Sunday, June 23, 2013

XJ Hall: Modes of Truth and Survival

Here is an essay from my first philosophy class, btw it wasn't taken at a major university, only at a community college. This proves that you can become enlightened without having to submit to the parameters of an accredited university.

Modes of Truth and Survival
An Incomplete Argument
by XJ Hall

As a deviant at ten it often seemed fitting to fabricate the truth. I knew consequences were grave and as my social stability was threatened I had to choose to get hurt or survive. I thought about ways I could have avoided a damaging situation by telling a better fib. But how often do children, moreover the populous in general, think that telling the truth will lead them to survive? This is my point. Through college education I have come to realize that truth is very powerful and is made of many factors that are aligned. My postulations lead me to believe that truth is the physical entity or entities that aid in promoting human survival, that is, the betterment of self worth for an individual and for those who interact with that individual. Its existence relies on at least two individuals who depend on each other, which can also be defined as a society: a network consisting of connecting human nodes that are unequal because of the natural qualities of man. Were it not for the social contract of society, the natural qualities of man would push him to follow desires that ultimately lead to self-destruction, the opposite of truth. Thus, the survival of society is based on truth. In my philosophy, I aim to explain that truth is a real physical entity, that its detection is related to survival of society, and that those who know it will always choose to use it.

First, I will start out by describing how I came to the conclusion that all truth is physical. It's popular usage defines it as something that is or verifies reality. Because nothing can override its power, truth is seen as universal: what is true is true what is not is not. Therefore, one may question what is true when two realities are present. Within logical explanation the answer is that both realities are true and only an error or lack of knowledge prevents one from knowing this. To illustrate this I will give a couple simple examples. A blind man and a deaf woman both go to the cinema to see the movie Inception. The blind man can not see the movie and the deaf woman can not hear the movie but obviously the movie and all its properties still exist. This is similar to studies of the mind. A mentally ill person's reality considered to be delusional is no less true than the reality of someone who is not. The error for both of these situations exists in what is detected: people assume that what is not detectable is not true. However, new research and technologies today prove the existence of mind altering factors that were once thought to be abstract. Memories and ideas are now being proven, through logic, to be physical entities that have the potential to be detected when the technology exists. As Materialism suggests, the folk practices of yesterday that were unable to explain phenomena of the mind are being replaced by scientific and mathematical evidence while studies such as philosophy, psychology, and sociology compliment the data. Thus, what realities people consider to be abstract, unexplainable, and unprovable will be verified by evidence in the future. It is only a matter of time before an infinite amount of evidence leads to the realization that all reality is detectable and physical. Thus, if all reality is physical then all truth must be physical as well.

This is extremely important because gaining knowledge from truth, from physicality, will lead to a better understanding of survival, but I will explain that at the same time if all knowledge is perfected it has the potential to collapse society. Picture a network of nodes, a structure of energetic shaking dots having great potential energy, that are all held in place by their connections and dependencies on each other. If all nodes lost their connections with each other the structure would vanish and they would violently be released. Now picture society as this network of nodes, or individuals. It has been proven that society's inequality is the basis for its existence based on each individuals abilities and needs and how they interact with each other. The knowledge of truth is a threat based on this inequality. If the individuals in society came to a point in which their research gave them the knowledge to become self dependent, society would collapse. The individuals that once chose to survive would then choose to self-destroy.

Now enhancing this a step further, the network of nodes can be applied to the groups that make up society. The physical detections of reality will not only be used on an individual basis for secular research, but for macro religious research as well. As stated, the realities of two different individuals can be different but true at the same time. Take the case of realities of two different religions that are upheld by its followers. The stratification of religious beliefs promote inequality within society and aid society on a macro level. The religious societies can use the knowledge of truth based on physical evidence to enhance their survival. But because survival is based off of truth, and truth is universal, ultimately, all religions will realize that what they are advocating in their beliefs are identical. This would mean the end of religion altogether as people and societies set aside their differences for Truth.

However, it does not mean that an individual's power, the ability that comes from knowing truth, can not be used for survival, if there is still inequality in society. In my previous statement, I assumed that all nodes in a network would leave the network once they were self dependent and had the power to do so. But this leaves out the exception of those who choose not to leave the network even if they do have the power. In any case, an individual would not leave the network, if they wouldn't have the power to do so, or if they did they would choose not to do so.

In my next point I will explain why this is so. Individuals with free-will who know truth will choose to follow the truth under all circumstances. This is because I believe our choices are free. I believe this because believing in the contrary would be to believe that people have no control over their own choices: that those who do not know truth do not have the power to conquer oppressive forces, or in other words, make the appropriate choice to handle a situation. Thus, those with limited power may feel that they were forced by outside forces to make a choice, but it is one's ignorance of truth that ultimately leads them to make a choice they are unhappy with, or a choice that hinders their survival. So a person who has truth will always make the correct decision for survival, instead of self destruction. But this does not account for the network of people who do not know the ultimate truth to survive but have become self dependent and so are more likely to disband and let society self-destruct.

Ultimately, no matter how small or big the society, the individuals that make it must know some truth in order to survive. They must depend on each other, sharing their abilities of technology and receiving power from truth. The spectrum of scenarios goes far beyond what I have listed but it gives a brief understanding of what were to occur when societies individuals know truth. In most cases society will stick together and not collapse either because its individuals know truth and choose to stick together, or because the individuals do not know truth, and thus do not have the power to become self dependent. I understand that there are flaws in my design and I wish to graphically illustrate it if I had more time. But, overall, truth is a very complex thing to understand and it should be reviewed and thought of more crucially in order to understand it more.


No comments:

Post a Comment