James the Kantian or Is Metaphysics Necessary?

Written for the class "American Philosophy" in May.

"I returned from a solitary ramble to find to find every one engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel - a live squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side of a tree-trunk; while over against the tree's opposite side a human being was imagined to stand. This human witness tries to get sight of the squirrel by moving rapidly round the tree, but no matter how fast he goes, the squirrel moves as fast in the opposite direction, and always keeps the tree between himself and the man, so that never a glimpse is caught. The resultant metaphysical problem is now this: Does the man go round the squirrel or not?" (P: NNOT, 43)

The above quote is the beginning of William James' essay: "What Pragmatism Means." What the above example does is in a very comical light it provides a satirical look at what metaphysics means to James. He uses the idea of his friends arguing over something so seemingly ridiculous but in reality it is a metaphysical question and debate. In this light, metaphysical discussion seems to be nothing but a philosophical “pissing contest.”

The overlying point of this paper is to, through the influence of William James, and Kant’s impact on James, ask the following question: is metaphysics truly necessary? Can philosophy survive without needlessly wordy prose that goes to ask questions where the answer does not change a single thing? James uses the example of calling metaphysics a "primitive quest" to try to explain what he means. (P:NNOT, 52) Metaphysics uses "magical wording" and some sort of fantasy setting in order to prove points that get us nowhere. Metaphysics is seemingly all about defining words and putting the right words together to explain the universe in a way that lacks evidence and any explanation seems to be as good as any other.

James' main reasoning for questioning the necessity of metaphysics comes from his paper: "What Pragmatism Means." In it, he goes on to speak on behalf of the practicality of pragmatism. He says that pragmatism through the pragmatic method can "...settle metaphysical disputes that otherwise would be indeterminable." (P:NNOT, 44) We reach our understanding of the metaphysical by looking at a notion's practical consequences. In more understandable words, going back to the example above, what does it matter if the man goes around the squirrel or not? In a metaphysical mindset, the initial example is one that people could, and from what I could see did, argue about for hours. In the pragmatic mindset it goes to just say: what does it matter if the man goes around the squirrel or not. What difference does that make in the world if either party is correct? James sums up the whole point quite well: "If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle." (P:NNOT, 44) For an argument to have merit there must be a difference in the outcome if it goes in either direction. If the man goes around the squirrel or not means absolutely nothing since if either party is correct, it there will not be any difference in the world. In its most basic sense, James is saying this: Who cares who is right in this metaphysical discussion? It is nothing but a pointless argument where the winner gains the same than the loser.

As an alternative to metaphysics, James says that better understanding of the world can be found through pragmatism. Pragmatism allows a more practical view of the world rather than the hidden and mysterious path of metaphysics. If we follow reality to influence our decisions and view on the world, we can gain a better understanding of everything. In any metaphysical dispute, either side's argument means practically the same thing so it means absolutely nothing. (P:NNOT, 48-49) In his essay, James sums up perfectly what he feels metaphysics means to him with the following passages:

"It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to the simple test of tracing a concrete consequence." (P:NNOT, 49) "...The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instances of your life, if this world-formula or that world-formula to be the true one." (P:NNOT, 50)

How James sums up his opinion on metaphysics is to simply state that none of the arguments make any sense when you look at them in the lens of the consequences of the argument. If the outcome of the argument has no consequence (be it good or bad) then it means nothing and you should not waste your time further with it.

From there, James explains how pragmatism is the way to true understanding of the world. First off, it may seem that pragmatism is anti-philosophy in its disconcerting negative view of philosophy in general, but James goes to say that pragmatism is about finding cemented definite points rather than worrying about abstract ideas. Facts are the most important thing and therefore the philosophy can be better accepted for the common man, essentially making philosophy better accessible for people that do not have the knack for thinking about the crazy abstract ideas of metaphysics like squirrels running around trees. So, with the importance on facts, pragmatism does not look for special things to prove points that are arbitrary. It is simply a method for understanding. With this mindset put upon metaphysics to create a sort of metaphysics of pragmatism, we can free ourselves from inane and useless arguments and find some understanding in the world.

Getting back to reforming metaphysics, James says that we should gain value from words rather than twisting them to say what we want to say. We should look for truths that have concrete evidence than look for theories that could or could not be true. That is the biggest problem with metaphysics that James stresses. When you win a metaphysical argument, you gain nothing. You will not change how people act, how people live or how you think, only how you understand the world. If you found out that it was not gravity and that Aristotle was right all along, what would that change; only about a million science textbooks. A person's everyday life would not change. This is why metaphysics is pointless as according to James.

