FIRST PRINCIPLES (AGAIN)

.
 So what about knowledge? Well, there is a popular theory about knowledge that speaks of its three sources: "The majority of our supposed knowledge comes from our senses, our faculty of reason and our memory" (Ben). But this is somewhat incorrect; or rather, it is inadequate to the complexity of reality. It might therefore be better to say that the three things that generate knowledge through the ever-ongoing process of awareness are: Perception (involving both body and mind, immediate and intuitive facts, sensations and feelings, etc), Philosophy (or rational thinking in general), and History (not just personal and collective memories, but also an awareness that the present is the result of a very long movement through space-time; ie. the Eternal Now is the point at which the past and future meet and mingle in a world full of determinism, but also open to as yet unrealized possibilities.
.
 If we compare both sets of three we see that the first set of knowledge-sources appears to be composed of concrete and limited entities that are suitable to an isolated individual person adrift within a great somethingness, while the second set is composed of large and complex concepts not easily defined or understood. But this is just the point! Perception is *more* than just passively receiving data about the "objective and external" world by way of our material and functional sense organs. Philosophy is *more* than just the faculty of reason and logical thinking; and History is *much* more than just my own personal memories. Indeed, it is fair to say that perception, philosophy, and history are a large part of who *and* what I am. When I say 'I am something that is aware of my existence, my thoughts, and my doubts" I am not claiming that this is all that I am, some abstract and logical entity, but rather that all these things imply that they are rooted in something else, that they come from somewhere; namely, the 'I' (this textman person) that exists here and now, and generates all these words and thoughts and reasonings and doubts and certainties and memories.
.
 So what exactly is this Descartian 'I' that seems to me to be at the very center of the world? Ben (of ILP) says that it "refers specifically to whoever or whatever is having the thought at the time it is thought. It is not necessarily the man Rene Descartes or any embodied human being at all. The doubt of the external world still holds and so it is important not to assume that the statement ‘I think, therefore I am’ establishes anything more than a thing that thinks at the time it is thinking" (from 'Russell, Descartes and the Skeptic'). And this is quite correct; Descartes is not interested in investigating this mysterious 'I', but rather in finding some point of certain knowledge upon which he can stand. But when I say 'awareness is, therefore I must exist, therefore I am' I would say that awareness and existence both presuppose each other. Awareness asserts, declares, confirms, and demonstrates the undeniable actuality, reality, and fact of existence. Accordingly, awareness would appear to be a rather vital aspect, I should suppose, of whatever our existence is, means, and implies.
.

.
 In the past, philosophers have emphasized one or another of these three sources of knowledge (senses, reason, memory), and today it is the scientists who lead the way in doing likewise. Psychologists and sociologists stress mind and personal experience, Empiricists stress matter and sense data. Rationalists stress logic and systems. And radical skeptics are still able to doubt them all. And so on and so forth. It basically all comes down to a simple (and logically prior) value-judgment. Which of these sources has primacy? Which of the three is supreme? For the skeptics doubt is surely supreme over all; thus there is simply no reasoning with them. Others place their hope and faith in other things. Bertrand Russell sought certainty in the Platonic realm between mathematics and logic, and was quite disappointed to be left unable to find it there after all. It's all very odd, to be sure, but if we substitute our less material trinity for the more traditional one, then the question of primacy takes on a rather different character.
.
 Perception, Philosophy, History. Which of these three is supreme, eh? THAT is the question! In trying to decide this matter it would be well to first reflect upon the notion that philosophy IS its history. Philosophy, especially Western Philosophy, is a long series of progressions and developments that build on prior discoveries and achievements. Knock Descartes, Hume, Kant, and Hegel out of the picture, and the entire structure of modern philosophy comes crashing down like a house of cards! From all this we can conclude that Philosophy easily resolves itself into History (in the same way that Science resolves into Philosophy), such that the question of primacy becomes one of choosing between Perception and History. And in *this* form the 'which-is-supreme' question is finally seen for what it truly is; namely, nonsense, for there is obviously no point in choosing between Perception and History. Both are *equally* primary and necessary for ALL human-being.
.
 Again all this resolves into a matter of first principles: Don't make hasty and unnecessary value-judgments that are sure to lead you down the garden path to less certainty while all-the-while promising more and greater certainty. If we can learn to *consistently* stay within the fluid bounds of reasonable-doubt then we can affirm that knowledge is a complex combination of ALL the sources available to human-being. Indeed it is a natural product of the co-creative interaction (and even inter-dependence) between awareness and cosmos.
.

