Is the world "intelligible"?

[Qoeleth]

It is often said that the world is “intelligible”. It is in the sense that same physical laws are consistently maintained, that there is a continuity and predictability of matter, time, etc. In other words, it can be described by rational science…

But there also seem to be many elements of non-intelligibility. For example, why bad things happen to good people, etc.

I wonder if it would be fair to say that the world is “physically intelligible”, but “morally unintelligible” (maybe “morally” is not the right word here). But it seems wrong to describe the world as entirely intelligible, when things happen which cannot be explained in rational terms, and which seem to lack moral justification, or ‘justice’.

 

[STT]

It is often said that the world is “intelligible”.

Yes.

It is in the sense that same physical laws are consistently maintained, that there is a continuity and predictability of matter, time, etc. In other words, it can be described by rational science…

Or it is also good to say that physical laws are underlying of reality. We don’t know if the world needs a maintainer.

But there also seem to be many elements of non-intelligibility. For example, why bad things happen to good people, etc.

Could you please be more specific?

I wonder if it would be fair to say that the world is “physically intelligible”, but “morally unintelligible” (maybe “morally” is not the right word here).

That is part of intelligibility to sometimes go against morality.

But it seems wrong to describe the world as entirely intelligible, when things happen which cannot be explained in rational terms, and which seem to lack moral justification, or ‘justice’.

I think you are mixing perfection with intelligibility. An intelligible world moves toward perfection because it is not perfect.

 

[GEddie]

I’d say the world is intelligible, but not within the pitifully short duration of our embodiments.

We barely learn to use our heads before the blood drains from them. How can we expect to gain any wisdom or knowledge whatsoever??

ICXC NIKA

 

[Aloysium]

Everything is not only intelligible but the truth obvious when God is at the centre of one’s understanding, with prayer, contemplation of what has been revealed and the putting into practice the truth that is Love.

Gazing into the eternal mystery of Existence, the shattering of illusion and the breaking of our hold on transitory goods ensues as It gazes back into our soul, an endless void, evoking all the anxieties that come to creatures dreaming they are gods of power, believing themselves the source of truth.

The rules that we invent using our God-given mathematical abilities help us understand the world organized according to that sort of structure. To know beauty, goodness, love, being itself, one needs to open one’s heart. What we are doing making these sort of considerations requires a different type of thinking than that required to describe relationships between quantities.

 

[e_c]

Where there is confusion, there has been understanding.

 

[EnosJadon]

It is often said that the world is “intelligible”. It is in the sense that same physical laws are consistently maintained, that there is a continuity and predictability of matter, time, etc. In other words, it can be described by rational science…

But there also seem to be many elements of non-intelligibility. For example, why bad things happen to good people, etc.

Actually, if you make just one small assumption, then the world becomes perfectly “intelligible”. The bad things that happen to good people become perfectly understandable. The discord that exists within humanity becomes reasonable. And the conflict between doctrines becomes rational. In fact, every nuance of the world becomes intelligible if you make just one small assumption.

Unfortunately, people are afraid to make that assumption. And that assumption is, that solipsism is right. That the world wasn’t created by a benevolent God, it was created by me. The world is the way it is, because the mind can’t imagine anything else. The mind must exist in a world that explains what it is, and where it came from. So the mind creates its own reality, and in so doing it necessarily creates everything else. It creates evil, because it has to. It creates life and death, because it has to. It creates God, because it has to.

And it has to, because it can never ultimately explain where it came from. But in its struggle to explain where it came from, it creates a world that encompasses every possible explanation for where it came from. And it does this because it doesn’t know which one is right. It creates religion, and metaphysics, and science, and evolution, and the big bang. All in an effort to explain the existence of itself. Everything about the world logically follows from the simple realization that I am. And from the overarching need to explain what I am, and where I came from.

Reconciling a benevolent God with an inhumane world is one of the most difficult tasks for a theist. But for a solipsist, the explanation is simple. The world is the way it is because the “I am” is struggling to rationalize “Why I am”.

The world is the way it is, because I am.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, if you make just one small assumption, then the world becomes perfectly “intelligible”. The bad things that happen to good people become perfectly understandable. The discord that exists within humanity becomes reasonable. And the conflict between doctrines becomes rational. In fact, every nuance of the world becomes intelligible if you make just one small assumption.

Unfortunately, people are afraid to make that assumption. And that assumption is, that solipsism is right. That the world wasn’t created by a benevolent God, it was created by me. The world is the way it is, because the mind can’t imagine anything else. The mind must exist in a world that explains what it is, and where it came from. So the mind creates its own reality, and in so doing it necessarily creates everything else. It creates evil, because it has to. It creates life and death, because it has to. It creates God, because it has to.

And it has to, because it can never ultimately explain where it came from. But in its struggle to explain where it came from, it creates a world that encompasses every possible explanation for where it came from. And it does this because it doesn’t know which one is right. It creates religion, and metaphysics, and science, and evolution, and the big bang. All in an effort to explain the existence of itself. Everything about the world logically follows from the simple realization that I am. And from the overarching need to explain what I am, and where I came from.

