus, g-d, uniquely, amongst any possible idea cannot derive from the thinker since it is characteristically extrinsic to the individual.

            Descartes here, though, seems to create too broad generalization when he says that just because something is finite it can derive other finite substances intrinsically.  The classic and very compelling example of this is that of the person who is born blind.  The person who is blind cannot derive colored objects solely because he is finite and the colored objects he perceives are also finite.  The only conception that they can have is of objects themselves.  This means that there is a characteristic (namely that of color) perceived by one group of people and another group of people do not perceive that characteristic and it changes the way both groups perceive reality.  As a result, there must be something that exists externally, that changes the way that we formulate ideas of things internally, an extrinsic reality that shapes our internal manner of thinking of things. 

            However, this does not seem to fully escape Descartes argument, because Descartes argues that we cannot properly perceive the objects that we think we perceive (14).  The blind man would then become an example in Descartes favor, because it seems to suggest someone who perceives something that has characteristics not perceived by the perceiver. This is to say, then, that the perceptions we have of external events could be incorrect because we could miss out on something that is qualitatively true.  Consequently, we cannot trust our senses as accurate preceptors of day to day life.  The fallacy here though is the idea that because we perceive the events or objects around us incorrectly they consequently do not exist.  This is false because the incorrect perception of something does not negate the fact that there is something that is perceived.  We then return to the blind man example above.  Even though the blind man perceived the object that he sensed incorrectly, or, more accurately, not totally correctly, the blind man perceived an object that does exist and can be “confirmed” by the senses of someone who is not blind.  Of course, the senses of those who are not blind may also give the viewer an incorrect message.  The main point here is that even though our perceptions may be off, it does not mean that we do not perceive something that truly exists.  Even in the case of dreams or a mirage we must have had to, at some point, perceive external objects that allow us to formulate the image of some reality. Otherwise we would not have the pieces to put the dream or mirage together mentally.

            This concession that we could perceive all of reality falsely takes us to a point of doubt where we cannot take for granted the necessary pre-requisite for the blind man argument: that these characteristics are not some way intrinsically part of us and naturally perceived, and thus are intrinsic rather than extrinsic.  If we choose not to trust our senses, we could be multi-colored blobs floating in ether that perceive ourselves unconsciously but still perceive the building blocks that formulate our reality.  If one is blind it is because they are a blob that lacks a particular type of natural self-perception. We are thus still stuck since we have yet to prove that anything we perceive is necessarily extrinsic to properties of the self.  So now we must examine what aspects of the self we can ascertain.

Assuming that the substance that we consist of is finite, then we have to search for something else extrinsic to the intrinsic nature of a finite being.  A finite being, as a part of its nature, must be individuated from others.  Because it is finite it necessarily cannot extend infinitely.  A finite being could be the only finite being within a void of infinite space.  However, at some point it has edges that cut it off from extension.  If this finite being was a finite being within a void, with no external reality, only possessing the atomic reality contained in itself then it could not conceive of symbolic concepts that are external to itself. Because a finite substance is one unit, it could not conceptualize partaking in the experience of other units.  For example, concepts such as collectivism and solidarity are concepts that exist necessarily because of other finite beings that exist beyond the thinker.  These concepts are extrinsic to the thinker’s nature but also shape the thinker’s thinking.  If one was only one, then one could not imagine being one of many.  Feeling like part of a collective experience would be impossible, because one would only understand the experience of individuality.

Now let us assume that the thinker is an infinite being, the false perception that allows this assumption being that we are finite. If we assume that the characteristics of infinitude are the opposite of finitude (namely that we are undifferentiated from others) then it would be impossible to conceptualize individualism. To imagine being cut off from someone else would not make sense because the experience of the infinite thinker multi-colored blob would be inherently that of collectivity.  However, infinity is so broad that we cannot assume that it is just the opposite of finitude.  Because infinity could also be taken to mean “inclusive of all concepts” in which case the concept of individualism would be included within the infinite perception of every permutation of relationships between objects that could possibly exist.  Descartes argues when he attempts to prove we cannot produce the idea of g-d that the thinker cannot know everything, so infinity is extrinsic to our nature (32).  Consequently, the thinker cannot be a perfect infinite being.  However, this adds a new factor into the equation that was not there initially, namely that something infinite must necessarily understand every aspect of its infinite nature.  All we need to prove here, in order to prove that our understanding of an “external” reality really comes from a “self,” is that the characteristics by which one develops one’s reality are intrinsic to one’s nature and that there is some perception of that nature that happens.  It is not a necessary pre-requisite that we have to consciously register everything that exists within our consciousness; the thinker would just have to have some perception of these atomic building blocks of “reality” in order to re-arrange them in some ordered way.

It seems though that there are still at least some forms of external consciousness that deliver reality to the individual.  The seemingly finite thinker still needs to be introduced to the idea of “collectivity” even if that thinker is really infinite.  Consequently, it seems like every consciousnesses within the infinite thinker would be an offshoot of the same “consciousness” or collective knowledge.  Just like different neurons of the same brain.  Each holding, or helping to transmit information.  In that way the entirety of reality would be that of the infinite thinker, and “existence” would be the process by which information was transmitted within the substance of the thinker.  One could argue though that in order to fulfill the requirements of infinity, infinity would have to include every permutation of possibly realities, which necessarily includes the possibility of multiple infinities as well as finitude.  However, in order to prove that these separate infinities existed externally to the initial infinity-substance one would necessarily have to limit its infinitely expansive nature.  In which case infinity would overlap and exist within infinity infinitely, and at that point becomes redundant.  However, the concept of “finitude” explains why the infinite information within an infinite being would need to be divided.  It would necessarily have to be moved into beings that are not infinitely expansive or knowledgeable.

Thus we are left with two options: we are either finite beings within an external reality or we are offshoots of an infinite thinker that divides itself into strands.  There is no obvious reason to favor one of these explanations over the other.  However, regardless of which one of these two explanations of the nature of our being is true, we know there has to be an existence at least relativistically external to our individuated consciousness.  Because infinity must include finitude, there must be some beings that exist, in a sense, external to our particular strand of existence within the infinite thinker.  Thus there is an “external” existence even if it just external to our particular strand.  If the thinker is a finite being, then it learns concepts that can only exist due to the existence of beings outside of itself.  Ultimately, in both these cases it seems that we know there is an external existence because of the fact that there is a social existence that allows us to experience other forms of consciousness that an individuated singularity could not.  The infinite permutations and ideas that can result due to human interaction are able to shape our consciousness extrinsically.  Consequently, they allow us to know that something external to the self exists purely because beings exist who populate that space, formulate ideas with us and ultimately shape us in ways that we could not possibly shape ourselves.

Works citedDescartes, René, and Bernard Arthur. Meditations on first philosophy: with selections from the Objections and replies. Cambridge Univ Pr, 1996. Print.

Nihilism! Hedonism?

It is hard to prove any intrinsic purpose to the universe.  Even if you embrace the existence of a g-d, how can that g-d necessarily bring intrinsic purpose to the universe?  What does spiritual advancement mean, even?  Where can we find "absolute" truths with absolute meanings that give us some sort of absolute value to our lives?

These questions are hard ones to answer.  Mostly because it doesn't seem that there is any answer to them on face value.  Once you embrace that not even a g-d can give intrinsic purpose to the universe, then where do you find purpose from?  You can feel maybe satiated by the chance that there is some purpose to the universe that is unreachable to humans.  But, that feels like a rather cruel trick for g-d to play.  And if you don't believe in g-d, well, then just embracing that there is no absolute purpose to the universe sucks.

But I think logically, devoid of the existence of even a g-d, you can figure out some intrinsic purpose to the universe.  Or, more specifically, life.  What is life?  Life, in its most simple form, uses energy to counter entropy.  Entropy, the idea that the entire Universe is heating up, that everything ends up being heat, the speed at which atoms rub together continues to increase wherever you are, is a truth of physics.  It is the natural result of the cycle of energy creation.

But, life resists that temptation, we maintain a temperature, and use up chemical energy to resist entropy.  And we exert a ton of energy to do so.  Yet, what does this give us?  What differentiates a living creature from a rock for example?  And then, a human from an animal?

To me, it seems that the only difference is the ability to create, and as one becomes increasingly evolved, the ability to enjoy oneself and also, consciously process that pleasure.  And humans, more so than any other creature (that we know), can experience pleasure and truly appreciate and process that pleasure.  We can take pleasure and satisfaction in the things we do.

