Dr.BCR.Mangala pirya
Wat suthivararam,
yannawa,sathorn.
Bangkok, 10120.
Thailand
Primitive philosophy.
Before, we go on to tell how 6,000 or 7,000 years ago Men began to gather into the first towns and to develop something more than the loose-knit tribes that had hitherto been their highest political association, something must be said about the things that were going on inside these brains of which we have traced the growth and development through a period of 500,000 years from the ape-man stage. What was man thinking about himself and about the world in those remote days?
At first he thought very little about anything but immediate things. At first he was busy thinking such things as: "Here is a bear; what shall I do?" Or "There is a squirrel; how can I get it?" Until language had developed to some extent there could have been little thinking beyond the range of actual experience, for language is the instrument of thought as book-keeping is the instrument of business. It records and fixes and enables thought to get on to more and more complex ideas. It is the hand of the mind to hold and keep. Primordial man, before he could talk, probably saw very vividly, mimicked very cleverly, gestured, laughed, danced, and lived, without much speculation about whence he came or why he lived. He feared the dark, no doubt, and thunderstorms and. big animals and queer things and whatever he dreamt about, and no doubt he did things to propitiate what he feared or to change his luck and please the imaginary powers in rock and beast and river. He made no clear distinction between animate and inanimate things; if a stick hurt him, he kicked it; if the river foamed and flooded, he thought it was hostile. His thought was probably very much at the level of a bright little contemporary boy of four or five. He had the same subtle unreasonableness of transition and the same limitations. But since he had little or no speech he would do little to pass on the fancies that came to him, and develop any tradition or concerted acts about them.
The drawings even of Late Paleolithic man do not suggest that he paid any attention to sun or moon or stars or trees. He was preoccupied only with animals and men. Probably he took day and night, sun and stars, trees and mountains, as being in the nature of things as a child takes its meal times and its nursery staircase for granted. So far as we can judge, he drew no fantasies, no ghosts or anything of that sort. The Reindeer Men's drawings are fearless familiar things, with no hint about them of any religious or occult feelings. There is scarcely anything that we can suppose to be a religious or mystical symbol at all in his productions. No doubt he had a certain amount of what is called fetishism in his life; he did things we should now think unreasonable to produce desired ends, for that is all fetishism amounts to; it is only incorrect science based on guess-work or false analogy, and entirely different in its nature from religion. No doubt he was excited by his dreams, and his dreams mixed up at times in his mind with his waking impressions and puzzled him. Since he buried his dead, and since even the later Neanderthal men seem to have buried their dead, and apparently with food and weapons, it has been argued that he had a belief in a future life. But it is just as reasonable to suppose that early men buried their dead with food and weapons because they doubted if they were dead, which is not the same thing as believing them to have immortal spirits and that their belief in their continuing vitality was reinforced by dreams of the departed. They may have ascribed a sort of were-wolf existence to the dead and wished to propitiate them.
we feel, The Reindeer man was too intelligent and was also Iike ourselves not to have had some speech, but quite probably it was not very serviceable for anything beyond direct statement or matter of fact narrative. He lived in a larger community than the Neanderthal, but how large we do not know. Except when game is swarming, hunting communities must not keep together in large bodies or they will starve. The Indians who depend upon the caribou in Labrador must be living under circumstances rather like those of the Reindeer men. They scatter in small family groups, as the caribou scatter in search of food; but when the deer collect for the seasonal migration, the Indians also collect. That is the time for trade and feasts and marriages. The simplest American Indian is 10,000 years more sophisticated than the Reindeer man, but probably that sort of gathering and dispersal was also the way of Reindeer men. At Solutr้ in France there are traces of a great camping and feasting place. There was no doubt an exchange of news there, but one may doubt if there was anything like an exchange of ideas. One sees no scope in such a life for theology or philosophy or superstition or speculation. Fears, yes; but unsystematic fears; fancies and freaks of the imagination, but personal and transitory freaks and fancies.
Perhaps there was a certain power of suggestion in these encounters. A fear really felt needs few words for its transmission, a value set upon something may be very simply conveyed. In these questions of primitive thought and religion, we must remember that the lowly and savage peoples of today probably throw very little light on the mental state of men before the days of fully developed language. Primordial man could have had little or no tradition before the development of speech. All savage and primitive peoples of today are soaked in tradition on the contrary the tradition of thousands of generations. They may have weapons like their remote ancestors and methods like them, but what were slight and shallow impressions on the minds of then predecessors are now deep and intricate grooves worn throughout the intervening centuries generation by generation.
