Unsimplicities for Simpletons   ver. 0.7

A philosopher
is simply anyone
who makes a lot of sense.

Philosophy is
a mental accommodation to the world around me
and creating/shaping a fitting conceptual presentation.

Philosophical understanding is a creation that

• fits the facts,
• works for you, and
• has room for other people.

It is possible that there may be a number of equally valid philosophical understandings, like the variety of different gardens one could create out of one plot of land.

A philosophy book
is an aesthetic project.
We sing our song of sense.

All we have are oversimplifications
&mdash but we use them in a complex way.

The river of understanding is not so much deep as it is broad.
And our attention span is limited.

We have all felt the elephant.
Did you also feel how big he is?!

All we have are oversimplifications.
This is my oversimplification
about our oversimplifications.

What can philosophers tell us?
is a sub-question
of the larger question:
What can anyone tell us?

Academic philosophy is where big ideas go to die.

Academic philosophers take on difficult problems (or pseudo problems, if you like) but they seldom say anything sensible, let alone profound.

The flies are still in the flybottle.
They like it there. That's where their friends are.

Academic Philosophy: the field of dropped balls.

If, by approaching a problem in a certain way, or by studying the writings of a certain philosopher, if you have come up with no solutions in say one hundred years, for god's sake, try something new!

Philosophy is a mind-field.

It is easier to understand Wittgenstein (or Heidegger) than it is to understand the world.

Only a philosopher thinks the world is waiting for a philosophy book.

The aim of a philosophy book is to make you think you understand something profound.

The boredom of a philosophy book is its own refutation.

On philosophy, entering into a thicket of prickly egos.

The major philosophical mistakes are made before a sentence is uttered.

The unexamined question is not worth answering.

Most people want so desperately to be rational they are willing to offer and accept the most ridiculous argument in order to sound rational.

Since reason cannot give us the truth, what we really need is not better logic, but better conclusions.

The lesson we refuse to learn from history is just how little we know.

On the other hand, perhaps the failure of philosophy is basic to a pluralistic society.
(more on this later)

Not every sentence and not every question is meaningful.
(Which is not to say that it is not fun
to jump in and answer such a noble sounding question.)

The following sentences are not problematic.
In most situations we can evaluate whether they are true or false:

• I understand the rules of football.
• I understand that by signing this document...
• I understand Norwegian.
• I can understand why he would be upset.

But sentences like the following are not unproblematic:

• I understand the amoeba.
• I understand the world.
• What is understanding?

But not every grammatically valid sentence tempts us into answering it.
But the word 'understand' is almost like 'make sense of' and we usually hunt around for a frame of reference where this makes some kind of sense.

And 'world' is also ambiguous,
standing bot for the familiar and real physical world
and also for the worlds of knowledge.
(This may not be the most apt metaphor.)

We can try to give a sense to the phrase 'understand the world.' In what ways can we be said to understand 'the world'? Here are some possibilities:

1. A factual or theoretical understanding of aspects of the world
   • we may know facts about the world
   • we may understand how electricity works
   • we may understand unified field theory
   (But what about: we may understand all about Klingon culture?)
   
   
2. A very general overview of the world. A few starter sentences, like we draw the shape of Europe without knowing all the history, mountains, houses and people who live therein.
   • we may not know have a starting map of the world
   • or at least one that we can get people to agree on
   
   
3. an practical understanding of the world
   • we may not understand how the world works in terms of getting ahead: we may be naive or idealistic.
   • we may not understand (be troubled) by the difference between what people say and what they do
   • we may not understand why there are so many inconsistent ways of looking at the world
   
   
4. as a personal or even spiritual understanding of the world
   • we may not understand what is the right way to behave in such a world
   • we may not understand our personal role and mission in this world
   • we may not understand what we should do to be satisfied
   
   
5. a philosophical understanding of the world
   • we may not understand how to talk about 'the world' without wandering into conceptual difficulties.
   • we may not understand why we cannot find a common narrative

All these make sense, but the bald statement statement 'I want to understand the world.', without being subsumed into something like one of the above, is ambiguous and invites confusion.

Perhaps instead of talking about "understanding" the world, with its connotations of finality, we can talk about "making sense of the world."
(but of course we like to think we can sum up the world. That we have a model of it, that is significantly smaller than the world itself.

Perhaps we should be satisfied with "saying something interesting" about the world.

Were we to look to it,
history would show us that from the beginning of written history, we humans think we understand the world.
We like to think we do.
We give credence to those among us who claim to do so.

But consider the following arguments:

• History has shown we are always wrong
  We were wrong about nearly everything 2000 years ago. We were fundamentally wrong about nearly everything 1000. 500 and 100 years ago. Yet always people thought they knew everything.
  Therefore, it is likely we are wrong about nearly everything we know today. Five hundred years from now people will most likely dismiss most everything we say.
  
  
• We may not be capable of understanding the world
  Although our brain is more complex than the other animals on the planet, it is still small and finite brain. We cannot ever know every place on earth, every person, or every living room in the world.
  Since we cannot understand even living rooms, we cannot understand the countless conceptual living rooms of the world that exist in addition to the physical living rooms.
  
  
• There are so many things we do not know.
  To name a few:
  1. How language developed
  2. How glass-making was invented
  3. How the brain works
  4. What the first humans who came to Australia thought
  5. What were the names of the first people who came to Australia, and who they were.
  6. What you thought on the 17th day of the fourth grade.
  7. What will happen a year from now.
  Since there are things about the world we know we do not understand, we cannot ever say that we understand the world.
  