Reconciling a benevolent God with an inhumane world is one of the most difficult tasks for a theist. But for a solipsist, the explanation is simple. The world is the way it is because the “I am” is struggling to rationalize “Why I am”.

If the world is the way it is because the “I am” is struggling to rationalize “Why I am” it doesn’t make sense to distinguish the world from “I” because only “I” exist! And it doesn’t make sense to communicate with others who don’t exist. A true solipsist remains silent in a solitary existence without participating in a forum discussing other points of view…

 

[tonyrey]

It is often said that the world is “intelligible”. It is in the sense that same physical laws are consistently maintained, that there is a continuity and predictability of matter, time, etc. In other words, it can be described by rational science…

But there also seem to be many elements of non-intelligibility. For example, why bad things happen to good people, etc.

I wonder if it would be fair to say that the world is “physically intelligible”, but “morally unintelligible” (maybe “morally” is not the right word here). But it seems wrong to describe the world as entirely intelligible, when things happen which cannot be explained in rational terms, and which seem to lack moral justification, or ‘justice’.

The world is not entirely physically intelligible because there is an unpredictable element of chance within the sequence of events. It is certainly morally unintelligible in that free will makes it impossible to predict human behaviour precisely. Yet it is morally intelligible with regard to “poetic justice”, Karma and Nemesis. Our virtues bring their own reward and our vices incur their own punishment. Pride often leads to a person’s downfall because it alienates others whereas humility is more realistic and acceptable. In the long run it doesn’t pay to be evil because it is fundamentally negative and self-destructive. In this world, of course, much injustice is never rectified but how can it be otherwise when our lives are relatively short? The world is certainly intelligible enough to justify belief in a divine Father who gives us the immensely precious gifts of life and love.

 

[EnosJadon]

If the world is the way it is because the “I am” is struggling to rationalize “Why I am” it doesn’t make sense to distinguish the world from “I” because only “I” exist!

It makes sense for a couple of reasons.

One, The concept of “I” doesn’t make sense without the concept of the “non-I”. Just as the concept of “Up” doesn’t make sense without the concept of “Down”, and the concept of “Hot” doesn’t make sense without the concept of “Cold”. Things gain their objectivity in relation to something else.

Two, to assume that I am all that exists, is to assume the irrational position that I caused myself. As Aquinas so aptly pointed out, nothing can cause itself. Therefore the mind must assume something other than the “I”, caused the “I” to exist. But what? And what caused that? Was it God? Or was it naturalism? The mind can’t possibly know, and so the reality that the mind creates incorporates them both. Along with the discord that such uncertainty inevitably creates.

It may be this struggle to rationalize the irrational that creates a world in which the irrationality of man often takes precedence over the humanity of man.

And it doesn’t make sense to communicate with others who don’t exist.

Ah, but it makes absolutely perfect sense. For if this is a world of my own creating, then no one can change it but me. And I can’t change it, by ignoring it. For better or worse, the world is all that I have. And so I can either do what you suggest, and ignore it, or I can do the nobler thing, and try to change it. Right or wrong, success or failure, I think that I’ll be far happier for having tried to change it.

A true solipsist remains silent in a solitary existence without participating in a forum discussing other points of view…

A true solipsist understands that as far as I know, the world is all that I’ll ever have. And that makes it a very precious thing. It would be foolish indeed, to ignore it. I have no way of knowing for certain, what created it. And I have no way of knowing if I can truly change it. But I do know that I’ll be a better person for trying.

 

[tonyrey]

It makes sense for a couple of reasons.

One, The concept of “I” doesn’t make sense without the concept of the “non-I”. Just as the concept of “Up” doesn’t make sense without the concept of “Down”, and the concept of “Hot” doesn’t make sense without the concept of “Cold”. Things gain their objectivity in relation to something else.

Two, to assume that I am all that exists, is to assume the irrational position that I caused myself. As Aquinas so aptly pointed out, nothing can cause itself. Therefore the mind must assume something other than the “I”, caused the “I” to exist. But what? And what caused that? Was it God? Or was it naturalism? The mind can’t possibly know, and so the reality that the mind creates incorporates them both. Along with the discord that such uncertainty inevitably creates.

It may be this struggle to rationalize the irrational that creates a world in which the irrationality of man often takes precedence over the humanity of man.

Ah, but it makes absolutely perfect sense. For if this is a world of my own creating, then no one can change it but me. And I can’t change it, by ignoring it. For better or worse, the world is all that I have. And so I can either do what you suggest, and ignore it, or I can do the nobler thing, and try to change it. Right or wrong, success or failure, I think that I’ll be far happier for having tried to change it.