It can be said that Kant played a large role in James' development as a philosopher and writer. In his paper "Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist," he goes on to rescind almost all of his statements he made is his previous paper "The Principles of Psychology." James' discovery of Kant completely changed his perspective on philosophy from a metaphysical one to a completely pragmatic view on the world thanks to Kant's idea of the transcendental ego.

In "The Principles of Psychology," James creates this metaphysical object that he calls the "stream of consciousness." This is something that he used to create an example to make him correct on his statement that consciousness is simply something that is deeply imbibed in language. (Kress, 265) Where it fails (saying something for the validity of metaphysics) is that James has to make a situation and example where his theories are correct. He does not actually create a defendable point; he just creates a situation where he is correct.

Where "Does 'Consciousness' Exist?" comes in is James admits to being completely wrong in "The Principles of Psychology." He proves, as is apparent in the paper, that consciousness is something that needs to be proven to exist. Basically, it needs evidence to be proven to exist, which he fails to do. James wants there to be "stuff" that he can latch on to create his theory with but comes up empty. (Kress, 272) James needs evidence to back up his claims otherwise it is a flimsy metaphysical argument. While, there still has to be something that fills the role that consciousness provides since we still seemingly exist in this space and time. (ERE, 3; ERE, 37-38) Consciousness could be simply a bodily function like breathing or our heart beating. If there is a more spiritual side of consciousness, it is unable to be proved without resorting to the resulting metaphysical baggage.

How this relates to "What Pragmatism Means" is James' search for the pragmatic answer to the existence of consciousness. He needs the proof for consciousness and does not want to resort to metaphysics. His statement of its nonexistence in the spiritual sense but needing to exist in some form for practicality's sake is exactly what he was saying in "What Pragmatism Means." In a sense, what he does in "Does 'Consciousness' Exist?" is what he explained we need to do to escape metaphysical baggage in "What Pragmatism Means." He followed his own advice and showed us an example of using pragmatism to solve a metaphysical problem.

How Kant and James are related is that, as shown in his later paper "Does Consciousness Exist?" and the transcendental ego, James was heavily influenced by Kant and at the very least had the idea of the excessiveness of metaphysics brought up to him from reading Kant’s work in The Critique of Pure Reason. Where Kant was very extensive and denounced metaphysics on many points, James used Kant's problem of practicality and extended that to pragmatism.

Immanuel Kant's problem with metaphysics stemmed a little deeper than its concern about practicalities. Kant simplified metaphysics into the separating the phenomena; the thing as it is to beings like us, and the noumena; the thing in itself. He goes on to explain in The Critique of Pure Reason that we do not have the ability to have knowledge of the noumena or have any a priori knowledge. Metaphysics is the search for what is the case which is the true nature of an object. We have no way to truly fins out the noumena because there is no way to factually define what an object is. Therefore, metaphysics is pointless because we can have no knowledge of the noumena. (CPR, 350-351)

Kant states that metaphysics claims to have a priori insight but in reality all it proves are things that we can attain by the most basic of experiences. Kant relates metaphysics as a winding path that we need to "retrace countless times" because it doesn't go where you want it. It is like a battle where neither side can gain any ground or have anything to prove victory. (CPR, 109-110) Through these two metaphors, Kant sets his stage for his critique and then his negation of the existence of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the "thinking science" and that does nothing if no action is taken on it. Kant explains very clearly: "Thinking is nothing done if something more is to be done." (CPR, 114) The difference between the conception of an action and the actual action are of an incredible difference.

You can conceptualize anything you want (as insofar you do not create a contradiction) but to make it real you must take that step. Where metaphysics fails is the creation of an end result. Two philosophers have the argument that predicting the future is not something of possibility. One says to the other that the sun will rise tomorrow as it has been doing so for four point six billion years. The other says that this may be the case but there is that distinct possibility that you could be wrong since it has not happened yet. You can plan a trip but it is hard to plan for the unexpected since the unexpected is always possible.

