theoria

At some point I had decided that even if God is immanent or transcendental to this world the fact that he does not interact with us he may be removed from the equation. That is, the activities of this world have nothing to do with God.

From here, it was then logical and easy to remove one by one the unnecessary “things” that populate this reality. What was left was a reality populated with matter, space and time. Some of this matter was imbued with something called life, consciousness, or some other similar term. What matters is that it is just matter. Consciousness is just a particular quality of this object.

What worries some philosophers is that there seems to be no purpose to us. These philosophers seem lost without something to aim for. And I agree. But I do not think that our aim and purpose is a given, or is the same in any way. There is no moral compass, no identical “North” to which we point to.

In short, we choose our own purposes, make our own goals. Sometimes we pursue these purposes and goals individually and sometimes we do them collectively.

Reality is the entirety of matter, space and time. We must emphasize matter as reality is usually described as only space and time (cf. Kant). It is with matter that we have indirect knowledge of space and time. How we experience space and time relies on us being matter, not us being space and time.

Only particulars (matter) exist. Universals are names or labels for groups of (concrete or conceptual) objects with something perceived to be in common.

This is therefore both an ontological and linguistic problem since much time is spent making philosophical propositions or everyday utterances about what object (concrete or conceptual) belongs to what universal.

A friend of mine often says, “if you can’t a stick at it, it isn’t real”.

I agree. Only matter exists. Everything (you cannot escape the reifying language) else do not exist but are properties of matter.

But remember, the stick we use to poke at things is a thing in-itself.

We all love fair play. Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal in tennis are examples of fair players. They are gentlemen of the sport. They play within the rules, never trying to bend, go beyond or go outside them. Many fans recognize and admire them for this reason.

Philosophers who seek a(nother) reality transcending this one are wasting precious time. We only ever see the results in this reality so by staying within this reality, arguing from within it, is all important and ultimately logical. Why seek answers from “elsewhere” when in the end we have to (re)act in this reality. Act from within that which philosophy applies the most.

Every explanatory framework, including this one, is a paradigm. Even positions which argue theirs are beyond or above paradigms is in-itself a paradigm. By placing themselves “outside” the system, outside the reality, they create a workable framework so long as they ignore certain inconsistencies. But such frameworks are only hiding the inexplainable parts of their theory which amounts to cheating, bending the rules, or a double-standard.

There is only one world, one reality. Paradigms which frame the world as being divided into separate and plural worlds are doing so needlessly.

Early in life I became aware of something that I would now know philosophers call the internal and external worlds. It goes something like this:

The external world is a place where things happen beyond my control. Things are somewhat acting independently to each other. The internal world is different to the external world. The thoughts of the internal is different to the actions of the external world. They seem to separate worlds. My body interface to the external world is public. No one knows of my private thoughts of the internal world. These two worlds, the public and the private, never meet.

To me, this paradigm is problematic. It suggests that there is not one but two worlds. It also suggests that these worlds are unbridgeable and hence separate.