Some
disclaimers to start with: I do not know how to reach truth. Indeed, I would
miss it even if it hit me on the head.
This
post is a response to the consistent claim of one of my friends that truth is
beyond science. To tell the truth, I have no problems with that. But, if it is
delivered in a tone of condescension, “Science cannot know truth, and if it
does not know even that and continues to claim that it is the truth, then God
help science, like Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what
they are doing,’” well, I may have something to say on that.
Interpreting
the Russian novelist Mikhail Bulgakov, my friend says that [1], “[T]ruth is an
imaginative and compassionate understanding of reality.” And, “[I]t is not a
philosophical and scientific understanding.” I have problems with both these
statements. One, the interpretation implies that truth, which is based on
imagination and compassion, is subjective. If truth be equated to ultimate reality
as implied in, “the truth or (my
emphasis) the ultimate reality,” ultimate reality itself is subjective. That
is, the ultimate may not really be ultimate; indeed, the last human being who
dies will be the definer of truth as he will be the undisputed definer of
ultimate reality. All the other definitions are provisional.
I
understand that the above line of argument, based on philosophy and logic, is
in violation of the second statement which claims that truth cannot be
ascertained through such efforts. But, in the absence of these, how else can
truth be identified? Turn to Keats, my friend says: “Beauty is truth, truth
beauty, - that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” The
interpretation is, “[T]he truth or the ultimate reality is not known by the reasoning
mind but by imagination.”
I
put all these together, and what I get is that the potpourri of truth, beauty,
imagination and compassion is the ultimate reality, necessarily subjective.
For
example, I see beauty in a tiger preying upon an antelope. It is not that I
have no compassion towards the antelope. I cannot imagine a more graceful and
effective dance of the tiger as it pounces on its prey. Gracefulness trounces
compassion in my subjective ultimate reality. It is extremely subjective, this
sense of beauty. So, it must be the truth. So, it must be the ultimate reality
for me.
No
wonder science has no purchase on truth! Science definitely has a strong
subjective element, but it tends to dilute over time. That is, science moves
away from ultimate reality as it matures. Indeed, this has been the experience.
Go
back more than 100 years. That was the time physicists thought that the world
in the most expansive sense, the ultimate reality, has been explained. Later to
their eternal embarrassment, physicists tucked their tail between their legs
and admitted that what they thought reality was extremely subjective. A brick
wall, for example, looks and feels solid – very subjective assessments – but it
is more empty space than one could imagine!
They
have prodded on ever since to comprehend reality as objectively as possible.
Even now, you cannot get a physicist to admit that the Higgs Boson is the objective
reality, if such an animal existed. As they are searching for objective
reality, they are moving away from the subjective ultimate reality.
Therefore,
only in the sense that objective reality is nothing to write home about, can I
agree to the claim that the ultimate reality is subjective – a mixture of
imagination, compassion, truth and beauty. What is ironic is when that subjective
ultimate reality is discerned, that realization will be ephemeral because that
will be the last thought of the last dying human being.
I
did find the following in the referred post very interesting:
“Such knowledge of the reality opens up a
world of beauty to the perceiver.
It is a beauty perceived by one who
understands the deeper meaning of reality. The beauty that transcends
appearances. Beauty that lies beyond costumes and cosmetics. Beyond
opulence and copulation. Beyond economics and technology...
Of course, beyond mere discipline and
order. Beyond spirituality and mortifications.
It is the beauty of a profound
understanding of life.”
My
last question: Does life – not of any individual, but life itself – have any
meaning? If we answered no, in what way would it affect our ways of living? Would
compassion go out the window? Would no one perceive beauty? Would truth remain
unsought? Would life be devoid of imagination?
Raghuram
Ekambaram
References
5 comments:
Raghuram,
Your opening disclaimer disarms me. But I must say you have not tried to understand my blog in its real sense. Umashankar Pandey, another commentator, did that and he understood what I was saying. Most ordinary readers would, similarly. Because what I have said is quite commonplace things about life.
I was not speaking about scientific truths of the kind you are mentioning. Yes, you almost mock me for mentioning certain other things about life as truths of life.
Immanuel Kant argued that science actually does not study things in themselves (noumena) but sensations, perceptions and conceptions about them (phenomena). You can say that Kant lived long before the electron microscope came into existence.
We have scientists today who study the human mind, brain and cosciousness with the help of the latest technology and then conclude that the interactions of any living organism with its environment are cognitive interactions. That is, both the organism and the environment are affected by each other in many ways. Many of those ways are not explainable by science. They are too diverse, unique for scientific explanation.
Human consciousness itself is an emergent property, according to many of these scientists. That is, the result of many bodily, mental and environmental interactions.
As of now, science tells us that "most of our thought is unconscious, operating at a level that is inaccessible to ordinary conscious awareness." [Fritjof Capra quoting George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, cognitive linguists, who have based their research on available scientific data]
My argument is that human life is mostly about such things as are not easily available to conscious awareness. Literature and art (as does religion in its ideal functioning) are attempts to understand and communicate those truths. I have said this in my blog in a different way without bringing any science into it.
That is fine, Matheikal ... But, I will not even dare to mock what you say ... It is just that I think you have an idea of science that scientists discarded when Quantum Mechanics and Theory of Relativity burst on the scene. It appears to me that you may not have exposed yourself to this change in thinking. Kant might not have known, but there is truly nothing that can be studied of itself. Empiricism rules. If one goes beyond Empiricism, there is nothing to get hold of and there is nothing to get hold by. This is why I repeatedly claim that science cannot explain anything; I go further and claim that NOTHING can EXPLAIN ANYTHING! When Empiricism fails, explanations cease to exist. Religious or spiritual explanations are by that very fact null sets.
Just try to explain the following: how light interacts with matter is EXPLAINED by considering light as a particle that goes from here to there TAKING ALL POSSIBLE ROUTES SIMULTANEOUSLY! This MODEL is successful because it's predictions are validated to an extent you cannot even imagine. But is the model true? Indeed, can it be true? The scientist shies away from even asking such questions. If literature,art or religion ever aspires to be successful, they may not want to follow this model; yet, they have to have some model. What is that model? This is my question. Can it be subjective and simultaneously be universal and ultimate?
My problem is also that you imply your "As of now" extends into the future. This is the exact position that gives rise to "God of gaps". Every time any phenomenon is EXPLAINED the interpretations of art, literature and religion are forced to change. This is reality. You are free not to accept this but you cannot deny this. However, you cannot find anyone who appreciates the imagination behind our mythology, our literature etc. more than me.
RE
Yes, Raghuram, I don't understand science beyond Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. When Heisenberg said that you can't even determine with all your microscopes where the electron is and what its velocity is at the same time what's science?
When I tell my students that their desk is a combination of waves and particles which can sometimes be waves and other times be particles they laugh at me.
I'm not a scientist. And never can be. Let me be an aberrant poet.
Matheikal, I don't believe you can explain what is literature. Science is just an attitude of doing things in a certain way. If that does not lead to any definitive results, so be it. Remember, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, at whatever level you or I can understand, cam out of practice of science. then, that is what is science :)
Forget about where an electron is or how fast it is moving, do we know what an electron is? trouble!
RE
Thank you.
Post a Comment