Friday, January 30, 2015

So today I'm having yogurt with honey for dinner. I feel like Caesar -- wealthy, Greek, and slightly malnourished.

Caesar probably ate balanced meals. I'll look it up later.

Interesting thing about that, though. At first I didn't like the texture of honey and yogurt together, because the honey would harden and not mix with the yogurt. Then I thought, "why don't I like this?" and I came up with the idea to try "just deciding to like it", and now I like it. I wonder how many of my likes and dislikes can be changed so easily.

I'm not sure how to feel about the above train of thought, though. Am I so fickle? Maybe worse, am I so spoiled? Is the root of this issue that I have not managed to know myself?

On the way home from work today, I was listening to music on my phone, and I heard a song I wasn't in the mood for, but I listened to it anyway so that I could consider the feeling of being subjected to sounds I don't want. The problem was that as soon as I came to terms with the decision to listen anyway, I lost the feeling of distaste, and the experiment was a flop. Or maybe not -- I suppose I learned something from it.

So to follow up on my post from January 11, 2014: I have been frequently considering the points I laid out on December 20. I stand by every point I made, but I think that a few of them deserve clarification. I'll start with the most codependent point with which I took issue, and then work backwards to the more foundational one.

I said that the Logos should have a reason for everything it does, therefore "want", therefore "desire", therefore "person". At a glance, this seems like a pretty weak argument. That's why I posted on Jan 11 saying that I might rethink the point. Here's the thing: in order to understand this point, you have to simultaneously consider the previous points.

Namely, the Logos should have actively revealed itself. Active implies decision making. Decision making with purpose is the same as acting on desire, isn't it? Therefore, "person".

But everything has a reason for everything it does. A dropped rock has a reason for falling. It's active decision making that gives a thing person. So, why does the Logos have to be active? Because if it is not active, then it cannot have revealed itself in any different way than a rock reveals itself, and we rely on our physical senses to accidentally observe it. It doesn't fit the rest of the points if it isn't active.

Now, as what may seem at first to be an exercise in futility, I think I should attempt to point out the meaning of "person", because every worldview has a different definition of what constitutes a person. If we are state machines, then we have no more person than a rock, which responds to its environment by falling when there is nothing under it.  We respond to our environment in more complex, but ultimately equivalent fashion.

To a Christian, person has a certain intrinsic, almost esoteric value. Christians explain it by saying "well, we're made in the image of God", but if you're trying to be "neutral" (which is impossible), then that value defines us as more than reactionary elements in the universe; as active elements with potential for truly random interaction with the world around them -- potential to for the intangible substance of our thoughts to break the laws of causality which constrain the physical brain they dwell in. (Perhaps via the influence of something supernatural, like God or our spirit.)

To an atheist, that is impossible, which is why the atheist cannot and should not pretend that his worldview supports intrinsic value in the happiness or well being of humans. That is, for an atheist to live in a way consistent with his worldview, the atheist should not pretend that he or anyone else "should" have morals. In the Atheist worldview we are just complicated rocks, and our children smash less complicated rocks with pleasure. Since our brains are defined by the laws of causality, our "thoughts" don't exist as anything more than impulse responses to our environment -- energy moving from higher density to lower density.

Which is right? Well, for an atheist, it doesn't matter what's right. It leads me to another way to justify the existence of God (or the Logos, if you would prefer me to continue under pretense at this point). Since, I suppose, value exists, so must also God exist. If you presuppose that anything has value, or that anything "should" be any way, then it is necessary that an ultimate justification exists to support your claim.

"rock"

No comments:

Post a Comment

Map
 
my pet!