Thus, I tend to embrace a form of ethical hedonism and moral relativism as a reaction to nihilism.  There may be no absolute purpose to the universe, but I think we can perhaps derive an intrinsic purpose to life.  And I think that intrinsic purpose is to pursue pleasure.  By the process of elimination, described above, we see a purpose that seems intrinsic to the unique form "life" itself.  It is an aspect of living, part of living, and seeing as that is unique amongst other "forms" in the universe, perhaps it should be examined as something worth pursuing and enjoying.  Because by doing so we actually enjoy something that we can uniquely appreciate due to the way that we currently exist in the universe.

That pleasure isn't necessarily easily defined.  In fact, I think it can almost only be a mixture of personally and socially defined.  For example, I don't think that you can experience the highest levels of pleasure while other people suffer, because we are attached to each other, socially.  In this way, this brand of hedonism is in some senses "ethical."  However, I like to avoid the branding of "ethical hedonism" because it comes with it the idea of some "absolute" means of enjoyment.  Asceticism, denying yourself food or sex, or whatever, may cause you joy and make you feel closer to a g-d, but that is your own personal form of enjoyment.  And I think it is the individual quest to understand how one can derive personal pleasure, while avoiding negating the pursuit of joy of others by hurting them.

Then, how does g-d come back into the picture?  (If you don't believe in g-d you can ignore this part.) I think that "being with g-d" is part of experiencing the highest pleasure you can intellectually conceive of.  Being with g-d is similar to the perception of nirvana that exists in Buddhism. It is unlimited joy devoid of negativity and things that would regularly drag someone down and make them not happy.  It is the most blissful state that one should be in.  However, I don't feel that asceticism necessarily allows for this state, I think that "life" exists as a unique form because we are supposed to enjoy life, and the bodies and physicality involved in it.

Youtube Post

I made this youtube post for a possible speech giving thing I am applying to.  It is about pre-determinism, nihilism, and their opposites.  Tomorrow I am going to make a post about nihilism.

Pre-determinism, Irrationality, and Accidents

So, in a post a few days ago that I made I talked about how everything is pre-determined.  I think I made a rather compelling argument, and it is one that I have been consistently looking for flaws in since I have thought of it.  None of my responses have been very good, at least I think.  However, I think with the massive scale of the "script" described in pre-determinism, if we can provide even a 1% falsehood in the idea that everything is pre-determined (IE prove that at least 1% of things aren't pre-determined) it will create a significant break down of the theory.

So here are my two ideas right now:

1) Decision calculus's are inconsistent - If I were to tell you to write two e-mails (one right after the other, with no time elapse) to your aunt congratulating her on her birthday and also an update on your life, you would likely not send the same e-mail twice.  Which means on some level you would evaluate things that are important to bring up again differently, or you would make different semantic evaluations somewhere.  Consequently, to some extent our ability to make decisions is random, and inconsistent.  Now, you may argue time has elapsed, but I think that many of us have experienced the situation where we have sent two texts in a row saying basically the same thing with slight variation.  Perhaps, you get lazier, or something, but if I were to ask you to send the exact same message twice I don't think that it would be a consistent.  Especially if a week elapsed between sending the messages instead of only a few minutes.  Of course, you could argue that that your decision calculus could change over the week, which is possible, although I doubt there would be a noticeable change in your writing style over that time period, or at least enough to account for the variation in your second letter.

2) True Accidents Can Happen - now, by this, I mean accidents that happen outside consideration by one's decision calculus (decision calculus used broadly to include emotions, biology, etc.)  I think this is a difficult claim to prove. Firstly, let's say I trip when I reach the bottom of the stairs of some building, because every Tuesday at that time the janitors clean the floor and it is wet and when you come down those particular stairs you can't see the sign that they put up ("caution - floor is wet.")  The next week, I do the same thing.  However, the difference between the first and the second time is that the second time I had the experience of the first.  So the question here is whether or not "forgetfulness" exists outside of one's decision calculus.  Now, the argument for pre-determinism here would be that if I had developed the decision calculus to remember events like that and mentally log them, then I would have remembered and not tripped.  Or, you could make the argument that I was born with the biology of being a forgetful person.  Or was raised in a forgetful environment.  Whatever.  However, the question here becomes, can something that never enters your decision calculus still be considered a part of decision calculus.  Can something that exists outside your framework of analysis, or never enters your framework of analysis, be still considered part of your framework of analysis, purely because your framework of analysis wasn't developed enough to consider it?  If I just trip. Plain and simple. No memory involved.  Does this still count as an "inevitability" because it was never considered within my framework?  Possibly.  I think to assume that everyone should be constantly walking around thinking about the chance they will trip, otherwise it is inevitable that they will trip, and consequently pre-determined, feels like a stretch.