Looking at this example from afar, you can see the points of both of the philosophers as being valid. While one is correct and yes, the sun will rise tomorrow, the other one has a point of yes, there could be a possibility that something could happen as it has not happened yet and even though they are a legitimate basis of prediction, past events mean nothing for predicting the future. Where this all goes south is the practicality of the argument. What does it matter if either one is correct? All that matters is if we have a sun in the sky tomorrow. If the sun does or does not rise, it is not because of these two philosophers thinking, it is simply because the earth travels around the sun and causes it to be in different spots in the sky (giving the illusion of the Sun moving.)

In its most basic form, metaphysics is the study of what is what is the case. What that assumes is that there is a such thing as that which is the case. The foundation for knowledge is to know what is the case. Knowledge is only know by experience and the foundation of knowledge is the relation of ideas to what is the matter of fact.

Metaphysics serves to seemingly dissect the world around us and to question how everyday things work and coexist. It tackles issues like temporal time freezes and what exactly constitutes change in an object. These are seemingly impossible to answer/prove questions that seek to prove how the world exists around us. What it really does is provide a lifetime of discussion, questions and argumentation where the result leaves nothing gained. With no offence to anyone in the field, metaphysics is just another way for philosophers to argue over things which do not matter. It is almost just a catalyst for discussion and controversy. Where that statement may seem mean, it is still true that it really does not matter why things happen as long as they keep happening. Why do rocks fall down? Is it the mysterious force of gravity or do they want to go home? Are there universals or are we just bundles of substances? Who cares? For all practicality's sake, as long as they keep being, it doesn't matter what they are made of or how it happens.

Works Cited:

-James, William. Essays in Radical Empiricism. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912.

(Abbreviated as: “ERE”)

-James, William. Pragmatism: a New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1908.

(Abbreviated as “P: NNOT”)

-Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge UP, 1998.

(Abbreviated as: “CPR”)

-Kress, Jill M. "Contesting Metaphors and the Discourse of Consciousness in William James." The Journal of the History of Ideas, Inc. (2000). Project Muse.

When one is to find what they are looking for, is it ever exactly what they were looking for? If nothing is perfect, that means that for anyone to be happy, comprises must be made. Is this true happiness? is that even possible? TO find the perfect person, no comprises must be made. this proves how when you get with someone, there is always that realization that there is always someone better out there for you.

So Many Pages of Nonsense

Here is the culmination of many weeks of work:

Time, Again and Again

The problem with time is that it is hard to define what time is. To most people, relative time is the only thing that matters to them. What a clock shows is all they perceive time as. This is an interesting thought as what a clock shows has almost nothing to do with time. All it really does is give a frame of reference for the movement of the earth around the sun and the rotation of the earth. The real question has to do with time as a reference point for the past, present and future. What arises is this: is this the case that time exists? Can we be sure if the past actually existed? I feel that approaching this problem carefully that it is not about a yes or no answer, it is about how you phrase the question you ask. Many different people have their own opinion on the matter that I will go over but I don’t agree with them. At the end of this paper I culminate everything into a theory that I agree with. So, I will first give some background on opinions about time’s existence.

Borges approaches the idea of time’s existence through “A New Refutation of Time.” He starts off the story by saying that time is a delusion. Borges explains that time does not exist and that the only thing that exists is experiences and through experience and its recollection.[1] According to Borges, the negations of idealism can be extended to time. Borges uses the Humean ideal that there is not anything that exists past the human recollection of senses, experience and recollection. Hume states that man is nothing but knowledge and a collection of sensations and that any shared perception proves time is nonexistent since the repetition would destroy its linear sequence.[2]

With all this in mind, can time truly exist? I feel the way Borges approaches this topic is flawed. While I do believe that experiences are the key to understanding time, I feel that basing the nonexistence of time on the idea that we are nothing but experiences is not applicable. The human brain can create experiences that feel real (Q memories; mentioned later in this paper) so, the fact that can create sensations that can be the same as someone else. This does not disprove time, it just further negates the validity of human memory; once again negating the usefulness of witness testimony in trials.

Another way of questioning the existence of time, as according to J.J.C. Smart, is the question of whether or not time flows or passes[3]. To say that time passes means that you need to have a kind of “supertime” (referred to by Smart as “hyper-time-flow”) for time to flow inside of. And then this “supertime” would need another “super-supertime” to flow in which creates a regression that does not truly answer the question.[4] This regression can be used to prove that time does not exist. If time cannot pass, how can there be time in the first place? What this regress does is try to prove that explaining time through measurement is not valid. Our consciousness cannot advance into the future since you cannot tell how far it advances.

