Philosophy Made Fun.

    In an episode of The Prisoner
    a would-be general (who likens himself
    to Napolean, plans to "re-write" history,
    by means of a computer that can instantaneously
    teach people history.  People watch the screen
    for just a second, and all of this "pre-packaged"
    information becomes a part of their knowledge.

    However, the good general has decided to
    "alter" the past, making it easier to control
    people and thus assure himself of victory.
    He tells the prisoner (Number 6; portrayed
    by Patrick McGooan) that the computer can
    answer ANY question.

    Number 6:  No.

    The General:  What did you say?

    Number 6:  I said no. There IS a question
               which it can't answer.

   (The General indicates to the prisoner to use
    the key board. Number 6 goes over and types
    in just 5 keys, takes the computer card and
    hands it to the general, he hands it to a
    technician who feeds the question into the
    computer.  It starts reeling and sputtering
    smoke and sparks).

    The General:  Stop it!  Shut it down.
                  (Turning to Number 6),
                  What was it that you asked
                  it?  What was your question?

    Number 6:     A question that is un-answerable
                  by man or machine:

                             Why?

It is in nature of all creatures to look out at
the stars at night, or to contemplate the death
of a friend, or for no particular reason and
wonder:  Why?

The two approaches to this are as follows:

   Philosophy which ignores the problems
   involved and starts out to answer the
   question -- regardless of where such
   thinking may take one.

   Religion postulates that we can never
   know why, nor even understand the question
   but that there must be "some being" or
   "beings" -- usually refered to as THE
   God, or the gods, or the spirts of
   the universe -- and THEY understand
   the question and perhaps even know the
   answer.

Philosophers and theologists have been at it
ever since.

The word philosopher comes from the
greek word "philos" (filos "love of")
and "sophos" (sofos "knowledge").

I believe it was Voltair (a French Philosopher
and writer best known for his delightful novel,
Candide), who said, "All Philosophy Begins
with Plato".  By this he meant that Plato had
thought of so many things and so many ideas
that all philosophy owed some homage to his
works.

When we consider the ancient philosophies and
teachings of the writers of such works as the
Bible, the Tau, and of Socrates's Dialogs
(which were written down by Plato), and the
Vedas, and so on.  We can only consider that
our ancestors had more time to think and they
probably were not burdoned by the constant
blair of technology and TV commercials!

When we examine the religious rituals and
writings of many peoples, we find many common
themes and concerns. For it is through religion
that philosophy forms a basis for the ways of
life that many people have.  It is as if, there
isn't something very filling about philosophy.
Indeed, I tried being an atheist for a while
and found it intellectually pleasing but like
the unleavened bread of the Hebrews it did not
seem to fill my own spiritual needs.

I'm afraid that the best that I did was merely
an agnostic with spiritual leanings.  When I
would talk to atheists, I would say things like,
"Well, I think that we humans are very spritual,
whether there is anything metaphysical about it,
I don't know". -- This offended them greatly.

And, when I would talk to "open minded" religous
people, I would say that God must answer for his
actions.  And that for the most part, the sins
people commit are due to their circumstances and
that I did not think that there is nothing that
some one has done in a finite life time that could
equate to an infinite existance of torture.  And
that if there would have to be just one person in
hell, then it would have to be me -- to make sure
that eventually everyone was forgiven.
-- This offended them greatly.

Such is the life of the person who seeks both
knowledge and understanding.  In many cases, I
have had to accept the wisdom of the tau:

   The unknowable spirit has can not be named.
   The knowable spirit is the mother of all things.

Thus, it is the role of the philosopher to set down
ideas, and then hopefully, someone who comes along
later can "figure them out".

If a person is truely trying to understand the "why"
or the "what does it all mean", then they would be
lead into many areas of investigation.  The would
have to ask many questions and find many answers
that did not please them (well that is what *I* have
found).

Socrates and Plato

The several books that I have found quite intersting
are the following:

  "Socrates:  The Appology, Crito, Phaedo"

  "The Great Dialogs of Socrates"

This describes Socrates's own defense at his trial
in Ancient Greece, as well as his imprisonment and
death.  These (along with his other writings) were
gathered together by his student Plato.  In addition,
Plato wrote his own philosophy in The Republic.
This details and "ideal" society, watched over by a
kindly "philosopher-king" which in the narration
is represented by Socrates.

Plato thus, becomes the first of the "system builders".
These are philosophers whose vision is so broad and
great that they attempt to solve the ills of society,
existance, and philosophy!

One important part of their two philosophies must
be made clear:  The Nature of Knowledge.