So, while I think there are some flaws with these arguments, I think that they do cast some doubt on the idea that EVERYTHING is pre-determined.  And, I think they also have really interesting implications.

Neither of them positively affirm that "free will" exists.  They both just prove that things are not pre-determined.  In fact, it seems that the only way that things aren't pre-determined is for there to be some degree of chaos and irrationality that we have no control over.  We have to mess up our decision calculus.  Or we have to be given choices that are a result of irrationality (or accidents).  We still have very little control over our ability to make decisions but, it seems, this is fine.  If we were perfectly functioning machines, then it would make it impossible for life to be varied, instead we would be stuck in a script of pre-determinism.

It's interesting, then, where will comes into the situation.  Let's say that you are given a decision ( the decisions you are given being something totally random - a result of accidents, irrationality, or perhaps, even perfectly refined decision calculus.)  You assert your will as a result of a decision you make, one that will often vary randomly and be irrational, and the more powerfully you can assert your will into your actions, the more control, or determined your actions can become.  So, counter intuitively, the most control you have over your decision comes not in the options of the decision, or the ability to make the decision, but the ability to act on your - likely to some degree irrational - decision.  And the more rational of an actor everyone becomes, the more we try and order the world and reduce the amount of chaos in it, the more we get stuck into this pre-deterministic script.

As a result, we see why the myth of the perfectly rational actor is necessary for belief systems like 100% free market capitalism.  Because that is the only way we could predict what will happen, and as a result, the actions of the market would be inevitable.  However, this sort of irrationality seems to exist in every decision, and lead to varied, impossible to expect results, that keep the world interesting, and, I think, actually act as the vehicle for free-will to happen.

The reason for this is free will can only exist in the context of "true decisions."  These mean decisions that are not pre-determined - or not a result of pre-determined circumstances, like assumed rationality or perfect consistency of every actor.  Interestingly, then, the ability for us to make our supposedly rational decisions exist in a context of irrationality, or chaos.  It means that there is always going to be a certain balance between chaos and order in order for us to have something that we consider free will.  As a result, the events in the world that seem sometimes random, and scary, actually allow for free-will exist.   Perhaps it is the events that happen outside our immediate control, and outside our decision calculus, that keeps life interesting, whether those events are good or bad.

My Political Views (for the sake of transparency)

I realized that I have never posted my political views in the sense of how one would conventionally evaluate political views in U.S. politics so I thought I would post those views today in the name of transparency.

I tend to think of myself as a moderate, however, in the U.S. I would most definitely be seen as a progressive.  The reason for this is that for me a moderate means being in the center.  So if I were to take friedmanite free market capitalism on one side, and socialism on the other side, I would be in the middle.  Which in U.S. politics unfortunately puts me probably a little bit more than center left.

I think it is important to use the wealth of a nation to alleviate poverty and hunger and such.  I also am probably "radically left" on most social issues.  Although, as I explained in another post, this is really the moderate position.  Because if you were to choose between the two extremes of one group having more or less power, then the middle is of course power equally distributed between groups.

I am also a pragmatist, and I feel that the left in the U.S. is more into pragmatic solutions to problems rather than utopian visions of a perfectly functioning market system.  Basically, the left in the U.S.'s extremes are substantially less extreme than the right's extremes, which makes me feel more comfortable being a member of them. 

I also feel that the very discourse of U.S. politics is slated towards the direction of the right.  Which makes it difficult to evaluate what the true middle ground is.  Anyway, I think that covers my viewpoints as much as is necessary for the sake of transparency.  If you have any questions, just ask.

Good and Evil Versus Power and No Power

Hello again,
Today for my blog post I am going to try and do the first "conglomeration of ideas."  This conglomeration I think is interesting in that it is mixing two different dichotomies (opposites).  I find this particularly cool because it is a way of merging two frameworks of analysis.

Anyway, starting with the poll.  66% of people said that there was "good and evil" and 33% said that it was about who had more power or less power.  I think this is interesting in that it seems that we have some sort of general strong feeling that there is an objective good and an objective evil.  But I am not sure that this is true.  In a lot of cultures what is "good" and what is "evil" ends up being defined very differently.

For example, in modern American culture we would probably consider stoning and adulterer to death "evil."  It is an incredibly painful way to die, and the crime is pretty common place at this point.  However, for thousands of years in many cultures this practice was not only acceptable, but seen as the righteous punishment for that particular crime.  And in some places around the world it still is.

