Today I am feeling analytical and heady. I figure I would try and add my toonie to Immanuel Kant's thoughts and see where I lie in how he sees some pretty major issues that often plague people today. Let's play with antinomies. An Antinomy: Contradiction, Paradox or Mind Twisting Conundrum.
Kant described four antinomies. Two "mathematical" and two “dynamical”:
1. Whether the universe has a beginning
2. Whether objects consist of indivisible atoms
3. Whether there is free will
4. Whether there is a God
In each of these, he attempts to demonstrate that pure reason can be used to bring to opposite positions, thus pure reason is not equipped to help us grasp reality as it is in itself, for he believes that ultimate reality could not be contradictory.
The first antinomy (of space and time)
• Thesis:
◦ The world has a beginning in time, and is limited in terms of space
• Anti-thesis:
◦ The world has no beginning, and no limits in space
I see two camps, each with their own flags. I can understand why each camp needs their flags. Maybe the flags are different designs and colours, but they reflect the character of the members of that camp. This isn't a "pick one or else" decision. It is a wrestling with the possibility that both are right and both are wrong or "right and wrong" doesn't even apply here. This doesn't have much to do with morals in my understanding. Beliefs aren't right or wrong... they are just interpretations of the data given. Maybe the actions that arise out of those beliefs can be labeled as right (or helpful to the common good of humanity ) or wrong (unhelpful to the common good of humanity). The beliefs in and of themselves are just beliefs and benign for the most part.
I think there are three ways to look at the whole question of the beginning of the cosmos.... It began, it was always been there or "That's above my pay grade to even try to formulate an opinion." The third is really resting in the unknown. That is a valid position to hold. That is the only free place for me to camp. The other two options require more answers that I am ready to provide at this time in my life.
The second antinomy (of atomism)
• Thesis:
◦ Every composite substance in the world is made up of simple parts, and nothing anywhere exists save the simple or what is composed of the simple
• Anti-thesis:
◦ No composite thing in the world is made up of simple parts, and there nowhere exists in the world anything simple
Okay... out of all four conundrums, this one is my favourite to embrace. I realize that believing that I am made up of particles and atoms may require me to prove it. Sorry... I don't possess a microscope that can see my cells, never mind my atoms. But I like the story and people smarter than me have figured it out. I think my whole world experience tells me that everything is made up of smaller parts. That is just how it works. Everything can be broken down into parts. So why not go smaller than the parts all the way to particles. Why not believe that some of those particles can go back 17.8 billion years. I find that attractive, romantic and downright poetic. It's not a stretch for me to embrace that. I have as much evidence for atoms as I have for the beginning of the universe... but atoms... they make sense.
The third antinomy (of spontaneity and causal determinism)
• Thesis:
◦ Causality in accordance with laws of nature is not the only causality from
which the appearances of the world can one and all be derived. To explain these appearances it is necessary to assume that there is also another causality, that of Spontaneity
◦ There is no Spontaneity; everything in the world takes place solely in accordance with laws of nature
Free will. I figure this has to be on the top ten of contentious conundrums to contend with. I was that kid that believed that as soon as I was an adult, I was free to do whatever I wanted. No more restrictions from parents, teachers or other adults in my life. Now that I am in my higher fifties... I can understand that one's freedom diminishes over time. Maybe your parents aren't the restriction anymore, but the world introduces an abundance of obstacles that restrict freedom and the ability to express your will in any given moment.
Today, I would like to go for a drive. The six inches of snow that dropped yesterday pose a problem for me. My conundrum is this... "Is it safe for me to drive over two hours today with just my all-season tires?" It's only 7:32 and I don't have to decide in this moment. But I don't think free will has anything to do with my decision to go out today. I would like to be at the destination. That is my will today. But am I free to do it without the risk of consequences? Nope. So maybe it's not a will that is free. Every decision costs something. Every choice has it's risks whether those risks are known at the time of the decision's execution or not.
Do I have free will? Nothing is free. That is the lesson that time and experience teaches a person.
• Anti-thesis:
The fourth antinomy (of necessary being or not)
• Thesis:
◦ There belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, a being that is absolutely necessary
• Anti-thesis:
◦ An absolutely necessary being nowhere exists in the world, nor does it exist outside the world as its cause
Labels are so tricky. Put a label on something and that label now communicates to the world what you intend it to mean. NOT! The only thing a label does is enact a person's own understanding of how they see that thing that has that label. Thus my dislike for labels.
What is "being"? The statement put the "an" in front indicating that it is referring to a noun. Something. Some Thing. So the question is... is Some Thing necessary to make this existence exist? I think Some Thing is necessary... but the jury is out on what that Some Thing is. Just like it takes two humans to make one human, I will surmise that it takes Some Thing to make something, even the universe. Again... the details and the data are beyond my pay grade.
If the beginning of everything was the Big Bang... I can still call that Some Thing. But what I won't call it is a "Being". I won't give it any more character or life than it came with. It is Some Thing and that is as far as I'm willing to take that story.
Peter Rollins / Ruby Neumann
Here's another "Crash Course" on Philosophy. I like this guy. He makes this stuff rather interesting.
Kant and Categorical Imperatives.