Epistemology.
Since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to prove the validity of your conclusions. Does man acquire knowledge by a process of reason or by sudden revelation from a supernatural power? Is reason a faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses or is it fed by innate ideas, implanted in man’s mind before he was born? Is reason competent to perceive reality or does man possess some other cognitive faculty which is superior to reason? Can man achieve certainty or is he doomed to perpetual doubt? The extent of your self-confidence and of your success will be different, according to which set of answers you accept.
Man is neither infallible nor omniscient; if he were, a discipline such as epistemology the theory of knowledge would not be necessary nor possible: his knowledge would be automatic, unquestionable and total. But such is not man’s nature. Man is a being of volitional consciousness: beyond the level of percepts a level inadequate to the cognitive requirements of his survival man has to acquire knowledge by his own effort, which he may exercise or not, and by a process of reason, which he may apply correctly or not. Nature gives him no automatic guarantee of his mental efficacy; he is capable of error, of evasion, of psychological distortion. He needs a method of cognition, which he himself has to discover: he must discover how to use his rational faculty, how to validate his conclusions, how to distinguish truth from falsehood, how to set the criteria of what he may accept as knowledge. Two questions are involved in his every conclusion, conviction, decision, choice or claim: What do I know? And: How do I know it? It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the “How?” which then enables the special sciences to provide the answers to the “What?”
In the history of philosophy with some very rare exceptions epistemological theories have consisted of attempts to escape one or the other of the two fundamental questions which cannot be escaped. Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible or that it is available without effort. These two positions appear to be antagonists, but are, in fact, two variants on the same theme, two sides of the same fraudulent coin: the attempt to escape the responsibility of rational cognition and the absolutism of reality the attempt to assert the primacy of consciousness over existence.
Metaphysics
Are we in a universe which is ruled by natural laws and, therefore, is stable, firm, absolute and knowable? Or are you in an incomprehensible chaos, a realm of inexplicable miracles, and an unpredictable, unknowable flux, which your mind is impotent to grasp? Are the things you see around you real or are they only an illusion? Do they exist independent of any observer or are they created by the observer? Are they the object or the subject of man’s consciousness? Are they what they are or can they be changed by a mere act of your consciousness, such as a wish?
The nature of your actions and of your ambition will be different, according to which set of answers you come to accept. These answers are the province of metaphysics the study of existence as such or, in Aristotle’s words, of “being qua being” the basic branch of philosophy.
The branch of philosophy that studies existence is metaphysics. Metaphysics identifies the nature of the universe as a whole. It tells men what kind of world they live in, and whether there is a supernatural dimension beyond it. It tells men whether they live in a world of solid entities, natural laws, absolute facts, or in a world of illusory fragments, unpredictable miracles, and ceaseless flux. It tells men whether the things they perceive by their senses and mind form a comprehensible reality, with which they can deal, or some kind of unreal appearance, which leaves them staring and helpless.
Ethics
Just as there is no such thing as a collective, so there is no such thing as a collective. There are only individual minds and individual achievements and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men.
A nation’s culture is the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men, which their fellow-citizens have accepted in whole or in part, and which have influenced the nation’s way of life. Since a culture is a complex battleground of different ideas and influences, to speak of a “culture” is to speak only of the dominant ideas, always allowing for the existence of dissenters and exceptions. The acceptance of the achievements of an individual by other individuals does not represent “ethnicity”: it represents a cultural division of labor in a free market; it represents a conscious, individual choice on the part of all the men involved; the achievements may be scientific or technological or industrial or intellectual or esthetic and the sum of such accepted achievements constitutes a free, civilized nation’s culture. Tradition has nothing to do with it; tradition is being challenged and blasted daily in a free, civilized society: its citizens accept ideas and products because they are true and/or good not because they are old nor because their ancestors accepted them. In such a society, concretes change, but what remains immutable by individual conviction, not by tradition are those philosophical principles which correspond to reality, i.e., which are true.
No comments:
Post a Comment