.
 I declared above that modern philosophy would collapse if we knocked out just a few philosophical superstars. I would now like to demonstrate philosophy’s dependence upon history with just one example: Bertrand Russell. Now Lord Russell is quite possibly the most important and influential philosopher of the 20th century. And one of the chief reasons why he holds this exalted position is, I think, because he is among the very few philosophers who are readable among the general public. It’s true, most philosophical documents can only be stomached by “professional” philosophers (ie. professors and sophists); but Russell is widely recognized for the clarity and precision of his writings, as well as for their (equally important) readability. The reason why this is so, and also why it is important to us, is not just because Russell is an outstanding writer, but also because it is essentially a key element in his philosophical method. So Russell’s favored method of doing philosophy can be called ‘logical analysis’; and the *way* he writes is largely an emanation (for lack of a better word) of this method. Indeed the two are so closely united in perfect harmony that it would be utter nonsense to even talk about one without ever mentioning the other.
.
 Anyway, the point is that Russell is a fine heir-apparent to the Great Doubter, Rene Descartes; and we shall see why very soon. Russell’s literary output, over the course of a long and active life, was immense (so as to rival even that of the Great Asimov); so I can’t claim to have read everything he wrote. Nevertheless I think his history of philosophy is his best work. But perhaps this is merely an arbitrary and unjustified (not to say biased) value-judgment on my part. However, for our purposes here and now, another portion of his scribblings is far more pertinent and to the point. In 1927 Russell released a fine little masterpiece entitled ‘An Outline of Philosophy’. Of this book the most interesting page – by far! – is the contents page, which basically sets forth Russell’s vision of what Philosophy is, what it does, and what its for. For those of you unfortunate enough to go through life without ever having seen this awesome gem of a philosophy book, I suppose I’ll just have to enlighten you by reproducing it here and now (minus the page numbers) so that you can see for yourself why I say such foolish things:
.
The Contents Page of ‘An Outline of Philosophy’
.

1. Philosophic Doubts
PART I: MAN FROM WITHOUT
2. Man and his Environment
3. The Process of Learning in Animals and Infants
4. Language
5. Perception Objectively Regarded
6. Memory Objectively Regarded
7. Inference as a Habit
8. Knowledge Behaviouristically Considered
PART II: THE PHYSICAL WORLD
9. The Structure of the Atom
10. Relativity
11. Causal Laws in Physics
12. Physics and Perception
13. Physical and Perceptual Space
14. Perception and Physical Causal Laws
15. The Nature of our Knowledge of Physics
PART III: MAN FROM WITHIN
16. Self-observation
17. Images
18. Imagination and Memory
19. The Introspective Analysis of Perception
20. Consciousness?
21. Emotion, Desire, and Will
22. Ethics
PART IV: THE UNIVERSE
23. Some Great Philosophies of the Past
24. Truth and Falsehood
25. The Validity of Inference
26. Events, Matter, and Mind
27. Man’s Place in the Universe

.
 Well! How about that? It certainly *looks* as if Philosophy has itself a nice full plate doesn’t it? And, of course, you can modify and elaborate upon this basic scheme any which way you’d care to. And many have done just that, believe me. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess. Anyway, getting back to the matter at hand, we can easily see that the sections most relevant to our current deliberations are some chapters in parts one, two, and four, and almost all of part three. And that says a lot in itself, but, sadly, we are unable to do a thorough examination and analysis of the entire book here; and not even just those many chapters that have a stronger bearing upon our current topic. This is most unfortunate, to be sure; but we can hardly part with Russell without taking at least a small peek at that curious first chapter concerning philosophic doubts.
.

.
 Now Philosophy, according to Bertie, is about answering those doubts that are raised by problems that Science cannot answer, and that Religion does not (usually) address (ie. in a sensible way). Answering such doubts would therefore be a vital, perhaps even primary, goal for Philosophy. Regardless of any methods involved, the value of Philosophy is obvious: its value is the exact equivalent of Science; that is, Science and Philosophy both share the same value by doing pretty much the same thing (ie. increasing our knowledge by answering questions and doubts), and that value is found chiefly in their utility! Science is very useful to all kinds of people, not just to scientists. Philosophy is also useful. She too answers questions and addresses doubts. Indeed, Philosophy is very like unto a special-science really; it has its own jargon and methods, its own technical terms and universal concepts, and even the very same need to ‘get it all down on paper’.
.
 All this is quite true and as it should be, and it’s all good too. Moreover, this pragmatic vision of Philosophy accomplishes two very important things: (1) it expands the horizons of philosophic subject matter to the very edge of the cosmos (and maybe even beyond), AND it also (2) gives Philosophy a clear purpose, a strong sense of direction, and a much needed capacity to *focus*. Curiosity, doubt, the relentless quest for knowledge, the drive to explore every nook and cranny in the entire cosmos ... All these things drive and empower Philosophy as it marches triumphant through the centuries. Hey, don’t get me wrong here. I have no real objections against this role and vision of Philosophy as a model of pragmatic utility. After all, it’s still a thousand times better than being Theology’s handmaiden! No, no objections … except maybe one. And maybe just a small one at that. It’s that bit about doubt being logically prior to knowledge and philosophy. For some reason that notion just sticks in my craw …
.
 But: “Philosophy arises from an unusually obstinate attempt to arrive at real knowledge” (1). Philosophy intends to generate true knowledge of all reality. From this we can easily conclude that as far as Philosophy is concerned, Reality is Supreme. Reality IS the Supreme Being, the Absolute Actuality, the Atomic Source of All Things Material & Immaterial. Philosophy wants to know all about Reality. That is its will and purpose and goal and reason-for-being. While common-knowledge is defective in many ways, real-knowledge has power, precision, and utility. Real knowledge is accurate, consistent, lacks arrogance, and always aims for comprehensiveness (for Philosophy embraces all knowledge, and seeks to make a harmony of the whole). Another job for Philosophy is to attack any confusion that may arise from errors in common-sense beliefs. Russell then pauses to explain that although Philosophy is an exclusively intellectual business, nevertheless it “may have bearings upon matters lying outside the sphere of pure intellect” (1). Bearings, eh? Well, I for one was kinda hoping for something a little more substantial than mere bearings, but I guess we’ll just have to take whatever we’re given!
.

