The Problem Of Possibility!
I was wondering whether the trade-off is worth it or even if it's "possible" to simply cease and desist investigating the world of possibilities. — TheMadFool
Most animals probably don't have a problem with possibilities. Generally, they just accept the world as it is. But hungry predators have to look ahead of here & now, in order to explore the possibilities around the next bend. And humans are basically weak predators, who have to rely on mental powers more than physical tools. So, they extend their grasp & vision with artificial senses, as far as they go. But, they don't stop there, because they have one sense that is ultimately more powerful than fangs & claws : Reasoning Ability. That's the power to go-beyond the Physical-what-is into the Meta-physical-what-might-be.
Therefore, human Reason is a tool or weapon that allows us to project our minds into the imaginary world of Possibility, Potential, and Probability. And exploration of that invisible statistical realm is what we call Philosophy, Science, and Religion. Unfortunately, there are risks in that immaterial sphere too. Primarily, the chance of treating fake falsehoods as actual factual. What appears to our mind's eye as solid ground might be a pit-fall. Which is why rational predatory humans have developed the shield of Skepticism, to protect them from becoming some other probing predator's prey.
However, if we cease & desist from exploring Possibilities, we run the risk of knowledge starvation. Apparently, those who post on this forum know what it's like for their mental ribs to stick-out. So, we stick our predatory necks out into meta-physical (not yet real) possibilities, even as our skeptical senses are alert for an ambush. But some of us have been so traumatized from being entrapped by attractive "truths" that turned out to be faith-bait, that we fear to venture into the unknown territory of beyond-physical-reality. Such careful Cynicism is understandable, but could be detrimental to our philosophical nourishment.
PS__ Sorry, I got carried away with a Meta-physical Metaphor.
ALLURING LIES :
https://www.llungenlures.com/wp-content ... ed-3-1.jpg
https://i.imgflip.com/2qftkk.jpg
TPF : Problem with Possibiity
Re: TPF : Problem with Possibiity
No wonder skeptical arguments, skepticism leading the way in our expeditions into possibility space, — TheMadFool
In the current issue of Philosophy Now magazine, Raymond Tallis explores the notion he calls "post-tensed time". He's referring to our ability to address Possible time, which goes beyond the here & now. He says, "Beasts, unlike humans, live ahistorically, without a sense of extended time". But then he notes, "there is a consensus among physicists, and philosophers who take their metaphysical instructions from scientists, that while tenseless time is real, tensed time is not". By that he means that only "now" is real, so past & future are merely Potential & Historical.
He later says, "if however, we accept that there are things in the world that lie outside of what can be accommodated in physical science --- most obviously those things that are imported into the world by conscious beings". And I place those things-that-are-not-real (i.e. Ideal) under the philosophical category of Meta-Physics. Ironically, for a philosophy forum, I often get expressions of incomprehension when I apply the label "metaphysics" to Potentials and Possibilities. Apparently, that's what Tallis was referring to as "philosophers who take their metaphysical instructions from scientists" I call it simply philosophical "Physics Envy" : if it ain't physical (here & now) it ain't worth talking about.
Tallis goes on to say, "Calendars and the like are a formalization . . . of tensed time, so they depend on modes of temporality not found objectively in nature". He also says of Einstein, probably referring to the notion of Block Time, saying "While he accepted that past, present and future must be counted by physicists as illusions, . . . . he expressed regret that 'now', and consequently the difference between past and future, could not be grasped by physics". Moreover, such conceptual non-things cannot be grasped by philosophers whose skepticism is biased by Physics Envy. To them, such meta-physical modes of being are im-possible.
In the current issue of Philosophy Now magazine, Raymond Tallis explores the notion he calls "post-tensed time". He's referring to our ability to address Possible time, which goes beyond the here & now. He says, "Beasts, unlike humans, live ahistorically, without a sense of extended time". But then he notes, "there is a consensus among physicists, and philosophers who take their metaphysical instructions from scientists, that while tenseless time is real, tensed time is not". By that he means that only "now" is real, so past & future are merely Potential & Historical.
He later says, "if however, we accept that there are things in the world that lie outside of what can be accommodated in physical science --- most obviously those things that are imported into the world by conscious beings". And I place those things-that-are-not-real (i.e. Ideal) under the philosophical category of Meta-Physics. Ironically, for a philosophy forum, I often get expressions of incomprehension when I apply the label "metaphysics" to Potentials and Possibilities. Apparently, that's what Tallis was referring to as "philosophers who take their metaphysical instructions from scientists" I call it simply philosophical "Physics Envy" : if it ain't physical (here & now) it ain't worth talking about.
Tallis goes on to say, "Calendars and the like are a formalization . . . of tensed time, so they depend on modes of temporality not found objectively in nature". He also says of Einstein, probably referring to the notion of Block Time, saying "While he accepted that past, present and future must be counted by physicists as illusions, . . . . he expressed regret that 'now', and consequently the difference between past and future, could not be grasped by physics". Moreover, such conceptual non-things cannot be grasped by philosophers whose skepticism is biased by Physics Envy. To them, such meta-physical modes of being are im-possible.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests