S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 5 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 1 9 1 7 Michal Kutáš 4 The Concept of Possibilities Let us look now at some possible shortcomings of reason as revealed by our reasoning itself (as if we were discovering the limits of some tool by trying to use it). Important, although maybe not necessary, part of our reason is the concept of possibility. Possibility splits in our thinking into two categories: empirical possibility and logical possibility. We can step out of the limits of the empirical possibility by considering determinism to be true. It is relatively easy to imagine that all phenomena are determined (maybe by previous phenomena and by some laws). In that case there would not be any real empirical possibility. All of the empirical possibility (an idea that things could have been otherwise while in accordance with the actual natural laws) would exist “only in our head”. Maybe it is only a result of our subjective ignorance: we think it is possible both that the train will be late and that it will come on time not because both of these scenarios are really possible, but because we do not know which one of them is determined to happen in the future. On the other hand, to deny the logical possibility seems to be very difficult. This kind of possibility seems (for reason) to exist under the empirical layer of possibility: we have a tendency to say: yes, it may be that the coming of the train is determined by the laws of physics and the initial state of the universe, but it is logically possible that the initial state of the universe or the natural laws could be different; we are able to imagine such a (logically, not empirically possible) “state of affairs”. But does this ability to imagine such things prove their reality? What if there is no logical possibility? Maybe, also this, is only a product of our imagination. Its functional reason may be similar to that of empirical possibility: it is practical for us, beings with a limited knowledge, to count not only with more than one possible hypothesis for future scenarios for a given hypothesis of initial state and natural laws, but also to count with more possible hypotheses about natural laws and initial state themselves. We do not know with certainty what natural laws are in operation in the universe and what was its initial state. So, somewhat similar to gamblers, we have to split our bets, in order to be ready for more “possibilities”, although in reality even laws and initial state maybe could have not been different. The realm of possibilities itself maybe split to two kinds – empirical and logical – because of empirical and practical reasons. For example, if we want to formulate empirical laws, we maybe need a language which permits us to formulate many candidates for such laws. And so, it seems that these are in some sense possible. But they can be only the product of our thinking, or of evolution of our language or reason. Our senses and our reason can be thus in a very similar position to those of a bee, and maybe the true situation of our sensory perception and mental categorization is adequately described by a spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle: “A tree is far more than a tree. Every label reduces it immediately as if you knew what is there. Every mental label gives you the illusion of knowledge. You don’t know what that is. How could you know? It’s a mystery that remain a mystery. It is a beautiful being. The surface – it looks like a tree – perceived through the senses. But it is a mystery, everything is a mystery, and it’s only mental labels [that] give you the illusion that you know. The moment [you say] ‘Oh, that’s a tree’ –What do you know? Nothing. It’s just sound coming out of your mouth.” (Tolle 2001). Look at a bee and imagine how incompletely it perceives a flower through its senses and through processing their input in its brain. But if we are a biological organism just like it, it is probable that our perception of a tree is very limited and distorted in a similar manner, so that the tree is really something much more mysterious and rich than we deem it to be if we base our understanding on our senses and our mental equipment.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=