  
• There are so many things we will never know
  To name five:
  1. How language developed
  2. How glass-making was invented
  3. What the first humans who came to Australia thought
  4. What were the names of the first people who came to Australia, and who they were.
  5. What you thought on the 17th day of the fourth grade.
  Therefore, since there are things about the world we know we will never understand, we cannot ever say that we understand the world.
  
  
• The Argument from the Boggling Human Mind
  Not only are we limited in our understandings, we are so easily drawn into the particulars of a situation, a person, a game, a book, a video game that we do not even notice it.
  Our attention flips effortlessly from actuality to the fantastic, from facts to dreams.
  Our understanding is also strongly influence by our feelings and moods.
  We are not even good candidates for understanding the world, on the individual and even the collective level.
  
  
• No computer could be great enough to understand the world
  If you wanted a computer to understand each atom, and each piece of information could be coded on an atom, you would not have enough power to do anything with the information.
  and as for knowing the universe, we cannot even predict the weather with any degree of daily or weekly accuracy.
  
  
• Our present scientific understanding makes causality dubious.
  With the advent of quantum mechanics it is no longer obvious that causality applies down to the smallest particle of the universe.
  Therefore the kind of scientific understandings based on formulas and determination or causal events may be impossible, except as statistical generalization.
  
  
• There remains also David Hume's argument against induction. Even though we are constitutionally unable to do otherwise, it is logically illegitimate for us to ever assume that the future will be like the past.

Therefore, all our understandings of the world are oversimplifications.
Q.E.D.

There are so many things we do not understand about ourselves.

• Why do we feel the way we do?
• Why can we not remain happy?
• What causes my moods?
• Why do we like [or not like] to watch sports?
• Why do we like [or not like] to watch television?
• Why do we love this person, and not that one?
• Why do we like [or not like] to garden?
• Why do we like [or not like] our grand kids so much?
• Why do we like [or not like] pets?
• Why do we have our fears?
• What will we dream tonight?
• What do my dreams mean?
• Why do I dress the way I do?
• Why am I am a member of my political party?
• Why am I am a member of my religion?

We are not prepared to answer these questions in a comprehensive manner.
The answers we provide are simplistic and inadequate.
We often resent the question.

And we have almost no predictive abilities in these matters.
We cannot guess what other people will like,
or what we will like say ten years from now.

How can we be said to understand the world if we cannot understand our own behavior in any real sense?

So there is a case to made that

1. the question of "Understanding the World" is meaningless and
2. that we will never understand the world in anything like full details

For these and other reasons several thoughtful philosophers have asked us to consign metaphysical works to the flames (Hume) or request that what we cannot talk about, we pass over in silence. (early Wittgenstein).
Such advice was not followed, not even by their authors.

I suppose it would be mentally ecological if we pass through the world and leave no words behind.

But the impulse to argue about the ultimate structures of the universe and trying to talk about is irresistible. And the questions about the universe, as questions about God, are traditionally accepted.

After a short discussion of the wise, I will take my shot at this dialog (and win the hand of the princess and half the kingdom.)

Surely someone (our minds tell us), a really smart person, a sage, has understood the world!?

What makes us believe this?

There is no indication to think humans were any wise in the past.
Almost everything our society believed in the past was incorrect. Almost everything any other society believed in the past was incorrect.
We should therefore be equally suspicious of the existing certainties in our current society as well. [q.v.])

If you read what wise men have said, it is either false, vague or (seductively) incomprehensible.
Part of the definition of being a wise man (a sage, a philosopher, a mystic, a religious leader) is that we do not understand him.

People talk about (and with) intellectual icons about whom they know very little: Einstein, Socrates, Jesus, Hitler, Bush.
We think and feel in wise/evil/stupid people. They are our icons of understanding.
A philosopher is a stand-in for the wise-man (the daddy, the silver-back, the ruler.... ). I have the answers: hear the tone of my voice, my big words and expansive gestures of power and authority.

The idea of a wise man, a way, a previously existing understanding that has been lost, is a myth.

We want there to be wise men because we want there to be answers.

We want there to be answers because we are confused.

1. 
   We are an animal, and
   we need to draw out the full implications of that:
   Our understanding is essentially (and perhaps fatally) biased by our animal nature. We are drawn to
   • simplifications
   • competition (gamesmanship)
   • status seeking
   • group dynamics
   • being ruled by force and authority
   We are almost never aware of what we are doing as we are doing it,
   and we are not usually aware of this!
   
   

   ---

   
   
2. 
   The self must be redefined:
   the mind is not a little man inside our brain but an undefined number of programs that humans have evolved to survive as a species in the world.
   (Though not perhaps in a world like our present one.)
   
   

   ---

   
   
3. 
   Our words are suspect
   It is not clear that we have words for the key structures of our universe
   Why would we?
   
   Here is my list of suspicious words.
   (It includes most of the words we use to orient ourselves in our understanding of the world.)
   
   We must learn to reject fake generalization like man/woman, races, simple categories.
   The trouble is that though stupid, we also use these for guidance.
   
   Understanding language
   (with its metaphors and fluid reconstructions)
   is the key to understanding our philosophical understandings of the world.
   
   

   ---

   
   
4. 
   We must become comfortable with a new concept of explanation.
   Not Cause-and-Effect
   which leads us into so many fruitless debates,
   but MitigatingFactors-and-Effects.
   
   

   ---

   
   
5. 
   We are at the mercy of our old and simplistic models.
   The old models don't work but they they still resonate.
   What is Democracy to an uneducated populace?
   Old models are all we have.
   
   Perhaps the best we can do is explain why we cannot explain the world.
   
   

   ---

   
   
6. 
   Along the way, we must talk about a (growing) number of side issues:
   • We must come to term with the broken center.

What is the smallest unit of philosophical understanding?
Well, what is the smallest unit of scientific understanding?