.
 Then comes an important observation: “Vagueness, in particular, belongs, in some degree, to all human thinking; we can diminish it indefinitely, but we can never abolish it wholly” (2). This is so important because it means that vagueness is built, not into the machinery of the brain so much, but rather into the very form and structure and essence of sapience itself. How could it be otherwise when Russell specifically mentions “all human thinking”? And this also means that vagueness is an eternal fountain of those doubts and errors and defects that Philosophy is specifically designed to combat. It would thus appear that Philosophy is eternally engaged in battle with the forces of darkness, confusion, and ignorance. An eternally *losing* battle (I should add), since it is one that can never be ended, let alone won. Can you believe it? This warfare is NOT what I signed up for! In terms of utility alone, this vital conflict within the very soul of knowledge attacks the core value of Philosophy (as Russell envisions it). Who is the winner, and who the loser in *that* eternal conflict? Russell does not tell us. But he does point out that Philosophy is also eternal process; what he calls “a continuing activity, not something in which we can achieve final perfection once for all … final truth belongs to heaven, not to this world” (2-3). I agree that the quest for knowledge is endless, and I agree that grand ideological schemes and philosophical systems are in error whenever they claim to contain all human knowledge (ie. all true knowledge of Reality), but I don’t think it’s too much to ask for just a FEW final truths to cling to in these bleak and stormy seas of Russell’s philosophy. After all, the statement that ‘vagueness can never be abolished’ certainly sounds pretty damn FINAL to me! :)
.

.
 Having thus set the stage for eternal, cosmic battle between the righteous forces of Science & Philosophy and the vile (but obviously very powerful) forces of doubt and ignorance, Russell proposes to get on with ‘the business of philosophy’ by first examining “the three defects”, starting with “the belief in common objects, such as tables and chairs and trees” (3). Russell says that the “first intrusion of doubt” occurs here. He says that the confidence of “naïve common sense” is undermined if we “admit that the object is not what we see”. But why on earth should we want to make such an absurd admission? Because “they do not appear exactly alike to any two simultaneous observers”. Russell means that if I’m standing here (in the kitchen) holding a cup of coffee, and you’re at the far end of the dining room, then this cup is going to look very different to you than it does to me. I have to look straight down almost, and I can see the coffee inside it, while you may not be able to see the coffee at all. But you can see the steam rising above the rim, so you can easily assume the existence of said coffee, even though you can’t directly perceive it with any of your senses.
.
 In point of fact, the cup of coffee is actually giving off two very different sets of sense-data; one set goes to me (ie. I can smell the coffee, and feel the warmth of the cup in my hand, etc), and a much diminished set of sense-data goes to you. Two different sets of sense-data suggests two different sources or two different objects from whence they originated. That’s logic for you. Logic can’t even tell if my cup of coffee is one thing or two things! If this example of the defects of naïve common-sense illustrates anything, it illustrates the defects of a top-heavy reliance upon logic. Who said my cup of coffee isn’t supposed to give off more than one sense-data set at the same time? And who, for that matter, said that my perception of my cup of coffee is a BELIEF in the first place? Not me. Not you. Russell and his skeptical predecessors did, that’s who.
.
 But in Reality I KNOW my cup of coffee is real (and actually exists) because I can, and do, feel, see, smell, touch, and taste it. Moreover, you know it’s real too; even though you can barely see it from way over there. So Russell’s philosopher-observers obviously have a lot less common-sense than what you and I have. Is this a pity? Yeah … for them! It’s pretty clear now that Russell is running around in tight logical circles for the purpose of creating doubt where in fact none exists. Naïve common-sense is a lot tougher than Russell cares to give it credit for … And we can also plainly see that Russell’s “first intrusion of doubt” is nothing but a sham. And worse still: Russell’s philosophy has just failed its first test of utility; the very thing it bases its value upon. Our knowledge of real-world objects and entities is not defective so much as limited; but in creating doubts where there need not be any, Russell has shown that his philosophy IS defective, and in a very fundamental way.
.

.
 Russell then goes on to say that there are also problems with seeing a chair (which he likes to call ‘a patch of color’), and that when philosophers observe the process of someone seeing a chair, it raises many questions and doubts. Logical analysis of this event shows us that “the pursuit of precision destroys certainty” (4). Why? Because naïve common-sense makes many assumptions about a chair; assumptions that are NOT contained within the sense-data packet that our brains receive from perception. Yet these assumptions are really more like concepts: (1) Causality, (2) Substance, (3) Permanence, and what Russell calls (4) “the power to cause sensations”. Russell also says that our knowledge of the true nature of the chair (ie. atomic) is an inference made when you combine sensations with the concepts / assumptions listed above; which Russell calls ‘metaphysical beliefs’. Here we see echoes of Hume, and especially Kant (with his a-priori categories). Well, I’m not at all sure if these odd metaphysical beliefs and assumptions are intended to create and multiply problems and doubts, but it’s a 100% certainty that Hume and Kant do indeed create and multiply problems and doubts! :D
.
 Now I don’t mean to come off sounding like I’m arbitrarily dismissing these giants among philosophers. There remains still a lot to be learned from the writings of men like Descartes, Hume, and Kant; as much from their errors and mistakes as from their triumphs and achievements. If it were at all otherwise, then they would not be so important to the development and history of modern philosophy. Nuff said.
.

