“I think therefore I am” quipped Descartes all those hundreds
of years ago, and is now condemned to being quoted (and misquoted) again and
again in arguments/debates/theses pertaining to the question of existence and
reality and many other similar fancy hoity-toity topics where one of the
conceited philosopher wannabes finds an opening, especially when someone wants
to sound enigmatic and knowledgeable.
But paradoxically the more I think, the less I am, or
rather, the less I seem to be. I know, it seems really confusing and
contradictory, especially when one refers to the opening quote, but think about
it, I mean really think.
The more one thinks about one’s existence, the origin of the
universe and other such nonsensical stuff about which our knowledge is little
enough for us to feel confident enough in our ignorance so as to engage others
in debate; even if the other is just a contrary splinter-self, separated from
the main self like in those multiple/split personality disorder cases, who
likes to contradict everything the other self, or selves if the subject is a
far-gone case, say or believe just for the heck of it, or because they conflict
with its own set of beliefs; the more the number of possible reasons and
explanations one can offer for the existence of the universe, ranging from the
tired old argument of a supreme being who in his complete belief in our
capability to survive our own destructive nature created an entire universe for
us to occupy steadily over a span of time and is always watching over us (and
its more moderate versions) and the deistic version where some chappie created
this little universe (but not especially for us only) and now is snoozing away
(or observing from a distance) to equally crazy beliefs like our universe being
but a simulation program or even a sim-game being run by some higher
dimensional beings on their super-duper-computers, like the popular game
SimCity only this’ll be more like Sim-Universe and will involve more awesome
hardware and possibly higher dimensions, or that we’re all just figments of
imagination in the dreams of some higher dimensional being and so on and so
forth. Do note that each reason raises a yet more important question: “What
caused/led-to/created the random event/being/super-duper computer which created
this universe/simulation of a universe which we reside in?"
So, ranging from the
‘we-are-real-beings-in-every-sense-and-in-every-dimension’ to the
‘we’re-just-figments-of-something’s-imagination’ or the even more unthinkable
‘we’re-just-virtual-characters’, albeit virtual characters with higher thinking
capabilities (which one could blame on more advanced coding and algorithms), each explanation is just passing the buck as we still don't know the universe started, sure it was created lets say, but who created the creators or if it was just the result of a random event, what triggered it?And so the questions go on and on. Still, assume that one of these explanations has the potential to solve this cosmic riddle, now what proof do we have that our point of view is correct? Each explanation has an almost equal amount of concrete
evidence in favour as well as against it: none... make that
almost none, for the sake of accuracy.
So depending on which view seems more convincing to you, you
could be more or less real than you were at the beginning of the
long-winded-fatuous thought processes that brought you to this point. Or if you
found multiple arguments equally convincing you could very possibly existing in
multiple levels of realism at the same time, a thought which, if pursued
further, could very well shred to pieces what little sanity you lay claim to
faster than food disappears down the gullet of dear little Daisy, my dog;
though bitch is the grammatically correct term yet cannot be used due to social
taboos and stuff, an issue I may write on at length later.
Digressions apart, another thought that one must consider is
the fact that most terms we use are but relative. Time is relative to whatever
reference a person/specie is using for their convenience, the ease of climbing
up a staircase is relative not just to age but fitness as well (a fact proven
by a few septuagenarians I know whose ability to climb multiple flights of
stairs would put most of my college mates to shame), the obviousness of the
fatuous nature of most debates, particularly philosophical ones, is relative,
the relativity of an object/occurrence is relative and thus even reality is but
relative. Compared to a comic book character or a simulated character in a game
we’re probably pretty real, compared to some higher dimensional being with a
different sense of perspective we may be nothing more than stick figures.
Thus in the end the only conclusion one can safely draw is
that reality just is. The entire idea of debating the concept of reality and
seeing how real we are and if we
truly exist and other such high-fi
philosophical topics is truly fatuous, conceited even if one pretends that one
has the one true answer to these conundrums.
So after all this heavy thinking the one modification I’d
make to Descartes famous quote is “I think therefore I realise that I may be or
may not be real and that it all comes down to a question of which theory of the
universe’s existence, and hence my own existence, is true and that the lack of
proof in favour of any particular theory can but lead one to the conclusion
that this entire question is but an futile exercise in philosophical thought
and that I just am”, or in short, “ I think, therefore I am”, or rather, “I
just am”.
Now if you've reached this far in the article you've probably realised what a farce this is, albeit a rather high level and thought
provoking and a bit moderately well thought-through farce. But then again most
meta-physical philosophical thoughts and theses are but farces to some extent
(note: I’m only referring to meta-physics) Anyway, for being such faithful
readers and for suffering through this pseudo-intellectual piece of mine you
deserve a reward. So go treat yourselves to a toffee or an ice cream if your
mind feels really boggled.
