Some thoughts stemming from Pascal's Wager.

rationality is a human faculty and has nothing to do with the universe. It is an evolutionary development that has been exceptionally useful to us in dealing with this world. However it has many great flaws, for example it cannot deal with concepts like infinity. It can only deal with the finite, which is understandable, as the world which shaped our genetic structure is finite in all the relevant aspects. How could science then, a practice based entirely on rational inquiry ever form a complete picture, obtain a total understanding of the universe when by its nature it is unable to contain or fully understand/conceive of/ comprehend concepts like infinity, and possibly others that I’m not aware of. We can form some idea of the infinite, we can claim to know it exists, we can incorporate it into some of our equations and theories. But we can’t truly be said to know it like we know the finite world. It requires a totally different way of knowing that, of course, we humans can’t conceive of, and so don’t know what this ‘way of knowing’ is. So I assert that yes, science will never obtain its complete picture, and rationality with it.




What then is the alternative? It is, (by default), irrationality. some form of it. If rational inquiry fails, irrational actions/belief/etc. something else/etc. potentially can succeed. However it really is unquantifiable and unchartable territory for humanity. Can we prove that irrationality can succeed in this way? No, we cannot, and in fact, to even attempt to prove this is paradoxical, as the concept of proving is inextricably linked to logic and rationality. Thus there is necessarily a leap of faith.



But there are problems.



a.) Which direction to leap in? A: I don’t know.

b.) I think this is a big one. The idea of actually desiring to know the universe, to understand it, to be embraced by it, to have a life of meaning, to find meaning, to pursue things in general, to desire, well, these things are unavoidably evolutionary. They are traits for survival. But if we are rejecting rationality then, this rationality that comes from evolution and the environment, should we not then reject these rational traits also? Why pursue? Why desire to know, to come closer to anything, let alone the infinite? Then we have, of course, why live? We need to justify a pursuit of the absolute and the infinite.
However again there are issues of cyclicality. Why are we attempting to justify? This is again a concept of logical and rationality, if one is rejecting rationality in making an irrational leap of faith, why should it need justification?

I guess this is again a paradox. It’s like the idea if the sceptics’ ladder, when sceptics try to justify their belief that we know nothing, except that we know nothing. Some sceptics have argued this is justifiable by way of the following method (I think it’s something like this, but I need to go re-read it), that they have followed a logical process, analogous to climbing a ladder they say, and at the top of this logical ladder, they have found the conclusion that humans can know nothing for certain. Once reaching the top of the ladder, they then kick their feet, disregard it and its logical process, and view the world from their higher position, with the retention of their one certainty. It’s a crazy position, but one must admit they can understand it/ see how it works (perhaps at least if you’ve read a bit more about it than outlined here). And maybe this is the same, or a similar analogy is useful. We have climbed a ladder of rationality, and at the top we have found that we should adopt a position on irrationality and blind faith, perhaps. So the rational action then is to kick away the ladder and embrace this. However, and this is where we differ from the sceptic analogy, we simultaneously realise in going to kick down the ladder that if we are going to embrace this model of irrationality, under irrationality, there is no justification (in a logical sense) for its embrace, for kicking down the ladder. There is only a justification under a rational model. But under the rational model, we have decided to reject rationality, which thus means we have no reason for kicking down the ladder. irrationality doesn't even understand the assent of the ladder in the first place. etc. etc. etc. round and round it goes. Therefore I find one to be stuck on top of a ladder, merely contemplating either a total nihilism, or a total embrace of the divine, the infinite and the absolute, and in this heady dichotomy of the mind you are without any ability to know why you're in it, or why you should or should not be. And of course, in this realm of confusion and total possibility, maybe it is even that embracing nihilsm and embracing of the divine universe and God, are the same "“I wish I was free/ Of that slaving meat wheel/ And safe in heaven dead”, Kerouac writes.

Do you know that feeling, your mind races and races in ecstasy, you are gathering more and more, understanding higher and higher, then suddenly bam, ouch, you can’t go any further in your thoughts and you feel like you’ve hit a great block and you and your mind collapse back down. This is the same thing.

This was going to be a word document where I did study, then it began to turn into a more general discussion of issues relating to Pascal’s Wager, then it has finally become a bare and meagre attempt to capture the chief philosophical problem that has occupied my mind this last year or two, and an attempt to better understand where my mind rests most generally. I have said to myself often these last few weeks ‘you’re stuck between nihilism and theism, nothing else’. This I guess has been an attempt to get at this a little more. It has not been a very good one, but I will admit it has been better than any I have accomplished so far in my life.

Two final comments to myself which are just complain-y:

-do other 18 year olds thing like this? Is it exceptional that your mind does this, or can do this, or strives to do this, this kind of thinking, as above?

-this is what sucks about studying philosophy where I am at in the study of philosophy. You... just talk about random dumb shit and engage in basic-as arguments where you simply take one simple position or the other, write 45 minute essays about something. I feel like all this stuff as above, I have to do myself, but you only have the spare-hours of your day to do it in, because you’re a student, and you’ve got to get grades and things, and your free-time is what’s left. Where you can read some real, full books, write some things. Ah I duno. I guess I am pleased that I’ve clarified my position more clearly to myself. I will continue reading, I know I’m just young and that there is so much more I need to consider here. Kierkegaard I feel will be a reasonable place to start, or as reasonable as any. So after exams, Kierkegaard it is. Then onwards from there.

And back to Moby Dick. Our mad and irrational Ahab after his whale... yet he still can’t get him... perhaps he was not mad enough...