This is a continuing discussion on the topic of morality and philosophy. To view the previous post in this discussion, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.
How can we postulate something new and do it in a way that allows us to know, or at least reasonably conclude, that our premise is valid? Surprisingly, there may be a way. If we return to the initial premise of truth and morality that I outlined in the first post of this series, we can see that some questions need not be entirely subjective. There is, in fact, a non-subjective foundation beneath us. We all share it.
Remember, the premise of what I am calling the Truth Model, is that truth is a logical expression of the very same laws that underlie and govern the physical properties of the Universe. This means that, although our conclusions may be subjective, the laws upon which they are ultimately based are not. The question then, is where and how notions of truth (and even morality) connect to those laws.
It turns out that the answer to this question is not as abstract as we may first imagine.
What are the most fundamental elements of the Universe? This question could be answered in many ways - all of them correct. What can be termed elemental with respect to matter is bound to be different than what qualifies as elemental in, say, music, or writing. Maybe atoms, quarks, or strings are elemental forms of matter, but in the end, we find that they are not elemental enough. What are atoms made of? What are quarks and strings made of? Why do they behave as they do?
These questions tell us that there always seems to be something else, something more elemental, more basic, that holds the secrets that explain the more complex structures that are formed from them. So we look at a grain of sand and know that it is made of something more basic: molecules, and then atoms, and then protons, and then, what? In the end we find that our search becomes abstract, we have come to the end of the physical expression of a law (or laws) and must now attempt to understand the law itself.
This is fascinating stuff. We know that the forces and influences of nature can, if they follow certain courses, produce butterflies and flowers, people and elephants. They also produce rocks and water, planets and stars, but what are the similarities? What properties do they possess that give evidence to the common underlying influences that produced them. Furthermore, can we throw abstract notions into this mix? Can we say that the forces of nature can lead to the existence of butterflies, rocks, planets and truth?
A butterfly's design demonstrates principles of flight, some measure of aerodynamics, and even thought. These are highly evolved attributes, and none of them seem the least bit alien to us. We simply identify them as reasonable evolutionary adaptations - products of environment and nature.
Living creatures produce organs that are sensitive to light (eyes) as a result of having evolved in the presence of light. Some creatures evolve to leverage the wind for travel by developing wings, while others grow stronger legs that can carry them more effectively across the ground. Furthermore, we know that the intellectual capacity of a creature verses its purely instinctive behavior is often (if not always) a function of the demands of the environment in which it evolves.
So, now we reach the crux of the matter. Just as creatures can exhibit diverse physical attributes, even when they evolve in similar environments, there are also various shapes and forms of intellect. There are even different degrees of aggression. Predatory animals tend to have forward-looking eyes, while their prey tend to have eyes pointing away from one another, allowing them to survey larger areas for threats. But, these differences are not so great that we become unable to identify all of them as animals - we are not likely to confuse any of them with rocks or trees.
Let us now leap forward to consider more intelligent creatures like humans. Having finally separated ourselves from many of the natural concerns of survival that so greatly impact evolution, cultural influences rise to serve as the counterparts to the prior environmental impacts. But, like the ability to identify both predator and prey as animals, can we also see common notions of morality beneath the impacts of culture? Can we peel away cultural influences sufficiently to expose a fundamental basis upon which all moral dispositions rest. Furthermore, is there a basis that is so fundamental as to be truly universal?
There very well may be, but to find it we have to think in basics. The differences between mammals and reptiles, for instance, are distinct, but they are not a good window into the fundamental type of influences we are looking for because they occur at too high a level. They are expressions of higher states of mingling between fundamental laws and the complex, highly evolved environments in which they took shape.
We may even wonder whether these basic laws could be more philosophical. How about the very notion of existence itself? This quickly breaks down as well. The understanding of existence as a philosophical concept is far down the chart in much the same way as our understanding of mammals and reptiles. The ability to arrive at any understanding of existence requires many prerequisites that prove not to be elemental at all. Same goes for things like love, or thought.
No, we need something far more basic. What set of laws constitute the indivisible, non-reducible blueprint underlying everything we see? And of those laws, which are the most basic?
It may be surprising to know that one very familiar law does fill this role. It lies at the heart of all that we see (physical), and all that we know (logical)*. Arguably, it is the fundamental hinge around which physical and moral truth turn. And what may be even more surprising is that our connections to it are not as abstract as may appear on first blush. There are fairly concrete connections between this law, this fundamental behavior and nature of the Universe, and all logic, objectivism, morality, truth and logic.
And what is this law? Gravitation.
To view the next post in this series, click here.
* This space is actually shared by other fundamental elements as well, but we'll get to them in a later post.
0 comments:
Post a Comment