So what changed?  Well, actually, stoning hasn't been a cultural practice in the west for a long time.  So I will look at an example that I know more about and fits into this analysis better.  Namely, women's rights.  Particularly, wife beating.  For hundreds of years beating one's wife was totally acceptable.  In fact, during the middle ages and (I think) into the renaissance and enlightenment, there were laws that regulated how large of a stick you could use to beat your wife.  Which, actually, was probably fairly progressive for the time.  Except for that people were also advocating at the time the right time to beat your wife.

So, something fundamentally changed in what we viewed as "good" and "evil" (or at least bad) in this sense.  I think that what changed is the nature of the power relations between the sexes.  Which is why this is a good example.  It may seem to us now "objectively" clear that you shouldn't beat your wife.  However, that is merely because we live in a culture where the voices of women have been allowed to speak.  They have power in our culture.  Wife beating still happens, which I think speaks to the work the feminist movement still needs to do.  But it has been reduced probably and due to a change in power.

In this way we don't have two clearly defined frameworks.  But ones that overlap, the more powerful someone or a group is the more they are able to define the discussion of what is good or evil in a society.  Now, some people reading this may be thinking "yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, some things are bad, but cultural norms, but what about greater prohibitions, like the prohibition against murder, that seems inherently evil, so there must be some objective good and evil."

First of all, the prohibition against murder is greatly debated.  Namely, under what circumstances is it okay to murder someone.  That discussion has been defined by who are more powerful.  When the aristocracy was in power in England (and the early bourgeoisie) it was a crime punishable by death to steal.  Obviously that isn't the case anymore, and many of the thinkers in the time period were opposed to it. 

But, let's take a step back and say the murder of innocents.  Cold blooded murder is something that is opposed as "evil."  And I think we can all for the most part agree that this is true.  Now, is there some sort of just inherent human trait that makes it so that shooting someone in the face seems bad?  Some objective "evil" that we all just know that is bad?

I think, perhaps, to an extent, it is inherent in human kind to want to work together with others.  Or at least not kill them on first sight.  However, I think also, this perhaps general inherent trait is strengthened by a group that has a ton of power in our society.  Mainly, everyone.  Almost everyone doesn't want to be murdered themselves, and "everyone" holds an incredible amount of power in our society.  Consequently, a prohibition against murder of innocents has been solidified within our society as "evil".

And I think this points to the end solution of all of this.  How we can balance these two competing discourses and get at some truth of what "good" is versus what "evil" is in some objective way.  Mainly, to have every group have around equal voice and equal power in a society.  That way everyone's objections as to what is "evil" can be given weight in the public discourse to sway other's and also defend themselves.  This is, of course, a utopian vision of discourse in any society.  However, at least individually, we can listen to what other's consider evil and try and reach a middle ground with them.

Of course, there are some issues which I will never budge on because I feel that a prohibition against them is "evil" in and of itself.  For example, banning gay marriage, or at least some sort of legally endorsed union.  That is just wrong.  Both because there is no empirical evidence to prove it, but also because it marginalizes a a minority within the U.S.. Of course, I think that this derives itself from a lack of voice that the LGBTQQIAA movement has.  And, also, from the radical position of one group to position another group as an a priori "evil."  Which is perhaps why it is important to avoid believing in any sort of "inherent" evilness or goodness of something, and instead is important to understand that one's feelings on what is "good" and what is "evil" need to be looked at as something socially defined, and understand that your viewpoints are probably being shaped by who has the most powerful voice and can most define our social narrative. 

Gone For A While and Pre-determinism

Hello,I have been gone for a while since I have been adjusting to getting back to school and getting back on a different time schedule with less free time.  Although not way less.  This won't happen again.

A recent thought that I have been thinking about is pre-determinism.  I have always been a believer in some sort of "free will" - like that we must have at least a 10% level of control over our fate.  However, the more I think about it, the more I realize the intense level of pre-determinism that exists (it seems to me) throughout the universe.

At least, let's think, in terms of individual human life.  The main area that free will derives from is the ability to make decisions for yourself.  The process of making a decision tends to go like this - certain choices are given to you, you make a choice, then you actualize that choice, actualizing that choice ends up being made up of a number of micro-decisions.  (For example, the decision to get off your ass and do something.)

