Danhalen
16th January 2006, 11:43 PM
The starting point of any philosophy is very important to take note of. It is central to the understanding any person has of the universe that surrounds them. Whether that philosophy is one of morality or existence itself, there is probably one common epistemic process through all of them.
For the skeptic, I would have to say that this epistemological constant is one of parsimony. When I look at the things which seemingly make up the world I constantly question why they are. What is it that makes humankind moral? What is it that makes me look in awe at an object of beauty? How did existence come to be? From these questions I begin my search for the most straight forward explanation. Provided that the explanation has evidential support, I will go with the simplest explanation. For example: when I look at the actions of humanity that we label with the term “moral” or “immoral”, I try to understand why we think of them on these terms. What seems to stick out to me the most is people do things that are beneficial or “good” for them selves. When living in a solitary environment, there are no limits that a person need to place on what it is that will benefit them the most. When living side by side one individual may trample on the goodness of another in an effort to achieve the greatest amount of personal “good”. The major problem with this is: people can (and do) benefit from other people. So, in order to achieve the greatest amount of “good”, people have learned that there are boundaries that must be put in place to prevent the infringement of the good of one over the other. In this way people have developed morality in order to achieve the greatest amount of “good” in any given society. There are some things which almost always benefit any society, and these things are considered to be “universal moral laws”. It is by this process that I have come to understand what I believe to be morality. In order to best understand my existence, I apply this process to all things that I encounter. In the event that I discover something which does lead me to believe in the existence of a deity, I can include that in my worldview. There would be no need for me to reinvent all of my paradigms.
For some people, their search leads them to theism. A person may arrive at theism through a skeptical search, but some end the search there. Once this point has been reached; all of existence can be explained through their discovery of theism. Beauty is an expression of their god. Existence is the purposeful will of their god. Morality is instilled in us through their god. Outwardly, this appears to be the most parsimonious of all explanations. Everything can be answered through own single observation. There is, however, a major problem with this line of thinking. In the event the theist re-examines their observations (and finds fault in it), all of their prior beliefs come apart. With no solid foundation with which to support any of the theist’s worldviews, new paradigms must be achieved. Now, this individual must take the road traveled by the skeptic, to re-examine all of existence again and arrive at new conclusions. It seems to be too precarious of a place to put all of our beliefs in one single thing. Sure, gods may be the driving force behind all of the observations of this skeptic. Must god also be the foundations for all of them?
For the skeptic, I would have to say that this epistemological constant is one of parsimony. When I look at the things which seemingly make up the world I constantly question why they are. What is it that makes humankind moral? What is it that makes me look in awe at an object of beauty? How did existence come to be? From these questions I begin my search for the most straight forward explanation. Provided that the explanation has evidential support, I will go with the simplest explanation. For example: when I look at the actions of humanity that we label with the term “moral” or “immoral”, I try to understand why we think of them on these terms. What seems to stick out to me the most is people do things that are beneficial or “good” for them selves. When living in a solitary environment, there are no limits that a person need to place on what it is that will benefit them the most. When living side by side one individual may trample on the goodness of another in an effort to achieve the greatest amount of personal “good”. The major problem with this is: people can (and do) benefit from other people. So, in order to achieve the greatest amount of “good”, people have learned that there are boundaries that must be put in place to prevent the infringement of the good of one over the other. In this way people have developed morality in order to achieve the greatest amount of “good” in any given society. There are some things which almost always benefit any society, and these things are considered to be “universal moral laws”. It is by this process that I have come to understand what I believe to be morality. In order to best understand my existence, I apply this process to all things that I encounter. In the event that I discover something which does lead me to believe in the existence of a deity, I can include that in my worldview. There would be no need for me to reinvent all of my paradigms.
For some people, their search leads them to theism. A person may arrive at theism through a skeptical search, but some end the search there. Once this point has been reached; all of existence can be explained through their discovery of theism. Beauty is an expression of their god. Existence is the purposeful will of their god. Morality is instilled in us through their god. Outwardly, this appears to be the most parsimonious of all explanations. Everything can be answered through own single observation. There is, however, a major problem with this line of thinking. In the event the theist re-examines their observations (and finds fault in it), all of their prior beliefs come apart. With no solid foundation with which to support any of the theist’s worldviews, new paradigms must be achieved. Now, this individual must take the road traveled by the skeptic, to re-examine all of existence again and arrive at new conclusions. It seems to be too precarious of a place to put all of our beliefs in one single thing. Sure, gods may be the driving force behind all of the observations of this skeptic. Must god also be the foundations for all of them?