The problem with this theory is that the idea of time flowing is simply a metaphor and should not be considered to be exactly how time passes. The question that this brings up is does time even move? If it does, how does it pass? One theory on this idea is shown through J. M. E. McTaggart’s “A” and “B” series.

The “A” series asserts that things move from the future to the present to the past; time acting as a river, with us being pulled along by the passage of the “A” series of time. The “B” series states that things are either “earlier than,” “simultaneous with” or “later than.” McTaggart states that the “B” series is completely dependent upon the “A” series to exist. The “A” series provides an event relative to the now for the “B” series to relate those particular events to. The problem with the “A” series is that it is self-contradictory because things are never everything at the same time, so time is unreal. And, if the “A” series is nonexistent, the “B” series does not exist.[5] With this in mind, Horwich finds a hole in McTaggart’s theory.

Horwich brings up a counter argument for the nonexistence of the “B” series. He implies that the “B” series exists because time in it does not need the genuine change that the “A” series to exist. This is true because Horwich states that time can pass without change. [6] This brings up yet another theory on time that Shoemaker talks about on the idea of time without change.

Shoemaker states that there can be time passing without change with say, a temporal time freeze. There are opposing views on whether or not time passes in a time freeze. If the world were to freeze for a million years, we would not experience a second of it because we would be frozen in time. The only way that one could feasibly know about the time freeze is if there was an outside party. Is this even true? It makes sense that there would need to be an outside party to see a time freeze, but isn’t describing it as a “million year time freeze” give it an amount of time? This is where problems and counter arguments come from.

Can you have time without change? If this is true, how do you know that the time passed at all? Shoemaker’s view on time without change is presented in an example that involves a “local freeze.” The example he gives is a world where there are areas that freeze and nothing else in the world freezes. The only way the people in the frozen area know that they froze is when the people in the unfrozen area tell them. Shoemaker theorizes that because there were people watching and know that the freeze happened that time froze for the people inside of the freeze.[7] This is how Shoemaker explains time without change. Sure time passes when those people were frozen! We were moving weren’t we? They simply didn’t experience the time passing but it did! The only problem arises when Shoemaker extends his example to creating a universe where there are three regions that encompass the entire world that, though some means of keeping time, they know freeze at intervals of every three, four and five years for a year’s time. During each freeze, which they know when it is going to happen, the other two regions are unaffecting but are aware of the freeze so we can say that time passes when they were frozen because there were outside observers. The only problem comes from when sixty years pass[8]. In sixty years, the freezes with sync up and all three regions, encompassing the entire world, freeze all at once for one year. What happens then is everyone in the world is unaware if there was a freeze or not. You can say that there was because of the evidence shown, but without an outside observer, you can’t know for sure. This is the most important part of Shoemaker’s example. It is outside observers that make these things real. Without one, you can’t be sure of anything. This connects with time with the idea that people and references make time real. How does one know time exists? Well, you were reading the last sentence a few seconds before this one. That is now in the past and now this sentence is in the present until you continue with the next one where this one will be in the past. I feel, using Shoemaker’s example, that time is relative to a person noticing it.

Another point of view on the existence is another viewpoint on the theory of time’s nonexistence. According to Borges’ “Avatars of the Tortoise,” time and motion is logically impossible. Borges shows this though Zeno’s paradoxes relating to the race between Achilles and the tortoise. In a pure logical sense, Achilles cannot catch the tortoise because he is always catching up. The only problem with this is that when you look at it from a practical sense, of course he can catch the tortoise. It is just when you look at the situation from a mathematical viewpoint does this contradiction occur. What Zeno tries to do is negate our understanding of space-time with problems that supposedly contradict it.

In actuality, it is in the way the problem is set up is where Zeno gets his argument from. When Achilles’ speed is directly dependent on the tortoise’s speed, this is true, but a person’s speed is usually not dependant on the speed someone else. If I race someone slower than me, I do not run any slower when I measure my speed in miles per hour rather than based upon the speed of my opponent. If I can run fifteen miles per hour, I can still run that if I am racing someone that runs fourteen miles per hour or if I race a car that can go fifty miles per hour. When the measured speed of Achilles is based on the speed of the tortoise, Zeon’s paradox seems to be true but when it is measured in a way that is separate from the race, it becomes obvious that Achilles can catch the tortoise. So, this story does not do much in disproving time’s existence.

