Tuesday, 6 May 2014

Concerning Human Knowledge Part 2

I intend to be a writer, a writer of philosophy, and that of religion. But when i sit back in the corner of my room thinking hard of the topic on what i should write, i realise that whatever i may chose to be my topic that has complete dependence on what i know so far and not what i may truly know. All the great philosophers that i have read about and whose philosophies i have tried to understand take me to a common conclusion. That truth is something that can never be achieved. No matter how close one comes to the truth there develops even more possibilities to derive the truth that is different from the truth that man has conceived.  But then the question that remains unanswered over centuries of trying to dig the truth is that will there ever be an end to the unending conquest for truth. Whatsoever be the end but it appears to be far from achieving. After the claims raised by Plato and his disciple Aristotle there is still same conquest for the same answers to the questions that they then answered.

What we derive from the long history of the conquest of the truth is that every great philosopher has had his idea of the truth which is followed by some and criticized by many. Every theory that a philosopher has theorized has been and in future events criticized by some other philosopher of equal intellect. In all this pool of confusion and discussion our conquest for the truth remains unachieved.

I am making the same mistake of trying to explain my perception of the universe and the truth behind its existence. But to me mistakes have to made for the establishment of the grounds for their correction. I think the world of man is like an ocean. Man here is like a stone which when thrown in the ocean will cause ripples to form. So all men living and who have ever lived on earth are like stones or for the ones who have seized to exist were at least like stones who like stones leave their influence in the world when they live in it. The world is the ground for the interaction of man like ocean is the ground for the interaction of the ripples formed by different stones. My point here is that the knowledge we have of the world today is the sequence of knowledge acquired by man throughout history.And this history has been formed by the effect of influence of men who have lived in it. A man's perception is based on what he knows from the past and what he can derive out of it in the future. Coming back to my ocean of ripples. I imagine when two stones are thrown inside the ocean or for instance inside a small water body for we are taking only two stones at this moment, this shall keep things simpler. Coming back to the stones thrown in the water body, both the stones will form different sets of ripples. At a point of time these different sets of ripples will interact with each other and will exchange their characteristics. If one set of ripples is quite stronger than the other set, it may absorb the other set of ripples and merge it into his own. This may refer to a person who has a strong ideology and the other person gets influenced by his ideology and starts to follow his steps.  

But the situation may also be that both the sets are equally strong and they clash with each other causing competitive environment. This may refer to two persons who have different ideologies but they are equally strong. Their thoughts may clash with each other causing problems with them trusting each other. This may be compared to two high priests of different religions having conversation on religion itself.  
Now imagine billions of ripples being formed in a large ocean causing the interaction with each other. Now it may depend which ripples will interact more and cause the influence over each other thus causing groups of ripples having similar characteristics. This may be compared to a large society or a nation like india having different religions and how they interact with each other.

Through this example it becomes clear that a person's perception is just not his own but the different sets of perceptions he has adopted to shape his own and then accepting or rejecting these perception to establish an entirely new stream of thoughts which in turn are dependent on the older thoughts.

For example if we take a child and isolate him from the world and keep him in a jungle. He will grow up to become a man who does not know about mankind. This is because he has never been acquainted with the concept and hence he is no more a human as conceived by the present society. But the truth remains that he is as much a man as we are or the greatest thinkers produced by mankind are. He has just not been introduced to the sequence of knowledge that history has provided. He is at a point of knowledge where a man in stone age would have been. He had to start afresh. But instead if he were a part of ocean all the other men are then knowledge would have been induced in him by mere experience.

So the big question is, whether this sequential knowledge we have acquired throughout history is any closer to the truth itself or have we been misled from the very starting of the civilization. The question again establishes doubts that were thought to have been solved not completely but at least a little. Man thus is standing exactly where he was standing a thousand years ago or even at the very beginning of the mankind. This is the philosophical derivation of reality.

I got a perfect comment regarding my previous article which fits perfectly to this one also,

Bilal Arafaat has left a new comment on your post "Concerning Human Knowledge": 


The farthest backward you can look the farthest forward you can see..

Winston Churchill