It is difficult to methodologically doubt everything I assume to know. My inclination is to begin with what matters: my notion of God, Truth, virtue, love friendship. But, then it occurs to me, the sceptics were not an exclusive group. And so, in order to better understand this methodology, I will start with something unimportant.
I perceive my computer in front of me: black, warm, bright. I am aware of the sense data my sense organs have gathered. From here, I think, I can either believe (that the laptop is really there, external and independent of me with real truths about it) or I can report....what, I am not sure...That I see it, perhaps? For the sake of this blog, I will report my perception of the computer, or to stay true to the sceptics, I will report the appearance of my computer. I suspend judgment that there is truth here, even as I continue to type on the key board and produce the appropriate letters to construct my thoughts into written language. This writing process is something more that appears and that I report, a simple extension of the first appearance.
The problem I see here is there is no quantitative difference. We behave the same and base decisions upon the same things or the same impressions. I am still typing at this computer regardless of it being a belief or a report. The difference seems to lie only in the understanding of the thing; one that it has truth-value and one that we cannot determine whether or not it has truth-value.
There is an emphasis placed upon this thought process applying towards the unclear and investigated in a dogmatic fashion, which would be something like church and science. Both are unclear and dogmatic. And in this way, perhaps it would not be out of the question of forgo the computer experience and approach the issues of God and Nature immediately. Well, by immediate I mean tomorrow. Tonight I am finished.
No comments:
Post a Comment