.
 Russell then points out the rather obvious fact that memory and testimony are not only “essential to science”, but are both “open to criticism by the sceptic” (5). Of course, it would be irrational not to acknowledge that memory and testimony are flawed instruments at best; but Russell claims that rationality itself demands “a less complete confidence in our original beliefs than we had before”. Here again precision destroys certainty; or at least knocks it down a notch or two. But again I must object. Frankly, I fail to see why Russell is making such a fuss about this. After all, we all know that memory and testimony are sometimes wrong, and under certain conditions (eg. intoxication) are even prone to error. And these dangers are especially biting in the case of careless and undisciplined minds. All true. And that is WHY we also make use of various documents and written testimonies (legal or otherwise). Writing our thoughts down on paper (or computer file) in a sense freezes and preserves them (imperfectly), such that they can endure through time (imperfectly), even when no one is actually reading / thinking them. In other words, documents can restore most of the confidence that Russell says is here lost to us; thus once again his doubts turn out to be bogus (from the logical AND common-sense perspective).
.

.
 Anyway, after spending a few pages solidifying his position regarding memory and testimony, Russell turns his attention to the problem of introspection: “Many philosophers have held that introspection gave the most indubitable of all knowledge” (8). Russell counters this notion by observing that the difference between perception and introspection “seems to me to be connected, not with what is primary in our knowledge, but with what is inferred”. If Russell here means by ‘inferred’ something like ‘what one is thinking’, then we tend to agree. He soon goes on to make another significant observation: “There is thus something subjective and private about what we take to be external perception …”. Here again we tend to agree. Then he declares that believing is a form of feeling. Meanings and images are not really accurate representations “of the logical content” of any philosophical proposition (9). “It is only when you come to expressing your thought in words that you approach logical precision. Both in introspection and in external perception, we try to express what we know in words”. Once again we tend to agree. Words are indeed the basic building blocks of all human knowledge. And more important even than this is the fact (Russell would say ‘belief’) that language is the basic repository of all forms of knowledge. This is because language is obviously bigger than any single mind. As is society, culture, history, and especially Reality and Cosmos. Language is something that many minds build and share and use; as is everything else on that list we just gave.
.

.
 Therefore Reality (as we know it) is a shared-reality; and so the individual mind necessarily has certain undeniable limits; limits which the skeptical tradition strives to increase. No single mind has the capacity to encompass and contain all the knowledge that is committed to writing; let alone all the knowledge that is (or potentially is) available; let alone all the knowledge that we are as yet ignorant of. And this little observation (or inference (or conclusion)) effectively demonstrates that solipsism is fundamentally flawed by way of being excessively irrational. Solipsism is basically doubt gone mad. Russell accordingly turns his attention to the “social aspect of knowledge”. Perceptions and thoughts are both expressed by these common and shared words and ideas. Thus, there “seems no reason to regard introspection as a different *kind* of knowledge from external perception” (10). And indeed they shouldn’t be so regarded, for both processes take place within the confines of that same inferno of inference and subjectivity, the human mind.
.
 Anyway, Russell concludes with the idea that as far as veracity (or trustworthiness) goes, introspection and perception are pretty much the same logically; which means that they both suffer from the same defects. For example: words can’t describe any given event “in all its particularity; all words, even proper names, are general …” (10). Which is just to say that words are not precise enough, or accurate enough, or logical enough, to show (or describe) Reality in all its awesome fullness and complexity. Thus the inferences we make in both introspection and perception “may be mistaken”. Inferences are assumptions or suppositions or beliefs that are partly caused by sense-data, partly by memories of previous events (ie. “past experience”), and partly by reflex or habit. Obviously people have very little conscious control over such a complex and subtle process.
.
 Russell even suggests that some inferences may be physiological in origin. But these kinds of inferences can be fooled or tricked by things such as mirrors and dreams, and so we have ample room to doubt them; if only “for the sake of self-consistency”. It’s true; unproved inferences and assumptions form a large part of our perception and thinking. This means that doubt is logically valid in both cases; but just because logic admits the possibility of error doesn’t mean that it is reasonable to do so *without* just cause. If I see a chair across the room, is it sensible for me to say ‘I may be mistaken about this observation because my memories may be flawed, or because my assumptions are logically unproven, or because it’s possible that my senses are being fooled’? I would answer ‘no’, because 999 times out a thousand I would be right in *believing* that a chair really does actually exist right over there!
.