So, one would argue, we can still make choices.  However, I think that the very framework for decision analysis is pre-determined for you, consequently the decisions you make will be consistently within that framework.  You are born, probably, with pre-dispositions towards certain types of decisions.  And as you get older certain forms of analysis seep into your psyche and start to override certain aspects of that biological decision making process (thus the move from emotion to more logical thinking as one ages).  However, you have virtually no control over the way that framework is formed.  One could argue that once that framework is established then you have control over how you decide within it.  But I don't think so.  I think that a certain amount of factors will always influence your thinking one way or the other. 

You may seek out advice to help with your decision making.  However, being someone "who seeks out advice" and even the person you seek advice from, and how you evaluate that advice and take it in are all based on this comnplex framework of analysis that we develop as individuals.  Now, let us broaden the picture.  Everyone is constantly moving with this framework of analysis that they have virtually no control over.  So, I go for advice, my friend is gone, because he decided to go to an extracurricular activity, or a date. He made the decision to leave at that moment within the decision calculus that he has no control over.  I went to seek advice at that moment because I felt it was the right time to get advice based on an emotional or intellectual decision analysis. 

All of us exist within these competing frameworks of analysis and none of this seems very random at all, or very controlled by us at all.  In fact, it appears to me that all of this is "pre-determined" in the sense that our framework of analysis is inevitably going to lead us to certain decisions over and over again.  In no instance can we escape the framework of analysis that we use to evaluate the choices we make and execute those choices.  The choices given to us are only a result of other's decision calculus.  It is inescapable.

Now, I don't necessarily have the knowledge of the weather and nature to make the furthest extent of this argument.  But basically I feel that cells, animals, everything acts from some sort of impulsive decision analysis.  It isn't probably nearly as analytical or complex as human analysis but it is still there.  The desire to act on hunger, for example, still moves more "primitive" life.  And will move them when hunger hits, which is probably relative to when they were born, or, whatever.  They still act within this framework of analysis and it seems like an impossibly complex computer script of overlapping analysis.

The one saving grace of this analysis, that saves us from the dreariness of a pre-determined life, I believe, is that we still HAVE TO make decisions.  Even though there will be an eventual solution that is pre-determined, we still have to make that decision.  And, for example, if this blog post makes you realize that there is a solution already waiting there, and you circumvent the decision process, then you have just changed your decision calculus, you haven't broken free of pre-determinism.  So, despite this, life still has drama, happiness, and joy, defeat, sorrow, and everything else and that will result from the decisions you make.  Just those decisions are already there, and we are already moving in a direction towards them.

I want to feel like we have some volition, and ability to control our futures.  But it seems the only responses I've gotten to this issue have been "I feel like we do" or the ever so famous "so you are saying we will make choices, consequently those choices are inevitable."  The former of those two arguments is way more appealing to me since I like to trust emotions as much as logic.  However, the second is non-sense, since I am specifically identifying a means of analysis that is pre-determined.  The fact is that the manner in which we make the decision is already defined for us.  Inescapably so.  So yes, we will make a decision, but the choices that lead to that decision, and the analysis for making that decision, is already inside of us.  And that is important to remember.

I am curious though too, about the effect of g-d in all this.  I personally believe in g-d, however, is g-d trapped within the same decision calculus problem?  Even if his/her ability to make decisions, or his/her decision analysis is infinitely more deep and complex than any humans, does s/he still have to make decisions in some way?  Is s/he still part of the script?  Or was the script set in motion by g-d, only to be lived out by us, and from that g-d derives its power?

I think without the concept of a g-d though, there is literally almost no flaw in the viewpoint that everything is pre-determined.  Normally I don't take strong opinions on issues (thus this blog) so this is a little disturbing to me.  But please make arguments in response to this concept.  Perhaps you can moderate me with your viewpoints on free will.

(As always, if you like this post, facebook "like" the blog or click "I like it" on stumbleupon or tweet it to your friends, or whatever.  Sharing thoughts is a great thing.)

Response to New Years Post

My friend wrote this well thought out response that he couldn't post for some reason, so I thought I would post it and respond to it:

"While I would agree that an individual can begin anew and afresh at any moment, I would argue that it is in fact very important for a society to have a new year. The system of the New Year itself allows the individual to enter into new meaning and renew himself (renewal is just as much a part of the New Year, as beginning anew—the New Year begins a both new linear year, and brings us back to the beginning of the cyclical year). In Jewish law, every seventh year is denoted as a Sabbatical year, during which all debts are cleared, and slaves are freed. Society itself needs this time to renew itself and start again. Individuals can also take advantage of the society’s New Year, which is a self reflective time that can push the individual to reexamine himself, and in which society itself provides a structure for this examination.