I feel the best way to figuring out whether or not time exists is to find out if time travel is actually possible. If time travel is possible, you can say time exists because what else would you be traveling through if you are a time traveler. By harnessing the power of the fourth dimension, you can prove that time exists just like you can prove that depth (the third dimension) exists by having two objects at different intervals and knowing which one is closer.

Through books and movies, the idea of time travel has been a popular one of science fiction. The idea of zapping back to a previous time and seeing what color the dinosaurs were or seeing pivotal points in history and then zapping back to their original time to tell everyone what they saw is something that many people dream about doing. The truth is, if it is possible, that time travel is much more complicated than that. It has been theorized by Martin Gardner that universes may be a plentiful as blackberries.[9] Gardner states that there might be an infinite amount of universes where every decision a person could make in a situation is made and any nuances that are possible have happened. It is this idea that allows time travel to be possible. If a person would go back in time, be it though a wormhole, black hole or plutonium-powered De Lorean[10], they would go back to a different timeline rather than their own. The reasoning for this is it prevents certain paradoxes from happening. The most classic example for the reasoning of this theory is called the “grandfather paradox.[11]” If you were able to go back in time of your own timeline and shoot your grandfather, you would cease to exist as your father would not have the chance to conceive you. The problem with this is if you cease to exist, how would you shoot your own grandfather? This paradox is the reason for the “grandfather paradox” to exist.

So, time travel is possible in theory thanks to the “grandfather paradox” so our insipid time traveler cannot ruin his own existence. When he reaches eighty-eight miles per hour[12] he will be transported to another point in another time line, most likely not able to return to his own time line as the infinite number of time lines/universes would prevent him from finding his own one. It is this theory that prevents the idea that time travel is not possible because people would have come back in time by now. In reality, (based on the Many Worlds and Grandfather paradox theories) any time traveler would be in one of the infinite time lines, missing ours due to the many different time lines that they could hit other than ours.

Another way to think of time is rethinking how we think about the word time itself. J. J. C. Smart approached this idea with introducing the tenseless verb. This is a verb that is best described as existing in the fourth dimension. It is neither in the past, present or future. It is in the now. The now is simply something that we know exists, existed in the past and we predict will exist in the future. What J.J.C. Smart is trying to say with his tenseless verbs is simply this: the world is a four-dimensional system of entities in space-time and “past” and “future” are anthropocentric as they are based simply on human experience. The “now” explains the existence of tenseless verbs and that the world is of a space-time manifold.[13]

So, with all this in mind, questioning whether or not time exists is a question that cannot be answered from a human perspective. When we look at time, we can’t help but look at it in an epistemological sense. We define time three ways (past, present, future) and we quest to put time in these three holes. What Smart does for the theories of time is basically state that we have been looking at theories of time completely wrong. It is not if there is a past, present or future, it is if there is a now, was a now or if there is going to be a now. When looked at in this fashion, everything I said up above has absolutely no meaning. But, that is the nature of philosophy and well, J.J.C. Smart could just be wrong. So, either way, we still can’t tell if any one of these philosophers is correct. All we know is that they might be on the right track but it is hard to say when every explanation seems to contradict the other.

---

[1] A New Refutation of Time(Labyrinths) : Jorge Luis Borges, pg. 221

[2] A New Refutation of Time (Labyrinths) : Jorge Luis Borges, pg. 222

[3] The Space-Time World: J. J. C. Smart, pg. 499-500

[4] The Space-Time World: J. J. C. Smart, pg. 499

[5] The Nature of Existence: J. M. E. McTaggart, pg. 459

[6] Asymmetries in Time: Paul Horwitch, pg. 477

[7] Time without Change: Sydney Shoemaker, pgs. 68-69

[8] Time without Change: Sydney Shoemaker, pg. 70

[9] Multiverses and Blackberries: Martin Gardner, pg. 1

[10] The time-traveling car from Back to the Future: http://imdb.com/title/tt0088763/

[11] Grandfather Paradox: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/grandfather_paradox.html

[12] The speed that the De Lorean time machine needed to reach to travel back in time

[13] The Space-Time World: J. J. C. Smart, pg. 508-509

Paper Four: Identity

When I think of myself, I think of a human being that has my consciousness. The “me” that I refer to whenever that idea comes up is the current vessel that carries my thoughts and keeps them alive. This distinction comes from the fact that when every second passes, I am a different person and therefore should have a different title to refer to myself as. My personhood does not change, but everything about my body and mind change. This “loose identity” is what allows us to refer to an entity that changes constantly by the same name.

