I will open by saying I am neither a philosopher or very knowledgeable on quantum mechanics, so perhaps this question is meaningless. But I was thinking the other day along these lines. I am also not great at expressing this idea so bear with me.
-
Most modern (western) philosophy depends on the belief that logic will allow us to get at the truth in some capacity.
-
Quantum mechanics seems to fly in the face of human logic, yet we are reasonably sure it is correct.
-
If thats the case, how can we be certain logic will allow us to arrive at correct conclusions about anything if it does not apply universally?
I realize I may be way off base here and this is an epistomological minefield, but Im sure this has been thought through in the philosophical world.
Just curious as to how this has been addressed and maybe even any literature you could point me to!
Thanks!
I can see that, sure. But I think Im more interested in what drives that change in process to begin with. Something must dictate that the universe behaves that way.
Then again, I realize I am technically making an assumption here based on human logic, which may not hold universally anyway.
I think it all comes down to the belief that, as much as I want to be sure something is knowable, it might not be.
The dialectical materialists posit that all change is a result from contradictions held internally, two opposing identities, what is rising and what is dying away. Essentially, movement comes from action and reaction, like walking requires pushing off the Earth while the Earth pushes back. A contradiction is a coexistent diametrical link between two forces, and contradiction is the engine of all motion and change.
That’s how the Marxists answer that question, and I believe it to be correct based on my understanding.
I dont personally find that a satisfying answer for the physical world, but I do appreciate you sharing your thoughts!
How so? I think, in this time where you’re questioning logic itself as a mechanism for understanding the world, it’s useful to question how and why people have answered that question.
Because to me that sounds like yet another process as opposed to an explanation. So even if that process is correct, what makes it not subject to change itself?
I guess I’m confused by your question. Are you asking for a “first mover?” That’s more of an interpretation that mechanical materialism requires, as mechanical materialists see the world as a clockwork system, and thus it needs a first mover. Dialectical Materialists advanced beyond that understanding.
Contradictions resolve, but this creates new contradictions. They can be as small as a footstep (or far smaller!) or as complex as capitalism itself.
I think in order to fairly answer that I would need a more in depth understanding of your philosophy. To me, there seems to be no reason to accept your approach over mechanical materialism or vice versa, so far as the limited knowledge I have is concerned.
Im interested in three main areas here which I will admit I havent been clear on as the discussion has evolved:
Is there an underlying, final cause of all the phenomena we observe? And if so, what is it?
Can we ever be certain of anything if we can never know that cause (assuming it exists).
If we can know the cause, what role does logic and empiricism play in that process?
I wrote a short, oversimplified crash course on dialectical materialism that you can check out if you want.
This is troubling. What do you mean by a “final cause?” The basic unit propelling motion is the contradiction, there is no action without reaction, as an example. What do you mean by “final?”
Everything in the world is knowable. This is one of the separations between materialism and idealism/dualism. It may be incredibly difficult to find the cause, but causes can still be found.
Empiricism is broadly how we begin to observe the world, logic is broadly how we connect observed phenomena. Dialectical materialism asserts that theory and practice are mutually reinforcing and unified as a body of knowledge, essentially practice tells us what exists and how it works, and theory is our attempt to apply and understand that.
I’ll start with point one because otherwise itll be overwhelming.
I am clealry not understanding this concept of the contradiction. What separates that from any other phenomenon in the world? What makes it an answer to the question as opposed to just another facet of the world? I am asking in good faith to be clear, I just genuinely dont understand.