Rastgele Notlar

Son beş gündür öğrencilerin referans mektuplarıyla uğraşıyorum. Bu arada ciddi bir şey düşünüp kaleme alamadığım için Facebook'ta ufak tefek notlar yazmıştım. O notları ve arkasında oluşan kısa soru-yanıt zincirlerini aşağıya ekledim. Belki ileride bunları geliştirir, kayda değer bir şeyler yazarım. Dilbilgisi yanlışlarını düzeltmiyorum.

Şimdilik bu kadar,

aa

**************************************

For many years, I deeply read, wrote, and talked about the issues related to the "philosophy of religion" but today, I've come to the conclusion that the term itself is an oxymoron. Why did it take so long?

* Is that because you consider philosophy a counter narrative, to religion? Surely that space is more occupied by science, no? I think the ‘philosophy of religion’ as a term, may be laced with irony, but it’s not a pure oxymoron. And I think you came to your conclusion because perhaps inadvertently used ‘religion’ as a sort of synonym for ‘God’. One may ask, ‘does God exist’, but the same question cannot be posed for religion (does religion exist?) Because obviously it does (in multiple complex forms). So, if it exists, and is suitably complex, surely there can be “philosophy of it”? As well, for better or for worse, religion is still an explanatory variable in the behaviour of people and their societies, and thus warrants thought and attempts at understanding. Furthermore, philosophy makes room for metaphysics, and metaphysics itself strikes me of being a bigger candidate of being an oxymoron, but I honestly don’t know enough about that to say whether it is or not.

** I guess my initial point was as religion requires faith without questioning while philosophy requires questioning without faith. One can say that both have their own metaphysical assumptions but no one will be excommunicated or executed because s/he denies Kant’s understanding of time or Heidegger’s definition of being. However, history is full of examples of people who have been treated badly because they philosophized about the religious dogmas. PS: I don’t consider God as a quintessential part of religion. Non-theistic religions are possible as much as monotheistic and polytheistic ones. I agree that religion plays a big role in shaping society’s life. However, my point is on the philosophical side rather than its psychosocial perspective. I don’t deny the fact that religion is necessary for societies and especially for the individuals who are not physically and emotionally strong enough against the unfortunate strikes of life.

*******************************************

I have been reading and thinking on consciousness for quite a long time and so far I learned nothing. Every book I read or every video I watch has a promising title as if they are gonna solve the problem but in the end all I get is another huge disappointment. It seems to me, like in many other disciplines, philosophers need to wait what scientists (neuroscientists, psychiatrists and biologists mainly) will find about consciousness and how they will explain its essence, its uniqueness, its mechanism and its functions. Until that day, I will remain being a functionalist and keep supporting the idea of panpsychism. In the end, it is not more absurd than dualism, monism or materialism. This coffee mug is with me for more than 9 years, it’s one of my best friends. It does its job quite well and I believe if it had the right language skills to communicate with me, it would be saying the things that a coffee mug would want to say! It is quite normal for a coffee mug not knowing human feelings as we humans have no idea about what it is like to be a coffee mug! Anyway, have a good morning, let me drink my coffee before it gets cold. I started hearing the grumpy voice coming from the turquoise mouth of my old friend…

 * O halde nesne diye bir şey yoktur ve evren bilince sahip sübjelerden oluşmuş bir bütünü temsil eder. Yani kahve kupası ile arkadaş olunabiliyor ise, bir kütüğe aşık da olunabilir. Doğru mu anlamışım sizi?

** Nesne vardır, neden olmasın. En iyi ihtimalle özne yoktur diyebiliriz. Yani düşünce / bilinç zihinde gerçekleşen bir olaydır, zihnin yaptığı bir eylem değil. Tıpkı bitki fotosentez yapıyor demek yerine fotosentez birkide gerçekleşir demek gibi. Âşık olmak değil de bağlılık yaşanabilir nesnelerle, yaşanıyor da. İnsanların en sevdikleri kazakları vardır, ellerinden düşürmedikleri tespihleri vardır, toz kondurmadıkları arabaları vardır. Bunların hiçbirisi bilinç iddiası ortaya koyamaz ama zaten benim amacım karşılıklı iletişim kurmak değil, bilincin evrenin kendisine ait bir özellik olduğunu kabul etmek ya da bilim bu konuda kayda değer bir adım atana kadar kendime en uygun konumu seçmek.

* Perhaps because consciousness is merely a linguistic construct?