This idea of a thing being completely different when there is any change is best shown in the example of the ship of Theseus. Theseus’ ship is sitting in a harbor to honor his memory. Because it is made of wood, the wood planks need to be changed periodically so the ship stays afloat. It gets to a point where every bit of wood has been replaced.[1] Is this still the ship of Theseus? At what point did it stop being his ship and become something else? To me, the ship stopped being the ship of Theseus as soon as the first plank was replaced. For something to truly be something, it can’t survive change. All that survives is the name. Forever, that ship will be the ship of Theseus simply because that is what it was initially so everyone refers to it as such. This is the same with people. You as a six year old and you as a sixty year old are completely different things. But, you are still referred to by the same name. This is same for the ship. All of this is for simplicity’s sake and so that things would not be confusing as everything would need to be renamed as it changed each time.

Something that Parfit touches upon is the idea of personal identity. This biggest point that Parfit touches upon is the idea of q-memory. Q-memories are memories that you have about certain events, whether or not they are true. It is how you saw a situation, remembered a situation or how you perceived a situation.[2] A good example of this is any witness to a murder trial would be giving their testimony based on q-memory. A witness that gives false information, not false of their own will, but false on the actual truth of the situation. They did not lie; the information they gave is just what their q-memories told them.

Where q-memories relate to identity is on recalling upon you in the past. We relate to our past selves in how we remember ourselves. When a person would go about remembering their last birthday, they would remember them in the past rather than just the event. It is not “oh, that was my birthday,” it is more “oh, there I am when I just turned twenty-three. That was four months ago.” What I am trying to get at is the language used. It’s “me when I was twenty-three” not “someone else that was of twenty-three years old at the time who I used to identify myself with but I am no longer that person even though I still carry the same title that that person carried.” The first statement is based upon q-memories. The memory is something you believe that was a past experience that you relate a memory to, the memory did happen and you believe that the memory you are sure happened was a memory that you were involved in and that you experienced.[3]

With this in mind, what validity is there that the only memories that you have are q-memories? I feel this is true, but an argument against this could be remembering an event from photographs and another person rather than just trying it on your own. The only problem with this is that first off, with the person to person connection, it would be conflicting q-memories. Sure, you could agree on many things that happened, but no two people could possibly see an event in the exact same way. Even with pictures, interpretation can differ and no two people could truly agree about a situation without some concessions on either side.

Snowdon touches upon identity by relating humans and animals and asking is there a difference between the two. His idea of personal identity is weighing where we draw the line between Homo sapiens as humans or animals in the world.[4] All of this hinges on identity. Without trying to be too technical, we are humans and animals, but I feel what matters is how a person sees him or herself. When you see a person mindlessly polluting a river, you can see that they don’t see themselves as animals. I feel it’s our technology that has caused us to forget about our roots. It is so easy to look at an animal and not be able to connect with them at all.

What Snowdon says is that we are persons and animals. We are essentially animals and we are essentially people. This idea is well represented in the idea of Cartesian dualism. It goes as follows[5]:

1-I am a mind [“person”/ psychological entity]

2-I have a body à Animal

3- I am essentially a mind

4- I am essentially a body

Where the secret lies in all of this is in the use of the word “essentially.” What is meant by essentially is for all intents and purposes the stated is what is believed. It is a way to have something that is essentially an absolute without the problems of absolutes. What all the above stated means is the mind is what makes you a person and the body you have is what makes you an animal. So, the answer to the question is that we are both an animal and a person.

So, where does this leave us? I was asked to explain who I am now, who I was and who I am going to be in the future. All of these representations of me are completely different people, and this is the point I am trying to make. I in the past am exactly that: I in the past. I am not the same person that I was at my first birthday as I will not be the same person I am today, tomorrow. Identity is just a way to keep us all sane. We are animals, we are people. We are the people we were in the past and we aren’t. Identity can be considered the most open-ended thing in all of metaphysics simply because what identity means differs from person to person. So, who am I? I am me. I am an animal who is also a person, I am not who I was five years ago, I won’t be the person I am now in five years in the future. I am not the same person right as I was when I started this paper as I won’t be when I hand it in as I won’t be when you read it. I, like everyone else (I assume) am the constantly-changing entity that goes by my original title to prevent confusion and to make it easier on everyone and myself.