.
 Russell then raises the bogy of induction, which is “perhaps the most difficult problem in the whole theory of knowledge … and yet it is difficult to see why we should believe it to be a valid logical process” (11). Again Russell is right. Expectations in and of themselves are simply not enough to justify any claims to certain knowledge. For example: Say I get up one morning, go into the kitchen, whip up a cup of coffee, and put a spoonful of white crystals into the liquid. I am now expecting my coffee to taste sweet because I assume it is sugar I added, and I also remember that sugar is sweet. Logically speaking, any of these subjective and internal expectations and inferences and assumptions COULD be mistaken; after all, someone could have put salt in the sugar bowl (accidentally or deliberately). Thus Actuality is everywhere ringed about by myriad possibilities. We expect the World to be stable and consistent and lawful, but we really have no direct and iron-clad evidence that the Cosmos must always and everywhere behave in an orderly fashion. Russell is quite right about this, but he also misses the point. Even if expectations and assumptions are only based on suppositions and probabilities, then that’s fine, and all to the greater good … as long as they work!
.
 You see, dear reader, it seems that Uncle Bertie has an odd flaw in his philosophy that encourages him to see Logic and Reason as being virtually synonymous, and thus almost indistinguishable, for they are basically one and the same thing. This is why Russell is unable to see that the justification for our assumptions and expectations lies chiefly in their utility. Thus I expect – no, I KNOW – that my coffee will be sweet, even before I taste it, because my “belief” that the world is an orderly place works. It works often, and it works consistently. But even more important than that is the knowledge that Reason is much more than merely Logic, Mathematics, and Science. Logic is essentially a useful and flexible tool that the rational person uses to gain clarity and precision in all his thinking. Mind & Reason are both supreme over Logic. But to say, along with Russell, that Logic is Supreme Over All is more than a little irrational, and perhaps even a wee bit illogical as well.
.

.
 I think that the main problem with Russell’s philosophy – at least in this small corner of it – is that he is perhaps just a little too eager to accommodate Philosophy to the needs and desires of Science. Consider for a moment Russell’s conception of History: it is basically just another special-science. It has special problems to solve, particular ideas and concepts to analyze and criticize, conclusions to reach, and explanations to offer by way of dispelling doubt, confusion, ignorance, and misunderstanding. But what if Russell’s vision of History is inadequate? What then? In order to find out, we must first take a quick peek at Philosophy’s relatively short history …
.
 Philosophy was born not so long ago along the northern shores of the Great Sea. It emerged at that point in time when history was just getting its own legs under it for the first time (as it were). Which simply means that civilization and language was then developed enough to start throwing off documents with some substance and quality and depth to them. Which also allowed thoughts to survive their original thinkers by way of a semi-independent existence of their own (by way of scrolls and pieces of papyrus). So, for example, you just get a bit of ink and add some little squiggly jots and marks (representing elements of the ancient Greek language) onto the surface of a sheet of papyrus, and you have just enabled a mind (ie. a philosophers mind) to transcend time and space! As long as that simple sheet of paper survives the ravages of ignorance and misfortune, that sheet has the potential to allow two minds to merge and mingle and interact. I do not think that I exaggerate much when I say that this particular invention is (next to fire, of course) the single greatest development in human history. For it not only gave philosophers (and everybody else too) a powerful new tool to transmit their thoughts with, but it also gave the ever-emerging process of rationalization a tremendous boost (more like a shocking jump-start, really).
.
 Thus Philosophy emerged out of the chaos and anarchy of the foggy mists of gray prehistory. Philosophy was ignorant and unruly, lacking direction and coherence; but shining insights were made nonetheless. Just a few centuries later, the Sophists were stymied by a bothersome anti-sophist named Socrates. His name is known today only because one of his students just happened to be not only a philosopher, but also a writer of considerable skill and genius. And it is in his writings (which have survived to the present) that Philosophy first finds a strong and relatively solid foundation upon which to build towards the future. And then – just a few years later – another student / writer / philosopher of equal talent and genius also began writing books that would stand the test of time. This man’s name was Aristotle, and he merely invented Science! And with both Aristotle and Plato backing up a small host of other philosophers, both before and after their unique generation, Philosophy became firmly implanted within civilization and culture and the historical process.
.

.
 And then came the Christians. For the first few centuries of the Common Era, many distinguished Christian writers and thinkers used and enjoyed the many traditional philosophies thriving within the Roman Empire. Christian theology was always heavily dependent upon the great and classic achievements of BCE (and even CE) Philosophy. Even today Aristotle and Aquinas remain a marriage made in heaven. On rare occasions some of these early Christian thinkers even contributed some worthy material to the ever-flexible Sophia. But then the Christians gained worldly and political power, and then their true nature gradually emerged. In a not so rare moment of madness they destroyed by fire the single greatest creation of human Mind & Spirit that was ever conceived *and* realized; namely, the still famous Library of Alexandria.
.
 Now Christians don’t brag much about this anymore, and their scholars don’t make much out of this particular embarrassment, of course, but for Philosophy it was a shattering body-blow! After that tragic disaster Philosophy was soon declared unfit for ‘the Kingdom of God’, arbitrarily labeled a heretic, and then tightly wrapped in chains. And as if all that wasn’t enough indignity suffered by this fair and noble young virgin, She was then dishonored yet again. She was made a slave, and forced to labor exclusively for the theologians and priests. They were harsh and brutal masters who also enjoyed beating up on Her helpless, and already bruised and battered, spirit. Such is the nature of priests and theologians; parasites feeding forever on Her life and energy. But at least they did one thing right; and that was to *preserve* those necessary documents that gave Philosophy its passion and direction and purpose and spirit.
.

