'Tis what we do that we remember.
Almost a century ago, Bertrand Russell wrote that philosophy was a “No man’s land” between the definite knowledge of science, and the dogma of theology (History of Western Philosophy: 10).
Does theological dogma surpass the reach of science pertaining to the unascertainable? May we locate a realm beyond reason? And if so, how might we discover it?
“To understand any age or nation, we must understand its philosophy, and to understand its philosophy we must ourselves be in some degree philosophers” (Russell: 11).
Philosophy, by Russell's estimations, is the understanding a particular period, a given culture and an mode of operations by which they lived, and how we jude them.
Those less interested in history may be inclined to leap ahead to questions concerning reciprocal causation, the flights of fate and considering to what extent we ourselves or by other forces are determined?
Firstly, however, as Russell rightly raised, we could begin from the vantage point of: Does life experience determine philosophy as much or philosophy determine our experience?
In a time where Scientific-or STEM- technology prevails over all, perhaps it is only logical and fitting to discard anything non-positivist, rationalist and empirical, such as idealism or metaphysics. It would only seem right and by accords to progression, diminish the power of superstition flights of fancy, "dogma" and purge our minds, our socities from these "dogmas" as we have done away with astrology, witchcraft and alchemy-for all serious pursuits. Surely we are at the threshold of Yuval Noah Harari's Homo Deus?
Surely such an attitude distinguishes "science"- an application and pursuit of knowledge in the material world- from scientism- the belief that science holds an
absolute claim to truth: and only by science may we justify human advancement in knowedge.
Still much remains mysterious to us, unknowing, at the very least. Religion and theology may thus elicit what Russell framed as ‘knowledge where in fact we have ignorance’ (11). However, may belief save one from the rot of existential nihilism and to return them from the brink of suicide, when pivoting out of Hamlet's predicament?
May we account, with evidence, human and cosmic miracles on earth, through a language made of symbols, as types of meaning to affirm a higher reality, and root faith and belief in grounds of reason, logic and fact; to justify through falsifiable tests towards our claims of definite knowledge, truth and beauty?
As we conceptually navigate this “no-mans-land” by faith and facts, we strive to progress from blind, ignorant unknowing to the light of understanding. Yet, even to possess conviction in decision-making, ever wracked with paralytic anxiety, we wander in perpetual uncertainty when things fall apart and order slips to chaos, the laws of expectation overturn, confusion persists ever atomising ; that we are isolated, and subsequently grope to strangest idols and ambiguities: are we as quietly desperate, helpless and governed by fear, as hope?
At the very least, all we may do is move together even when at times apart, in our various divergences, in hope of concordance; the search for consensual individual and collective solutions.
Solutions?
Russell posits a fundamental philosophical question as to the degree in which social cohesion and individual liberty may either coalesce or conflict.
“Throughout this long development, from 600 BC, to the present day, philosophers have been divided into those who wished to tighten the social bonds, and those who wished to relax them”. (19)
If we are free to search for solutions, by our own needs, beliefs and justifications, we still nonetheless require a congregational state predicated upon compromise to agreement, lest we atrophy to civil-strife and perpetual fragmentation.
These ever so intricate and complicated dimensions may indeed be distilled in our drive towards liberty, yet to be free in a state of rule, law and order, thus, implies imposed limitations, to ensure social, collective cohesion.
Thereby, our liberty may at any moment become confined to slavery, tyranny or an administrative bureaucracy that necessitates our freedoms be curtailed for the good of our protection as citizens.
Does the search for liberty rely on a rule of law? Is that itself a concept based upon a natural ideal, a transcendent metaphysical concept of eternal and supreme justice?
This series On the (Non?) Existence of God, will be realised piece-meal, and explore various applicable frameworks in hope of addressing the dichotomy of oppositional categories surrounding this debate: the exterior/outer, natural/supernatural conceptions, that I intend to search for ultimate and serious arguments that strengthen our capacity to test, experience and understand what exactly do we mean when we debate the beliefs and reasons surrounding arguments for and against the existence of God.
Comentarios