---

[1] Introduction to Identity pg. 528

[2] “Personal Identity”, Parfit pg. 568

[3] Class notes 11/15 – as relating to Parfit’s “Personal Identity” and explanation of q-memories

[4] “Persons, animals and ourselves,” P.F. Snowdon pg. 578

[5] Class notes 11/29, in response to second half of Persons, animals and ourselves,”

Time

This is going to transform into a ten page paper that I hope is good enough to hand into the philosophy conference. Here's to me!

Paper Three: Time

Part One:

In Avatars of the tortoise, Borges brings up the idea that space and motion are logically impossible. Borges shows this though Zeno’s paradoxes relating to the race between Achilles and the tortoise. In a pure logical sense, Achilles cannot catch the tortoise because he is always catching up. The only problem with this is that when you look at it from a practical sense, of course he can catch the tortoise.[1] It is just when you look at the situation from a mathematical viewpoint does this contradiction occur. What Zeno tries to do is negate our understanding of space-time with problems that supposedly contradict it. In reality, it is in the way the problem is set up is where Zeno gets his argument from. When Achilles’ speed is directly dependent on the tortoise’s speed, this is true, but a person’s speed is usually not dependant on the speed someone else. If I race someone slower than me, I do not run any slower when I measure my speed in miles per hour rather than based upon the speed of my opponent. If I can run fifteen miles per hour, I can still run that if I am racing someone that runs fourteen miles per hour or if I race a car that can go fifty miles per hour. When the measured speed of Achilles is based on the speed of the tortoise, Zeon’s paradox seems to be true but when a

At the end of Avatars of the Tortoise, Borges states that we have dreamt up the world and only through contradictory aspects of the world do we know this. Where Borges is going with this is very similar to the “fire test[2]” in another Borges story. The “fire test” relates to an aspect of the world that does not hurt you because of your own nonexistence. Borges is saying that the contradictions that come about are the clues that this world is the dream of a dreamer or something along those lines. The problem I have with this is that it is too simple to explain anything we find as unexplainable just simply impossible and not search for the true answer. There are many things in this world that are impossible to explain that are contradictory. One example is that there are stars in the universe that are older than the universe itself and the though process of what was before the Big Bang and many other questions that we are incapable of explaining at this point in time. To simply chalk them up as truly impossible to answer and as evidence that the world we are living in is imaginary is a poor excuse in my opinion.

In reality, the unknown is simply aspects of the universe that are far beyond our own human comprehension and to say that we created them to prove that we do not exist is just another example of the resounding arrogance and pride of man.

Part Two:

Is time real? Borges states in “A New Refutation of Time” that time is a delusion. Borges explains that time does not exist and that the only thing that exists is experiences.[3] According to Borges, the negations of idealism can be extended to time. Borges uses the Humean ideal that there is not anything that exists past the human recollection on senses. Hume states that man is nothing but a collection of sensations and that any shared perception proves time is nonexistent since the repetition would destroy its linear sequence.[4]

With all this in mind, can time truly exist? The problem with that question is that there are many aspects of time that have varying degrees of validity.

One view on time is questioning on whether or not it flows or passes. To say that time passes means that you need to have a kind of “supertime” for time to flow inside of. And then this “supertime” would need another “super-supertime” to flow in which creates a regression that does not truly answer the question.[5] This regression can be used to prove that time does not exist. If time cannot pass, how can there be time in the first place?

Another view of time is through J. M. E. McTaggart’s “A” and “B” series. The “A” series asserts that things move from the future to the present to the past; time acting as a treadmill. The “B” series states that things are either “earlier than,” “simultaneous with” or “later than.” The “B” series is completely dependent upon the “A” series to exist. The problem with the “A” series is that it is self-contradictory. Things are never everything at the same time, so time is unreal. And, if the “A” series is nonexistent, therefore the “B” series does not exist.[6] Horwich finds a hole in McTaggart’s theory.