.
 And then, a few centuries later, blessed relief in the form of the new Arab / Islam civilization. They not only preserved and copied those most special documents, they actually went one step further and contributed new material to Philosophy; chiefly, but not exclusively, by way of commentaries and studies on the old Greek scrolls and books. And then, another surprise: more blessed relief! This time in the form of the Renaissance; when all these new and old books and documents moved west and north, deeper and deeper into the heart of Europe in the Middle Ages. And what would that bring in its wake? Sophia had no idea, and little hope that her now-feeble powers could influence the dark minds of the semi-civilized half-barbarians that called Europe their land and home. Yet something seemed to spark a fire in the most unlikely place. Soon after the great Renaissance awakening another major development occurred: the invention of the printing press. And that revolutionary technology changed everything! In Europe it allowed for the Reformation to emerge and explode new ideas and new ways of thinking all across Europe, sweeping aside international borders as if they were nothing.
.
 And soon after all that, Philosophy finally threw off Her heavy chains of menial servitude and degradation, and began (at long last) seeking Her own way once again. And then along came Rene Descartes, and thus modern philosophy emerged all fresh and new, and very much still wet-behind-the-ears (and bottom). But now Sophia had a new purpose, and a new identity, and baby, Her new-found freedom tasted very sweet after Her centuries-long torture and imprisonment. Philosophers soon began sprouting up all over the place, like mushrooms after a warm and refreshing summer rain. Hume, Kant, Hegel, and many other distinguished names (not to mention the multitudes of their spiritual offspring), added more depth and substance to Philosophy before, during, and after the so-called Enlightenment. And it is their combined heritage, along with the Ancient and Medieval ones, that makes Philosophy what She is for the current 21st century generation.
.

.
 And yet here Russell serenely sits in my room, casually smoking his pipe, calmly carrying on the noble tradition of Aristotle & Descartes. In the Past, Philosophy was forced to be the handmaiden of theology (the self-proclaimed Queen of All-Knowledge); but now Russell would have Sophia willingly shackle Herself to dry and near-sighted Science, and to basically make Her a slave to said Science, just as She was before a slave to the Churches. This is chiefly because Russell sees no alternative path for Philosophy; no third direction or option for Her to take. Slavery on this hand, and a worse slavery on the other hand! For Russell there can be no other way. Philosophy is that human enterprise that is forever caught midway between Science and Theology. … But Russell is wrong! There IS a third path for Philosophy: the path of sapience. Gathering knowledge is all fine and well and good; but it is simply not enough for our beloved and strong Sophia.
.
 Philosophy was birthed out of the semi-barbaric wisdom of the ancient Greeks, and woe unto any who would dare deny Her the rightful heritage that belongs to Her, and Her alone. Yes, Philosophy must be tentative and provisional. Yes, Philosophy must always learn and seek after knowledge. But She must also teach and lead and show the People the way out of the darkness of superstition and ignorance. Learning without teaching is pointless, futile, and irrational. Moreover, it is counter-productive, and about as un-utilitarian as it can get. So if Russell’s ‘outline of philosophy’ fails the test of Utility AND also fails the test of History, then it is surely safe to say that the current popular paradigm of philosophy is erroneous, misleading, and flawed to the core! If Sophia discards Her honor and duty to show the masses the way to the right path (leading to wisdom and liberty), then who, pray tell, will? Will Mr Russell abandon the People to the whims and caprice of Religion and Faith in all non-scientific matters? Why? What is Faith if not a means of providing false confidence in false knowledge? Yet perhaps Russell is indeed willing to abandon them; this despite the fact that Sophia is NOT meant to be exclusively married to a small elitist group of high-brow scientific specialists.
.
 No indeed. Philosophy is of the People, by the People, and most especially FOR the People! If She isn’t that, or refuses to be that, then Philosophy may indeed have purpose and direction, but She will have failed to do the right thing. She will have failed in Her true purpose; which is to serve as a vehicle and engine to advance the entire process of the Rationalization of human history by promoting and increasing rational thinking in ALL human beings, regardless of their status or station. Russell is himself aware that Reason must grow and spread everywhere. Near the end of this same chapter that we have been here criticizing, Russell lets slip his hope: “And even if we cannot be completely rational, we should probably all be the better for becoming somewhat more rational than we are. At the lowest estimate, it will be an interesting adventure to see whither reason will lead us” (11).
.

