Brad McConahay

It seems like skepticism is what has lead us to “expansion of knowledge�. Is it possible that skepticism is at the very root of self-awareness? I’m skeptical, therefore, I am? I realize that skepticism is one of many thoughts that can be included under “think�, but do other apparent forms of thought lead to any actual change from the current state of knowledge? If truth goes no farther than population homeostasis, or events just occuring in order to sustain existence, or some other reason without a sense of finality, then change, reason, logic, self-awareness, and truth all become ideas with no more reason than to just think them. All are thoughts that lead us to alter instinctive animal behavior, even though there is no apparent reason to do so. Yet thinking, especially skepticism itself, seems instinctive. Why think, therefore, why think?

Is it possible to know what true information is, if there is any question that true information can be stored in organized matter? Our current political system seems less flawed than others yet doesn’t appear to reach a state of true or false. If one mind deviates from a majority with regard to a specific subject, this doesn’t seem to constitute truth. Yet, most observable life forms exhibit rebellion, seemingly inherently, based on logic or not – In which case I don’t think the definition of truth is attainable.

If we would agree that there are no absolute truths – which would also allow for the possibility of absolute truths – and that all is just philosophy, then have we really made any evolutionary progress? We don’t currently have much more philosophical agreement on Earth than we had at the beginning of recorded history. Just mental movement, rather than movement toward something.

Physical science seems concentrated on things like extending individual material existence, compacting the practical uses of the concept of time, and creating things to help distract the mind from the day-to-day drudgeries. Since none of these things, or anything else, can thus far be proven to have any ultimate importance, this just as well seems like random, or maybe circular, movement in thought. I always feel compelled to explore physical and mental philosophy, but can think of no ultimately important reason why. If not to make some sort of forward movement, assuming that forward means “good”, then why?

If we would agree that mathematics is as imperfect and fallible as any other worldly concept, then it seems likely that math itself wouldn’t be any more or less related to a “grand scheme of things” than any non-scientific based school of thought, no matter how illogical it may seem. Then why do we continue to build on its history? Maybe that’s all we’re capable of doing. But maybe the path from our current fixed point of knowledge toward whatever reason for existence might exist would actually involve a complete disregard for past or contemporary ideas, no matter how written-in-stone they may seem now. The extreme of “original” thought. All the world’s religions and all the world’s science thrown out the window. Maybe our inability to think beyond the concept of space-time and all that it implies regarding our system of science is the very thing holding us back from any ultimate truth, assuming this is our goal.

But, I guess since most of those analogies use geometric and/or time related forms, then they are not valid by the very definition of this idea and would just be more circular thought.