Horwitch brings up a counter argument for the nonexistence of the “B” series. He states that the “B” series exists because time in it does not need the genuine change that the “A” series to exist. This is true because Horwitch states that time can pass without change. This brings up yet another theory on time that Shoemaker talks about.[7]

Shoemaker states that there can be time passing without change with say, a temporal time freeze. There are opposing views on whether or not time passes in a time freeze. If the world were to freeze for a million years, we would not experience a second of it because we would be frozen in time. The only way that one could feasibly know about the time freeze is if there was an outside party. Is this even true? It makes sense that there would need to be an outside party to see a time freeze, but isn’t describing it as a “million year time freeze” give it an amount of time? This is where problems and counter arguments come from.

To prevent the risk of further tangents, I feel I should present my side in the war of time’s existence. I believe that time does exist but only in the present now. The present is the only thing that I can be truly sure of. The past could or could not have happened and the future is uncertain until it is the present. In my own opinion, the treadmill theory of time makes a great deal of sense. We never exist in the past or the future. Our present turns into the past and the future turns into the present which ends up being the past. Does the idea of time freezes negate the existence of time? I don’t see why it would. The idea that makes the most sense to me is that time exists simply because we think it exists.

Before recorded history, time had no meaning. When a day passed and you were still alive, it was a day that was accomplished, but no longer mattered. I would speculate that every day that a prehistoric man lived would be about the same as the last one barring any lasting injury. To them, time meant nothing so I feel it simply didn’t exist for them. All they were interested in was living to see the next day and nothing else really mattered. Today there still survive a few groups of hunter-gatherers; do you think that time has any significance to them? To them it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t need to. It is simply not necessary for their existence. This same theory can be applied to pretty much anything. Take a higher deity, for example. There are many people that do not believe that there is a god who is watching over all of us. To them, the deity does not exist, but does it exist outside of their consciousness? It is still up for discussion if that even matters.

I feel that necessity is the ultimate question we should be trying to answer. If time exists, it exists only if someone is there to perceive it. It is the old “if a tree falls in the woods” question again. Time only exists if we make it, or need it to exist. Does that mean that if no one believed in time it would cease to exist? Sure it does, but then again no it doesn’t. Did time exist before people discovered it? If it didn’t, how could man have discovered it? This is where epistemology screws everything up. How do we know anything at all? We do not. All I feel that we know is the present. So, to me, the only thing that exists is the present. The past is subject to discussion and the future is not true until it is the present.

---

[1] Class Notes 10/16

[2] The Circular Ruins pg. 50

[3] A New Refutation of Time pg. 221

[4] Class Notes 10/18

[5] Class Notes 10/23

[6] Class Notes 10/30

[7] Class Notes 10/30

At least someone will get it

A friend of mine that used to work at the Friendly Local Gaming Shop until he left for better employment told me this story, and it's one of the best stories I have ever heard.

He's sitting on nine mana, looking for one more land so he can cast and crack Mindslaver in the same turn, hence not letting his opponent get a chance to obliterate the Slaver before it goes online. His opponent casts Fireball, gets him down to 8, and then casts Eternal Witness and returns Fireball with nine mana up next turn. My friend frowns at this situation, but draws his card hoping to hit a land or some other solution. His Draw was Tooth and Nail and he had the mana to cast and entwine it. However, the question was What to get? Darksteel Colossus wouldn't work and he didn't have a Platinum Angel in the deck to fetch, let alone have it stick long enough to find a solution to the Fireball. However, he remembered that he had a pair of Bottle Gnomes stashed away in the deck somewhere, so he decides to put his chips down. He taps his mana, and declares in the loudest voice he could make while being within tournament standards, "Tooth and Nail, Entwined for Bottle Gnomes." EVERYBODY, including the head judge, rushed for the table to see if they heard right. They did, and my friend drops a pair of Beverages on the field.

The opponent draws, and then starts to look flustered. No matter how he figured the math, he could not kill him this turn. So he drops a creature (I forgot what it was!) and passes turn. My friend's turn, draws a Forest (which he still has framed in his house) and lays it down and cracks slaver. He takes his opponent's turn, swings into his bottle gnomes, wipes field, and burns himself with the Fireball. It's then a complete swing for my friend, concluding the match in my friend's favor.

After the match, my friend picks up his cards and heads to his next match, or at least to wait for it. The opponent sits there, cards still laid out on the table, untouched, unmoving. Five minutes later, a friend of the opponent walks up and says "Hey man, what happened?" The opponent, without even blinking or moving just mumbles:

"Bottle Gnomes."