Possibility

Is anything possible? Yes. Does that matter? Not especially. Is it possible that not anything is possible? I suppose so, but that seems even less useful. Below, I discuss the process of “doubting” and “infinite possibilities”, as they relate to the practice of Philosophy.

Before I get into the discussion proper, I will provide a brief personal anecdote, one that my best friend Daniel can only truly verify, for he was there with me on the “front lines”, and witnessed my battle and eventual fall. Many years ago, I was deep into the process of “doubting”. I questioned and questioned. I dug deeper and deeper. I peeled away at layer after layer. When I got down to the apparent “bottom”, I didn’t like what I found. I found nothing. At my core, I felt like I was not a “real person”, but only a person who “acts” like one. I thought that I only behaved as I thought I should behave, and that my entire life was arbitrary. I took the process to the literal extreme – I truly and genuinely doubted my own existence. Not on an academic level, but on an actual level. It broke me. I made several poor decisions following this – decisions I am not proud of. I won’t get in to them at this time. It took me some time to rebuild, to piece back together my reality, but eventually I became whole again. I am stronger now. I am actual. I tell this story to fully articulate my experience and understanding of the subject of “doubt” and “possibility”. Having said that, we may begin:

Could an umbrella be a galaxy? Absolutely. What does the “best evidence presently available” suggest? That it is not. Could be, though? Again, assuredly so.

Accepting the possibility of alternatives does not preclude one from acting on the “best evidence presently available”. Placing too much weight into alternative possibilities is not only non-productive, but counter to the very process of Philosophy.

No matter the argument, no matter the claim, one can always say “Well, it is possible that this is all an illusion!” This is, of course, true. One could make that rebuttal to any claim, to any statement. This is not, however, good Philosophy.

When does the questioning stop? It will never, until the very fundamental edifice of knowledge is eroded away. What good has that done, Philosophically speaking? We have gained no insight, no further understanding of a matter. We have simply dismissed it, cast it aside as so much possibility. One cannot build an understanding of reality on such a premise. One cannot believe anything, trust anything, or enjoy anything. It has gained us nothing. What we have gained is doubt – doubt we did not need. It is, to put succinctly, a non-starter.

Any serious Philosopher must concede the point that yes, the umbrella could be a galaxy. Are we supposed to leave it at that? Are we supposed to throw up our hands in defeat and head forward, trusting in nothing due to such possibilities? I would say no, we shouldn’t.

This is where the “best evidence presently available” comes in. Is the coffee mug I hold in my hand really there, or is it just an illusion? Well, it is certainly possible that I’m in a tank as per the Matrix films, but is that what the best evidence presently available suggests? The immediate, tactile sensation, the odor of the mug, the fact that I see it – this is all data. Of course, my senses may lie to me. However, once I allow that fact to undermine all sensory data, my life becomes nothing – a false reality not worth living.

The best evidence presently available suggests that yes, there are objects that take up physical space, and yes, I am alive, and yes, my senses are as tuned into reality as is possible by our current bodies and technology. This data suggests to me that, yes, the mug is just a mug, and yes, the umbrella is just an umbrella.

Is it a fact that the umbrella is what I think it is? It’s as close as I can get. That “as close as I can get” puts air planes in the sky, people into space, re-attaches severed limbs, and other feats I can only barely comprehend. It is that “best evidence presently available” that not only builds human society, but allows us to exist within our reality.

The best evidence presently available is not perfect. Nor will it ever be. It will always grow, iterate, and edit itself, and our understanding of reality along with it. At every step along the path, all we can do is work under the assumptions currently available to us. We accept that the path continues on, in some unknown direction and toward new possibilities – but what we have before us is all we have. We will never gain perfect understanding (although, I suppose I should concede the possibility of that, too), but the quest toward it is no less valiant. However, we can’t wait for that (possibly) unobtainable end point, that wonderful conclusion. We have to use what we have.

Is it the job, or duty, of a Philosopher to negate all theory, to simply “question something to death”? Or is it the job of the Philosopher, going off the best available evidence (and possibly contributing to the best available evidence), to help us understand our world, the people in it, and how to interact them?

It is not the duty of the Philosopher to simply cast doubt – it’s the duty of the Philosopher to understand. So one must ask: does making the admission that the umbrella could be a galaxy, or an illusion, assist in our understanding of the umbrella, or any theory stemmed there from? I would say no, it does not.

I will close with a reference to a big name in Philosophy: Descartes. King of Doubters, Descartes sought to tear down the reality around him as he sat in his comfortable chair by the fire. He peeled away, layer after layer, until he could peel no more. That peeling, that doubting was just the beginning. What Descartes did after that was build. Doubting is only the first, and frankly, easiest step. It is the building where the action happens. That’s where doubt stops, and Philosophy begins.