Socrates was mainly interested in moral and
ethical knowledge, and the means by which it
could be gleaned.  It was his way to go around
Athens and ask questions of various people to
learn what they knew, and how they knew it.
Indeed, this is what got him into such trouble
for the elders of Athens to bring him to trial.
He used the so-called "dialectical method" --
for each question that he asked, he then
examined the answer given and "cut it apart".
He questioned the assumptions of the answer,
and this led to another question, and again
another answer -- which was now examined.

Socrates believed that it WAS possible to
finally arrive at actual and absolute truths.
By finding the wisest person in each field
of endeavor and drilling through the ideas
and questions, one would eventually arrive
and "right knowledge" and then "right action".
And that this would lead to a moral and
happy life.

On, the other hand...

Platonic Dualism

Plato believed (or at least investigated) the
idea that the way that we "have knowledge"
is through our observation of the world
around us:  Our senses and thoughts about
what we see and learn.  He uses (in The
Republic) the idea of the cave.  It is
as if we are chained inside a cave, and
can only see shadows of things as they are
projected in from the entrance and fall
upon the wall in front of us.  Thus, we
can never know what a "chair" is, except
by these little glimpses of various shadows
of various chairs.  Thus, we never have true
knowledge of "the ideal chair" -- or any
thing else for that matter.

This brings up the concept of the "real"
vs. the "ideal".  And it is the first
attempt to deal with the problems of
"epistimology".  That is "what can be
known", and what is the nature of knowledge
itself.

Now remember, that it is this same
"dialectical" method that leads to the
so-called "Western Reductionist" tradition.

That is, when a scientist approaches a
problem, the first step is to "break it
down" into simpler and simpler parts.
And, thus this will lead to a greater
understanding of the thing under study.

However, it lends itself to ethical
problems for the philosopher.  Such as,
just because we CAN build a newer and
better atomic bomb, does this mean we
should???

This brings us back to the weaknesses
of the human beings themselves.  For
indeed, we are noble and visionary,
but indeed petty and afraid.  And out
of these WEAKNESSES, we do terrible
things.  Indeed, it is possible to
over analyze a situation and dwell
merely upon those aspects that we
deem most important.

It is one of our failings to arrange
things into "hierarchies" -- and to
always place ourselves at the top.

If a swamp must be drained so that we
may build a new development there --
then: Drain it!   And we will surely
be comforted by our scientific
analysises showing how no harm can
come from it.  However, in the case
of Florida, they started draining
the swamp land, and shortly there
after the southern part of the state
was without ANY drinking water --
and it was hundreds of miles away.

And so, too in our arrogance do we
assume that what WE want and what
WE need determines the merit of ANY
activity.

And yet, the universe does not give
a qhat for any of our desires and
ideas.  The world turned on its axis
fine just before we came along, and it
will continue to do so, long after we
go the way of the dinosaurs.

THAT.
That is the hope of philosophy. That
it may give us the wisdom to understand
the universe and our place in it.  That
all life (indeed all things) are inter-
connected and inter-dependent.  And that
we can either learn this fact and decide
to live in harmony with it, or wipe our
selves and our children out within a
very few, short more years.

And that my friends, will be the tone
and purpose of these essays on philosophy.
For I have few enough years left to me and
will not toady my oppinions to the likings
of some executive who would have us believe
that all progress revolves around him.

We can reach the stars, but we must learn
to live with the universe and not to fight
it.  Indeed, if we learn to appreciate the
simple pleasures of the world, then we will
no long search endlessly for meaning and
for "something more" -- which we can never
find.

For it must surely be plain that even the
wealthy are bored with existance -- who do
you think is buying all of that cocaine?

And the levels of achievement of pure
competition are only purely material
rewards. And come too easily; and thus are
empty victories.

And that the feeling that things "aren't fair",
drive us to either dispair or the anger that
only comes from frustration.

If these things sound familiar, then it is
because THIS is what philosophers do:  Try
to figure it out, try to create a "way" of
understanding that will allow some peace to
come to us, rather than such feelings of
helplessness.

And in this journey, we will tread into the
areas of philosophy, and religion, and
science (many sciences) and see if we can
make "some sense" of it all.

So, let us begin.

When you read Socrates you will have to remember
several things:

He was something of a war hero and quite a
brave man.  He was well known in Athens and
disdained the so-called "professional
philosophers" who charged people to teach
them or their children "things" -- these
were the "Sophists".  (Strangely enough
at his trial, he was accused of being a
sophist himself -- it is a harsh irony).

It is also rumored that his wife (Xantipi)
was somewhat cruel and harsh; and that this
"hen-pecking" is what drove him out to the
streets of Athens to "argue the philosophy".

And, last but not least, he was rumored to
be so ugly that it was well that he was
a philosopher.

Back to the MAC page.
Back to the HOME page.
Back to the PDE