A true solipsist understands that as far as I know, the world is all that I’ll ever have. And that makes it a very precious thing. It would be foolish indeed, to ignore it. I have no way of knowing for certain, what created it. And I have no way of knowing if I can truly change it. But I do know that I’ll be a better person for trying.

I’m glad you admit you “assume the irrational position” you caused yourself. Most of your statements imply you’re not the sole person or thing that exists and I cannot understand why you bother to communicate with non-existent beings. If we are all figments of your imagination we should remain silent and not disturb your splendid isolation! Then you will realise what it’s really like to be a solipsist…

 

[GEddie]

I am not afraid to adopt solipsism.

I can’t do so, because it does not make sense.

If all the world I have known were generated by my own mind, there is JUST NO WAY I would have gone through all the failure and hurt I have had.

QED!!!

ICXC NIKA

 

[EnosJadon]

I cannot understand why you bother to communicate with non-existent beings.

The question the solipsist asks, isn’t IF you exist, but HOW you exist.

 

[EnosJadon]

I am not afraid to adopt solipsism.

I can’t do so, because it does not make sense.

It’s a curious thing, how we choose what makes sense. How one person can look at the world and see evidence for God, while another, similarly rational person can’t. Why do people see what they see? And why do they believe so passionately that they’re right?

Solipsism, at its core, isn’t about where reality comes from, it’s about the conscious mind’s inability to ever be certain of where reality comes from. It’s not about disproving the existence of the world, or of you, or even of God, it’s about accepting the limits of what one can ever truly know about them. Ultimately, solipsism isn’t about the nature of you, it’s about the nature of the conscious mind, and what it can and cannot know.

People identify themselves, and divide themselves, by what they believe to be true. Seemingly disregarding the possibility that what they so vehemently believe, might be wrong. So what I’m suggesting isn’t that you need to accept the alternative explanation of reality that solipsism proposes, but rather that you recognize that within solipsism is a kernel of truth from which you cannot escape. That what you currently believe, might be wrong.

It’s an odd thing, but what I’ve found is that the vast majority of Christians, indeed the vast majority of most people of faith, cannot accept the possibility that they might not be right. Or at least they’re unwilling to admit it. And I think that that’s one of the greatest sources of discord in the world, that people are unwilling, or perhaps afraid, to admit that they might be wrong.

I think the greatest virtue of a solipsist, is that the only thing that they’re certain of, is just how little that they’re certain of.

If all the world I have known were generated by my own mind, there is JUST NO WAY I would have gone through all the failure and hurt I have had.

That which the mind creates may be just as much a result of what it fears is true, as what it hopes is true.

 

[tonyrey]

The question the solipsist asks, isn’t IF you exist, but HOW you exist.

Solipsism is the theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

If the world is the way it is because the “I am” is struggling to rationalize “Why I am” it doesn’t make sense to distinguish the world from “I” because only “I” exist! And it doesn’t make sense to communicate with others who don’t exist. A true solipsist remains silent in a solitary existence without participating in a forum discussing other points of view…

 

[EnosJadon]

Solipsism is the theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

Quite true, but how does one define the self? And all that can be known to exist, doesn’t necessarily encompass all that does exist. Thus the tricky part, is trying to discern the latter, from the former. And being wise enough to know when you can’t.

 

[GEddie]

Ultimately, solipsism isn’t about the nature of you, it’s about the nature of the conscious mind, and what it can and cannot know.

In fact, it is the nature of you, because the “you” is a conscious mind wrapped in a sustaining body, said body anchored to the biological world.

ICXC NIKA

 

[EnosJadon]

In fact, it is the nature of you, because the “you” is a conscious mind wrapped in a sustaining body, said body anchored to the biological world

Of course there’s no way of knowing if that’s true. Whether I possess an actual physical body or not. If I remember my Catholicism correctly, then consciousness doesn’t require a physical source. It’s the soul that’s the ultimate source of both consciousness and reasoning. According to Catholicism consciousness is temporarily “anchored” to its current biological body, but that body isn’t necessary for consciousness.

So it would seem that even Catholicism acknowledges that consciousness can exist absent a physical source.

 

[tonyrey]

Quite true, but how does one define the self? And all that can be known to exist, doesn’t necessarily encompass all that does exist. Thus the tricky part, is trying to discern the latter, from the former. And being wise enough to know when you can’t.

I don’t believe the self is definable because “define” means “to impose limits” and we don’t know what our intangible limits are (assuming they exist!). The mind is mysterious but so is physical energy because we don’t know how it originated.

 

[GEddie]

I don’t believe the self is definable because “define” means “to impose limits” and we don’t know what our intangible limits are (assuming they exist!). The mind is mysterious but so is physical energy because we don’t know how it originated.

Define an intangible limit, first of all.

I’d say that however, “self” in human life includes the human body, which includes some well known limits.

A being dependent upon a limited support (the human body) is per se limited, even if there are no “intangible” limits. Tangible and intangible intersect.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

Define an intangible limit, first of all.