I AM BUT WHO I
THINK
2002
GRAY,
John. 2002. ‘I think, but who am I?’
NEW SCIENTIST. vol 175, no
2360.Pp46-49.
2002
GRAY,
John. 2002. ‘I think, but who am I?’
NEW SCIENTIST. vol 175, no
2360.Pp46-49.
Introduction.
Charles
Darwin, Evolution, Meta-Physics, Science and the creation of myth.
This critique analyses the essay ‘I think, but who am I?’, by Professor
Gray. The essay attempts to hold a meaningful discussion about some
philosophical concepts. The essay is arguing the Darwinian scientific ontology
that the humans’ ‘animal’ mind is constrained within animal like boundaries,
from which we will never be able to go beyond. Clearly, this is not so because
we are the only ‘animal’ to develop the like-minded computer; not to mention
everything else that is not part of the natural animal world!
Throughout the essay, pluralist philosophical paradigms are negated and
brought back to the Darwinian ontology of evolution. Some modern discourse is
held and the essay has value because of the current concepts.
·
The Author
cites some evidence in the form of science and study as well as citing some
contemporary icons such as Plato, Descartes and Mill; but there is no real
evidence apart from the evidence of philosophical discourse itself, albeit
Darwinian.
·
The ambiguous
yet explicit theory in the text is the Darwinian ontology of humans being but
animals, and thus so is our philosophy. We are equated as having
self-delusional philosophy and the essay concludes with a knowledge that
assuredly, somehow, (it is known by evolutionists) that animals are not
deluded. This is likely to be an exhibition in paradoxical reasoning. Also, the claim is made that humans -even
ancient one’s- have always experienced life in a particular way, that is ‘selfhood’.
·
The central concepts
discussed in the essay are philosophy and its degree of
Presence; a conscious/unconscious existence, an
autonomous existence; and that non-Darwinian philosophy is dismissible and
invalid.
·
The central
argument in the essay is the standard evolutionary style of
rhetoric that is applied to human life for the supporters of the human
animal kingdom; that is, everything is negated if it is not linked to Darwinian
‘science’ and the accompanying ontology.
·
This piece of
work (apart from the negativity) contributes by some degree to philosophical
discourse in that it discusses the possibility of human autonomy, the
subconscious and quantum mechanics as being linked; though it does not offer
the predictable evolutionary connection in that particular argument. Probably
because it can not be linked.
The author is clear and
lucid in his arguments, although paradoxically he concludes we are living an
illusion.
Perhaps
someone is just having a bad dream.
Summary and
Conclusion.
The essay lays claim to the
possession of science, or rather; Darwinian ontology lays claim upon science in
the scope of the discussion, which is philosophy and some attachments. It
presents an autonomous existence in a world of multi perceptions and
acknowledges autonomous sub-conscious activity that is present post-learning;
but it fails to acknowledge the infinite possibility of this fact as opposed to
the finite realm of the animal kingdom.
My opinion is that the Professor offers a feeble, and in his words
illusionary, (and recruitive) argument. My reasoning behind this analogy is
that if scientific inquiry is anchored in Darwinian theory, then this discounts
the infinite possibility of pluralist philosophy, thus the conclusion of any
inquiry will only ever yield animalistic results and ignore the real
possibilities.