Leading life logically is what philosopher tried to do for many years. It doesn’t mean they actually lived so. But, somehow, through all their works, they tried to establish some or other cage of thoughts and presented life as some wild but tamed animal inside. How that animal got inside the cage was what not they tried to explain. They elegantly, skillfully and precisely described what to do it once it is caged. But, somehow what matters to most of the living mortals, like me, is how to cage it or whether is it possible at all to cage it. They keep mum, a sacrosanct silence.
What is problem in perceiving life system with some tailor made premises? And, if one does not do so, then what is the way to explain social organization? What do we mean by ‘explain’? ‘Explanation’ is bringing something unknown into known. We bring it by various means. One uses analogies, examples, anecdotes or any part of known information to put a frame around unknown. If this frame fits, one ‘knows’. If this frame keeps much vacant space or fails to accommodate what we are trying to know, we change it. But, not every phenomenon or incident or situation can be explained with this way.
When we try to understand complex, and self-evolving kind of system, analogies or intuitive examples don’t help much. What is often done in such cases is to observe this system as holistically as one can and then try to determine set of rules by which most of the observations os system can be explained. There is nothing else we can do except this. It is kind of limitation of our cognition or bound of understanding. in this ‘reductionist’ approach, one crucial and subjective point is when to move from observations to determination of set of rules. It is rare, almost impossible that one can determine set of rules which will have no anecdotes. If there are anecdotes, then there can be two alternatives. Either observe more, add some to set and if this doesn’t work, go for incomplete but consistent structure. Or amend the set in such way that it will prove these anecdotes will be seen as non-system events. Onus is on the one who is trying to explain it.
What is the way? That depends on personalities of seekers. If one has epistemological arrogance (Thank you, Mr. Taleb), one will go by second way. But, then there should be honesty of accepting that what is being explained is fictional system resembling to system under study. But, such confession will destruct the original purpose of quest. Hence, you see, lot many philosophers claiming to explain world around them, ignoring subjective biases, anecdotes and fooling others into aura of elegant, plausible and wrong explanations. It leads to inconsistent and incomplete system. It is evident why it is inconsistent, but why it is incomplete? Because what we get out of ‘reduced’ and somewhat ‘produced’ set of premises is some fictional, quasi system. it is foolish to expect that it will answer all situations in real system.
First way, though yielding lesser credit to seeker, it leads to set which can be put to full exploitation within its limit. This understanding of limits of any ‘logical’ system is most of the time forgotten. Why? It does not seem suitable to image of ‘Man’ as intellectual conqueror. Even, on personal level, humble recognition of limits is less attractive than tag of omniscient. It is our inherent bias.
But are there systems, which can be fully explained? There is a truth in this magical, mystic philosophical funfair and it is owned by Gödel. Long back he said about such system. It can be either consistent or complete. I feel, completeness attracts us more rather than consistency. And, this makes even best of intellectuals to commit folly of naming quasi-creations as true one.
This gift of incompleteness is motivating one. Gödel has not specified degree of incompleteness. It makes us understand that perfection can be dreamt only. But, what stops us from chasing the dream, even though it is going to remain the dream?
What is problem in perceiving life system with some tailor made premises? And, if one does not do so, then what is the way to explain social organization? What do we mean by ‘explain’? ‘Explanation’ is bringing something unknown into known. We bring it by various means. One uses analogies, examples, anecdotes or any part of known information to put a frame around unknown. If this frame fits, one ‘knows’. If this frame keeps much vacant space or fails to accommodate what we are trying to know, we change it. But, not every phenomenon or incident or situation can be explained with this way.
When we try to understand complex, and self-evolving kind of system, analogies or intuitive examples don’t help much. What is often done in such cases is to observe this system as holistically as one can and then try to determine set of rules by which most of the observations os system can be explained. There is nothing else we can do except this. It is kind of limitation of our cognition or bound of understanding. in this ‘reductionist’ approach, one crucial and subjective point is when to move from observations to determination of set of rules. It is rare, almost impossible that one can determine set of rules which will have no anecdotes. If there are anecdotes, then there can be two alternatives. Either observe more, add some to set and if this doesn’t work, go for incomplete but consistent structure. Or amend the set in such way that it will prove these anecdotes will be seen as non-system events. Onus is on the one who is trying to explain it.
What is the way? That depends on personalities of seekers. If one has epistemological arrogance (Thank you, Mr. Taleb), one will go by second way. But, then there should be honesty of accepting that what is being explained is fictional system resembling to system under study. But, such confession will destruct the original purpose of quest. Hence, you see, lot many philosophers claiming to explain world around them, ignoring subjective biases, anecdotes and fooling others into aura of elegant, plausible and wrong explanations. It leads to inconsistent and incomplete system. It is evident why it is inconsistent, but why it is incomplete? Because what we get out of ‘reduced’ and somewhat ‘produced’ set of premises is some fictional, quasi system. it is foolish to expect that it will answer all situations in real system.
First way, though yielding lesser credit to seeker, it leads to set which can be put to full exploitation within its limit. This understanding of limits of any ‘logical’ system is most of the time forgotten. Why? It does not seem suitable to image of ‘Man’ as intellectual conqueror. Even, on personal level, humble recognition of limits is less attractive than tag of omniscient. It is our inherent bias.
But are there systems, which can be fully explained? There is a truth in this magical, mystic philosophical funfair and it is owned by Gödel. Long back he said about such system. It can be either consistent or complete. I feel, completeness attracts us more rather than consistency. And, this makes even best of intellectuals to commit folly of naming quasi-creations as true one.
This gift of incompleteness is motivating one. Gödel has not specified degree of incompleteness. It makes us understand that perfection can be dreamt only. But, what stops us from chasing the dream, even though it is going to remain the dream?
Comments