“What I am attempting to tell you, is that when it comes to right and wrong, you are wrong. You can be both right, and wrong. That is the measure of any word, its meaning. And who gives it meaning?”
“Oh contraire, my friend. Right and wrong, although opposites, are the same in one respect. One can’t exist without the other. It is the same principle as good and evil. The words and therefore the concept only have meaning if they exist in conjunction with one another.”
“I see your point, but that does not erase the dichotomy of the two values. What you are saying is that, if there is right, there has to be a wrong, one can exist however without the other. I don’t see how that is possible. Without the inside of out, or outside of in, the words in and out have different meanings. It’s like playing handball with a net. It isn’t the same game.
Philosophy is a game, both Jerome and I play at. We both find the intricacies of the questions of life not only instructional, but informative, and in many cases humorous. Philosophy’s own meaning, “viewpoints, and beliefs,” allow the flexibility and madness necessary for contrasting life with not simply death, but with the shades of virtually everything in between.
Having a view can be had without it having to be a belief. The same is true of a belief. One can have a viewpoint, but not necessarily consider it infallible. Therefore, philosophy is arguably a disconcerting endeavor to associate ones viewpoint on life, with ones belief in ones own ability, to accept ones own suggestions. If it sounds compromising, it is, because it is meant to be. A philosophers main pursuit is the argument, not what is being argued.
So I must once again bring up the notion that there can be no right if there is no wrong. We have argued over the millennium about whether God could exist without the notion of a devil. I personally don’t see the need for a God, unless there is an entity that impedes the beliefs that a God would propose as a means to an end, and that the proposal benefit both parties, God, and the believers. For that to exist, there has to be something to protect, and something worth taking away from the purpose.
We live in a society where language, although inundated with dichotomy, is not unique to our society alone. Black, white, up, down, front, back, are opposites, but are not alone in their notoriety and interpretation. Many words not only sound alike, are spelled similarly, but have differing meanings. Seen and scene, flower and flour, wear and ware, and dozens more words that convey a different meaning, but a similar sound. Not all words have a similar phonetic similarity that conveys a meaning that differs from its intended spelling. Those that do, provide the basis for a language evolving, as humans have evolved.
“So you see, if there is no negative, there can be no positive. Basic physics.”
Hiram, will attempt to spell bind you with idiocy of needing one to accept another. That is blatantly false. He asserts that for their to be life, there has to be death; there has to be a beginning and an end. Nothing could be further from the truth. If that were true, the concept of eternity would be a fabrication, as it implies that there was no beginning and no end. For that to be true we need rearrange our means of thinking as the concept has no relevance in physical reality. If something has no beginning it can have no end, and if it has a beginning, there has to be an end, as nothing is capable of existing forever, unless it is conceptual by nature.
For there to be a concept, let’s say eternity, then we have to believe in a concept that rationally, we can’t believe in. But if we add faith, and our own interpretation of fact to our mix, we have the ability to think beyond reason, and therefore find the concept possible. Possibility, is all that is required for something to exist, as it cannot be proven, not to exist.
“Think of it this way Jerome. If a tree falls in the forest and you…”
“Yes, I know the analogy and the reason the question can’t be answered. It is because, it can not be proven. No matter what recording device you use, you will have to listen to what ever is rendered to prove the viability of a sound you can’t hear, and that eliminates the premise of hearing something occur, when you are not capable of doing so, because you are not there. Even if you know, that in all your previous experiences, a tree falling produces a sound, you can’t in this instance prove that it does. Remove yourself from the equation and you remove sound. So we can agree on the fact that experience teaches us despite our inability to prove that sound exists, even when we can’t hear it, we cannot prove it without the ability to hear a sound in the abstract, so it is unprovable.”
“Again, it is only not provable, if you insist, that knowledge does not lend itself to proving a theory based on previous experimentation, which allows an assumption of its validity. We know a stick hitting a drum makes a sound, even if we are too far away to hear the sound. So the conjecture over a problem, because it can’t in the moment be verified by one of our senses, disavows the verifiable knowledge of a past because of a situation in the present. You are suggesting a possibility that nothing has existed before us, and nothing will exist after we are gone, because it can’t be verified.”
“Exactly! For all I know I may be here talking to you, or I may simply believe I am here talking to you. I cannot prove I’m here, even though you can see me, and I can see you, because for all we know I have conjured you for that very reason; to have this discussion. I may in actuality be having this discussion with myself, pretending to be you.”
“So I have no way to prove I am here. Even if I ask a stranger on the street to verify my existence, I can’t be sure it is not someone I made up to verify my existence, therefore proving my theory.”
“It may be just that simple, but I will have to beg your pardon as Ms. Jacobs has returned from the dispensary with my afternoon pills. If you think we had fun just now, stick around.”
“I might just have to do that. Depending upon what you may decide, of course.”