The English word ‘January’ comes from the Roman god Janus, a two faced god who was the god of beginnings, ends, gates, and doorways. One of his heads looks forwards, and one looks backwards. This is what the New Year (the month of January) should allow us to do. Janus is the god of thresholds. In latin, the word threshold is ‘Limen’, from which the English word Liminal is derived. Scholars of ritual denote three stages of ritual; preliminal, liminal, and postliminal. Each of these stages is necessary for the individual to pass from one state of being to another. In the preliminal stage, the individual is removed from their current state (I often like to think of it as the bachelor party in marriage, in which the bachelor experiences for one last time one world), then, the liminal stage is where the individual passes from one state to another (the marriage ceremony itself), and the postliminal is when the individual is welcomed into the new world (the honey moon, or party). A socially structured New Years should provide all of these stages in a way that the average individual cannot in the average year. The Jewish New Years time (Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur) does this well. The secular New Year does a very good job of preliminality and liminality, but falls short in welcoming the individual into the New Year. It represents only part of Janus. The structures of society are there for the individual to take advantage of and place himself into.

The New Year is not the exclusive time for new beginnings. In Jewish tradition, every Sabbath is in fact the same Sabbath as the Sabbath of creation. Thus, each week is a new chance to begin again. Every Seventh year provides further opportunity to start anew. As you said, every day is even a chance for a new beginning. The Rav Soloveitchik once wrote “somehow, every human being, great or small, however successful and outstanding, loses every day afresh his ontic fulcrum (the equilibrium of his being), which he tries steadily to recover.” The New Year should provide us with a system in which to place ourselves and try to renew our being and recover our ontic fulcrum."

I think that he makes a very good point.  There is an important aspect of new years eve that comes from it being a collective renewal.  A renewal that we all experience together and can go through together.  But I think in order to actually have a collective renewal we need to focus on working together in order to achieve.  I think that we can do that in a few ways.  Some are obvious ways.

The first of which would be to actually help other people with their new years resolutions.  If you know your friend really wants to learn how to speed read, and you read something about how to speed read, then give him the link to that site.  If we want to have a collective renewal we can also collectively assist each other.  I think in that way a stated new years resolution becomes a reality.  It begins to be actualized through a reality defined by every individual.

The second of which I think is more powerful and pertinent and something we don't often do.  We need to give other people the space to become their own person, or develop themselves.  I think too often we force people into boxes that we never let them escape from.  In that way, their personality becomes static and they don't have the room to improve themselves.  I think part of the collective new slate of new years, and a way of using new years productively collectively, would be to look for positive changes that others are making, declared or not, and help them through those changes, either through compliments (clichely but, I think, truthfully) or through supporting those changes "behind their back."  Or, basically, in anyway possible.  But if someone wants to improve themselves as a person, I think having a collective blank slate where we look for positive changes in others and reward them is important and necessary societally.

At the same time, I don't think we can allow others "not giving us the room to change" as an excuse for not changing.  Everyone should remain on a positive quest for development regardless of others and what they say.  And if someone, or a group of people, prevent you from changing in a positive way, it is critical to remove those people from your life.  In that way, individually, anyone is capable of a clean slate.  It is just necessary that you work at it.  Another less socially destructive (and I don't mean destruction in the negative sense, since getting rid of people who are preventing you from growing is really a form of creative destruction) but less socially destructive means of development is to make those changes and discuss with people that you are attempting to make changes.  That those changes are something positive, and as your supposed friends you want their support.  Regardless, I don't think, as in the first post, we should rely on a collective clean slate to make changes for ourselves, and really everyone should be given the room to improve in all aspects of our lives.  And, if at any point, you notice someone else improving themselves, or working to improve some aspect themselves you should support them in anyway possible.  That way, we can collectively improve ourselves individually.

Good and Evil Versus Power and No Power

A very traditional line that we often hear in movies and other (normally fantasy) pieces of entertainment is "there is no good and evil, only power and no power."  I think this is an interesting concept, and the one I plan on exploring in the next post that I make.  For now I am just asking the question, is there an objective good and evil?  Or is it all about who has the power? 

Go to the poll on the right of the page to vote!  And also comment on this post with your opinion.  We'll see if we can't merge these concepts together.