A couple of ideas that didn't pan out
May 25, 2022•548 words
Title: Why "humans"
Content: I originally used quotation marks around references to mankind as a collective species in order to highlight that humanity isn't very homogeneous and that ideas of unity behind us as a species wouldn't pan out. But then I realized there is a rigorous definition of humans: taxonomy. Furthermore, the intraspecies differences wasn't being compared to another species' internal differences. Although, other species aren't unified nor really seem to have a chance at unity. I need to reevaluate this idea of pride in one's species in the context of my new philosophy. I used to firmly believe in the ability of mankind to unite as a species because of our binary free-will. The idea of egalitarianism also was an influence as in this society with "species-alism", every human would be equal. Thus I saw this as a way of coordinating mankind's abilities for collective good in a practical way: by appealing to people's need for a sense of identity with pride in humanity. I also thought this would ensure world peace, as there would be no difference fundamental enough between people to justify war. Nowadays, I'm not so sure this could work since my philosophy assumes inequality.
Title: An Issue with Language
Original Draft: All language is based on emotion. First we can note that language depends on communication to convey meaning, but one can also ask what that message means ab infinitum. Therefore not all meaning have a rational definition (as asking what it means is rational), thus we must be accepting, thoughtlessly, something as the basis of our definitions. These are either emotions or ideas generated by free-will. Clearly when we are first created as babies, we are in the physical world. Since our brain, the memory device, was just made, we have no memories. Thus the first memories (which allow meaning to be defined in) must be from the physical world, i.e. emotional, or be metaphysical, i.e. from free-will. The former possibility would imply that empathy is near impassible as the physical world differs, resulting in differing emotions upon which meaning is formed.
Content: I was thinking about the Münchhausen Trilemma [1] and how humans must obviously have picked a horn of it, and concluded that we chose the dogmatic solution. I thought that since everyone starts out with a blank slate that is only impacted by the physical world, emotions must form the basis of everything you know. Thus fully understanding someone else would also require understanding the first principles that their language was defined in, the emotions. But this is impossible because of the difference in developmental stage, timing, and impossibility of encapsulating/replicating the conditions that they formed those emotions in. I didn't expand on this because I realized that the free-will I postulate exists implies that emotions isn't necessarily the basis of our language. Instead it is possible that the free-will is giving us a TRUE principle to begin with, and since the truth is universal, everyone could start with the same definitions for language.
I did this to show that I'm not infallible in my beliefs, the benefit of blogging (I didn't realize the flaws in the beliefs above until I sat down to type about it), and help others with the beliefs above dissuade them.