.
 Now the key issue regarding all of these much touted philosophic doubts – from Descartes and Hume to Kant and Russell – is the question of confidence. Certainty, logic, suppositions and assumptions, inferences and inductions, expectations and probabilities, deductions and conclusions, observations and perceptions, and so on and so forth ad-nauseum …  are all of them SECONDARY issues. If Descartes had been more attuned to the simple and direct primacy of confidence, he would not have been so eager to dismiss the senses for being too illogical and unreliable. One almost suspects that he did it just so that he could then get on with the important business of electing Reason to be Supreme, and then spending much time and energy on discussing the existence and actions of gods and demons! If it is illogical to use Logic in order to undermine Reason, then it is equally silly to say that because our memories and senses are obviously imperfect (and thus our confidence as well) it is wrong (somehow) to place our trust in the (supposed) veracity of the Cosmos; and must therefore doubt everything, because that’s the logical thing to do. Well, it may indeed be the logical thing to do, but it most *certainly* isn’t the sensible thing to do. No, the sensible thing to do is to kick Logic off of its exalted pedestal, put a ‘this is a tool’ label on it, and then stick it in the toolbox, right between Mathematics and Science.
.
 So Russell built a fine and useful system of philosophy (out of logic) that is ruthlessly geared toward the acquisition of knowledge. And yet it never does anything with that knowledge (other than to analyze and categorize it), because *that* is not philosophy’s function, and has nothing to do with philosophy as such! By thus draining History & Philosophy of all its non-scientific utility, Russell has unintentionally impoverished History of its meaning, and Philosophy of its true value to the lives and minds of ordinary people. Philosophy thus becomes the exclusive preserve of technocrats and academics. So it all comes down to a few simple questions, really, that all of us are called to answer in our own minds: Do we want Philosophy to be forever in the service of Science? Or do we want Philosophy to be forever in the service of Reason and Liberty? Do we make Philosophy a passionless slave of the intellectual elite? Or do we make Sophia a willing and happy servant of the People?
.
Welcome to Century-21 …
Right back where we started! …
"The goal of philosophy is not to know the world,
but rather to put men on the right path." - Heraclitus
.
But now Sophia is new *and* improved . . . 
.

.
 Well and good! Let us now make a short list of those things that we can now consider as having passed the test of *reasonable* doubt:
.
1.  Awareness is ... happening                                                                        [observation]
2.  This awareness exists here                                                                        [observation]
3.  This awareness exists now                                                                        [observation]
4.  This awareness is called mind                                                                     [observation]
5.  Something must exist because awareness is happening                                [supposition]
6.  I exist because I am this mind and/or awareness                          [assumption/conclusion]
7.  This awareness is a part of something larger that is not-awareness                [supposition]
8.  This not-awareness is called world (or cosmos)                                            [observation]
9.  All that I know of this world here and now is what I am aware of
. . . here and now (eg. space, time, motion, objects, etc)                                   [observation]
10. A major part of all that I am aware of is what my senses tell me
. . . about myself and the world around me.                                      [assumption/conclusion]
11. Therefore I am aware of many things in and around me. Some of
. . . these things are tangible or material or constant or undeniable, while
. . . other things are intangible or fleeting or hard to grasp onto.                        [observation]
12. Moreover, I-philosopher am a mixture of some of these many different
. . . things that I am aware of. I am a unity or harmony of mind and body
. . . and will and spirit; being what is commonly called a human person.                 [conclusion]
.
 All of this seems to me to be quite beyond my power to (responsibly and sensibly) doubt; even though I do not yet know with certainty why or how I am or why or how the world is. *That* I am is certain. That the world of which I am aware is real is *also* certain. If reality is made up of all those things that cannot be doubted, all those things that have a measure of certainty, then its safe to say that reality's two chief components are myself and the world around me. All else must be built upon these foundations, or else risk falling to the ravages of doubt and uncertainty.
.

.
 But wait! Just what is this human person entity that I so easily call myself? Awareness is. This awareness is clearly a large part of who and what I am. Who I am has a name, textman, for I am but one person among many. What I am is an awareness with a name; a focused awareness, a directed awareness, a willed awareness. Thus this awareness is also activity and process; it is a coming from, and a going to. Therefore this awareness is a point of dynamic life. All this is direct and obvious and undeniable, and so beyond a reasonable doubt. And all this also means that this awareness (and its source) are entities of a very mysterious and complex nature. What is it? Is it really just a tiny point of rational awareness composed of sensations and impressions and thoughts brought about by the process of intentional perception housed within a handful of brain tissue encased within the skull of an animal that journey's through time and space and life upright on two legs, and sees the world all around it by way of two small and round optical organs (and a few secondary senses on the side) that are driven by a highly intangible force we call mind?!
.

.
 When we ask what this named-awareness is exactly, it seems that textman is a strange creature called a philosopher; and a philosopher is a human-type person composed of two parts, mind and body, that function together as an inseparable unity. A philosopher is also different from other persons in that a philosopher does things that other people normally don't do; such as doubt everything, reason about things incessantly, and irrationally demand that the multi-verse provide him with the satisfaction of perfect certainty to consume in great quantities. Anyway, the body portion of this philosopher person is certainly certain enough to escape from any reasonable doubt. Here it is sitting in this chair. It has two legs, two arms, a trunk with a head (partially attached), and two hands on the end there which I am currently keeping occupied with the loathsome task of typing letters and words upon this keyboard and into the file that contains this essay. You can't get certainty any more perfect than that! But the Mind, that ‘Great House of Reason’ that Descartes took be the sole arbiter of all Reality ... well, this intangible entity is not nearly so easy to grasp as the body is. I certainly can't see it, or smell it, or touch it, or hear it, or taste it; but it's obviously right there ... I mean right *here!* That is, inside my rather hastily evolved brains; which is only to say that self-awareness appears to be processed in the superior frontal gyrus ... :)
.