** Partially yes, but I also see human consciousness as a byproduct of evolution as we needed others to develop a sense of self-awareness. If we did not need to live in communities, human consciousness in today's understanding will either never develop or never get to the point of self-awareness of own consciousness.

* i’m going to play Marx to your Hegel: I think you’ve got it flipped. Don’t start with consciousness because humans (like all other living beings) don’t begin as conscious, but BECOME conscious. And waiting for neuroscientists will do nothing other than give priority to another supposed objective discipline. As for the coffee mug, as a thought experiment, fine. But don’t we owe more to the people of the world whose consciousnesses are inhibited by their material conditions? Just questioning your philosophical priorities here. 

** Well, Marx (materialism) eventually will win but so far science did not get there. So, this gap leaves us to speculate, have faith and play with old-fashioned thoughts. My point is to reduce the concept of consciousness into communication with others. We are aware of our consciousness because we communicate with others in large societies and we need to believe others have consciousness too otherwise none of the social institutions would be able to function. For example, the sense of responsibility cannot exist without this belief (of others are conscious beings too). The judge needs to know there is a you in you who committed the crime so s/he can put you down n prison, s/he cannot punish a zombie! This brings us to a level where we can claim our own consciousness and believing others’ consciousness are interwoven, almost like in a dialectical relationship. If then, consciousness is all about one’s position and communication with others, why not the plants and animals have it. They surely have it as they do communicate with the others and they have a system in which they survive. For non-living things, I make an extension. It is almost like the tail areas of a statistical distribution. The likelihood of consciousness increases when the complexity of the communication with others increases. It gets less and less when it goes down to a coffee mug but surely, in its own way, a coffee mug also communicates using its colors, texture, patterns on it etc. Therefore, it has a certain level of consciousness albeit it is extremely low (unlikely). Now, saying all this, I will hold this opinion until science comes up with a better explanation. In the end, it is the most poetic one and a good solution for lonely breakfasts in Shenzhen… (I talk with my cats too) 

There are four types of readers or perhaps I should say there are four levels of literary works. These levels are not discrete so transition between them is possible and one text can carry the characteristics of more than one level. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in rating a book with e or π

1. The lowest level of literary work. It tries to convey information to the reader. This information can be scientific, religious, historical or simply facts (law, animals, love, vegetarianism, human rights etc) about life. Most children books are in this category. They give simple moral lessons as well; be courageous, be kind, be respectful, be honest etc.

2. The second level is the literary works that aim to diffuse some sort of morality and religious or political view to the readers. It deliberately takes side and always support the ones that deserves respect and empathy (according to the writer). In these stories, the good ones are good for no reason and the bad ones are bad for no reason. They just exist to play their one dimensional role and they do play their role throughout the story. If they change their side at some point, it happens quickly, almost like a miracle. Majority of people cannot go above this level as these books resonates with the religious books and reminds them of reading the stories in holy books. People read them not for pleasure, but to confirm that the life they are living is moral and righteous, which eventually gives pleasure.

3. The third level is the literary fictions that aim to sneak into the lives of others, the voiceless ordinary masses or the marginalized oppressed ones. The readers of these books get to the point that they live under the skin of the characters, look at the world from their perspective, learn how to be empathetic and feel their joy & pain. Most literary works –classics, bestsellers, books that are forced on high school kids in their literature classes- are in this category. The content of these books usually includes social problems or the individual’s struggle in a society that cares the least about the individuals. The language is particularly developed and it is often full of well-written sentences, paragraphs, and descriptions. People who describe themselves as good readers and/or literature lovers usually fall in this category unless their hunger for beauty is not yet satisfied and needs more.

4. The fourth level is the books that are written out of necessity, as if not, it would be killing the author –like an unborn child stuck in a womb kills its mother-. These books are mainly reflecting the writer’s pain, his/her dilemmas, his/her problems with the world, his/her silence that made him/her write the book, his/her sense of discomfort with the world in which s/he lives. The writer puts utmost attention to style, chooses the right words and designs the story meticulously, like a spider builds its web. Although it’s secondarily important, there is always social/political side in these stories but for the most readers this can be ignored. They read it for literary pleasure only. These books are not written very often, not read very often either. However, once a reader finishes reading one of these books, s/he feels an immense sense of loss, jealousy and incompleteness as s/he will think that there is more to be understood in this book. That is why they will immediately start reading it again. These are the only books that need to be re-read, to be carried around everywhere you go and not to be shared with friends & family members.