Challenge the Philosophy - Implications and Proof

"We cannot [more reasonably] truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time."

Definitions of principal terms used in the competition:

"We cannot [more reasonably] truly know": our inability to more soundly and consistently show how we can know something in entirety. For further explanation, and explanation of "know", see "cannot truly know".
"Who we are": the entire make-up of ourselves as human beings. For further explanation see who we are.
"Be": the state of living or existing with who we are.
"Existence": things and life-forms occupying space.
"We": all Homo sapiens who are existing, regardless of level of functionality.
"At the same time": the simultaneous occurrence of true knowledge of who we are, in part or in whole, and being who we are.
"Overcome": our ability as individuals to more reasonably refute the proposition, "we cannot truly know who we are and be who we are at the same time", than reasonably supporting it. "More reasonably refute" entails using reason in the most objective manner possible, and includes the arguments stated in the entries and disputes submitted to the "Challenge the Philosophy" competition, and the arguments stated in the responses to them. Also, one idea is deemed more reasonable than another idea if it is more consistent and sound. (Overcoming the proposition can entail more reasonably refuting its terms and the concepts behind them.)

Implications of proposition:

The proposition profoundly weakens the basis for morality, ethics, justice, and society/civilization, because they are contingent on individual identity which the proposition shows is not truly knowable. In other words, without a true claim to individual identity, moral, ethical, legal, and social claims lose their ground. We are left with no ground to assert morality, ethics, legality, or society, except from a position of power.

A proof on ‘Not [More Reasonably] Truly Knowing Who We Are’:

Note, this proof is intended only as an introduction to some arguments supporting the proposition for the purpose of stimulating thought. We do not view the proof as complete or covering all relevant issues.

Also, as stated in the response to Entry 270, we do not think there is an absolute solution or proof to the proposition. Rather, "the solution to the proposition will entail a "constant criticism", because of our apparent inability to truly know that we know something. Though at some point, the criticism from a particular position will either exhaust itself, or overcome the proposition by creating a situation in which the proposition cannot incorporate the criticism without contradicting itself." We will end up with a final solution to the proposition, for or against it, which has withstood criticism within the time constraint of the competition. But outside of the competition there will be no final solution or absolute endpoint, due to the apparent non-absolute truth-value of human perspective. In our view, this limitation on the competition's final solution does make it less significant because all thought is apparently subject to the same limitation.

Definitions of the principal terms in the proof:

"Knowledge" refers to conscious meaning in the form of symbols.

"We" refers to the individuals who make up humankind.

"Basis" refers to the fundamental level of being (i.e. soul, essence, life-force) of the individuals who make up humankind.

The proof for the proposition comes down to three premises:

1. We exist.

An indisputable defense of this premise, within limits, is that by being aware of our thoughts, we must exist otherwise we at some level and form would not be aware of our thoughts. Note, this premise is not stating the exact nature of our existence, but simply stating that from our limited perspective, we exist, and we are aware of thoughts.

To argue that we may be an illusion or not exist at all, contradicts the apparent fact that we are aware of thoughts, including the thoughts that we are illusory and non-existent. (i.e. there must be something behind our awareness, otherwise there would be no awareness.) Also, if we do not exist, or are simply illusions, it does not follow how we can know that we do not exist or that we are simply illusions.

2. There is a basis behind our existence.

The main defense of this premise is that it is more reasonable that we exist from something, than we exist from nothing. (i.e. the comparative nature of human thought and the apparently relative nature of things implies that things are defined by causality rather than absoluteness.)

To argue that we only exist from material things like air and food, ignores that there must be a basis behind our existence itself, which allows us to exist from these material things, just as there must be something behind our biological make-up in order for us it to exist. The same reasoning applies to the basis behind us, but that does not refute its existence. It merely shows that the basis is dependent on others things for its existence.

3. Our conscious knowledge is representational.

This premise is central to validating the proposition because the premise shows from our limited perspective that we cannot truly know something. So if the premise stands, assuming that the other premises also stand, it follows that the proposition stands as well.

The defense of this premise is as follows: We consciously know in an interactional or representational way through sensorial, biochemical, neurological, and conscious responses, and any other responses, to interactions internal to us as human beings, so that what we consciously know, from our limited perspective, is not truly what is. For instance, our conscious knowledge of a cup in front of us is not direct knowledge, but stems from indirect knowledge from for example sensorial, neurological, and conscious responses to interactions which produce our conscious knowledge of the cup.

To counter-argue that the cup must exist because we can see it right in front of us, overlooks that there is a relationship between us and the cup.

Also, to retort that the perceived relationship between us and the cup is an illusion because there is a direct continuum of information which flows from the object cup to our minds faces the problems:

1. there is no evidence showing a direct continuum of knowledge from the external world.

2. we appear to derive/create knowledge from past knowledge or reflecting/reasoning.

3. it does not follow how knowledge as conscious phenomenon could exist as a static, conscious form in objects which are devoid of consciousness.

4. it does not follow why objects would contain absolute conscious knowledge of themselves that is directly transferred to conscious life-forms.

Moreover, to counter-argue that some knowledge is purely innate to human beings, and thereby is not subject to interaction, is to succumb to the problem of how knowledge or anything can come from nothing. (i.e. from our perspective, there would be no rational basis for the existence of pure innate knowledge.) So we must conclude from our limited perspective that the notion of pure innate knowledge does not exist.

For a summary of the main arguments supporting the proposition, see arguments.