.
 Awareness is. I am a creature that observes and reasons. I am, therefore I think. I think, therefore I reason. I reason because it is my nature and function to reason. I have a will to reason. I see and accept the value and primacy of reason (although its supremacy is rather more doubtful). I recognize and acknowledge the utility and importance of rational thinking. I think logical and rational thoughts, therefore I am a philosopher. Rational thinking is the substance, goal, and method of philosophy. The process or enterprise of philosophy is to increase rational thinking in everyone, and in doing so to answer our doubts and confusion, and even perhaps to constantly push back the difficult and fluid boundaries of doubt. I am, therefore awareness is. I am aware that I am observing and thinking, and reasoning about those observations and thoughts. I am also an awareness that is intentional and willful. I am an awareness that is willfully rational (albeit more than a little irrational as well). That I am a willfully rational creature composed of awareness and consciousness and sapience is surely beyond all reasonable doubt.
.
 That the world is also willfully rational is not; or, at least, it is not as immediately obvious. In other words, while my rational nature and intent cannot be doubted, the world's rational nature and intent is not nearly as apparent, and therefore can be doubted (to some extent). Indeed, we have plenty of room to doubt whether or not the ultimate nature of the cosmos is rational and/or benevolent. This is all the more so the case when we realize that we are imperfectly rational at best, and that we are capable of doubting not only our thoughts and sensations (along with all the data that these provide), but also our reasoning and logic as well. Doubt is just as much a part of philosophy as logic; but Descartes and Russell (and indeed most committed skeptics) put too much stock in doubt, and consequently take it to unhealthy (and irrational) extremes!
.

.
 Awareness is. I am, therefore I reason. I am, therefore I doubt. I am, therefore I think and feel and observe and reason and doubt and question. Clearly I am aware of many things. I am aware of sensations and feelings and thoughts. Through these I am aware of myself and the world around me. I am aware of many things in myself; such as life, mind, reason, will, idea, intention, perception, and so on. I am also aware of many things in the world around me; such as time and space, movement through space-time, various particular material objects (such as this piece of wax here), and so and so forth. Because I am aware of all these various entities (both tangible and intangible), I am forced to become aware of a prime feature of the cosmos, namely complexity. Reality is complex. The cosmos is complex. The world, even just my little part of the world, is complex. Awareness is complex. Reason is complex. Personality is *very* complex. Hell, even doubt itself is complex; for doubt can be sometimes rational, sometimes irrational, and sometimes irrational doubt can appear to be rational, and even sometimes perfectly logical. Descartes was demanding mathematical precision and clarity in his favorite brand of certainty, but it is complexity that greets the philosopher (first, last, and always), not certainty. It is complexity that reigns supreme throughout the cosmos. And complexity, because it is the very opposite of simplicity, makes the noble quest for perfect certainty a very problematic proposition at best.
.
 I am. I am aware that because the cosmos is complex, simple and certain knowledge is necessarily limited in both scope and content. I am thus aware that doubt has plenty of room in which to maneuver about the place; but I am also aware that Reason is our best and strongest tool for pushing back the encroachments of illogical, emotional,  and unreasonable doubts. Thus while it seemed reasonable to Descartes to doubt the reliability of the senses (because of the nonsensical quality of the data received during the wax experiment), we can clearly see that his doubt was actually irrational simply because he failed to take complexity into account. Wax is neither illogical nor irrational; it is simply what it is, namely, yet another complex entity in a very complex Reality.
.

.
 Now that we have established that the satisfaction of perfect certainty sought by Descartes and Russell (and so many other philosophers before and after them) is practically impossible (except to a very limited extent), we must ask what this particular certainty means. Does it mean that philosophy itself is impossible? I am not certain, of course, but it seems to me somewhat unreasonable to just arbitrarily conclude that it must be so. That at least is something we can build some solid foundations upon. First Principles: always start where the confidence is at! And we can add to this another conclusion derived from all these philosophical meditations; and that is the inadequacy of Logic & Science alone to generate ALL true knowledge. Most of what we know about ourselves and the world around us comes from our own unique and personal observations *and* intuitions (of our own unique and personal worlds) based upon these perceptions generated by our 'will-powered' senses, and then filtered through our minds, and *then* packaged into words and concepts (when, if, and as necessary) so that they can then be transmitted to other minds through language by way of philosophical literature (which transcends time and space in ways that men themselves can't).
.
 Of course, every element of this complex process needs to be carefully scrutinized and analyzed and thoroughly understood before we can properly address our more philosophical and abstract questions and doubts. At the very least it must be understood that perception itself is not a simple thing, but rather a complex and intentional and dynamic activity generated by a living mind such that any adequate awareness of reality as a whole requires both forms of perception (ie. the mind's eye = intuition and intellect) working together, both individually and in harmony. And if cosmos, mind, personality, the social construction of reality, etc, are all complex entities-in-process, why cannot philosophy be likewise? And if indeed we find that Sophia is still truly the rich and noble Lady that She always was, then clearly there is still plenty of room within Philosophy (and even without it too) for Reason and Wisdom. Indeed, no philosophy can claim to be complete without them. So if the working philosopher cannot meet the challenge of Cosmic-Complexity, then perhaps he ought to pack it up and consider a new line of work. :D
x

---

textman
*