Compos Mentis

Mind? No Matter. Matter? Never Mind.

One of the problems that humans have is their inability to seperate themselves from themselves. I am becoming less and less certain that we can be objective about anything. Everything we take in, everything we consider, all of it is screened against a filter of our past experiences. The way we see the world is the only absolute thing we have, and though it may change, how would we know the difference if it didn't allow anything outside of its rigourous conditions to come into our head? We look at other people and consider their actions in terms of what we know- and when we assume these things we lack the fundamental empathy of having their experiences and ruminations to draw upon.
I could go into how even science is unable to really give any proof of being objective- ideal scientific inquiry perhaps, but since when is there ideal anything?
It's distracting to me to try to be impartial when learning something when I know that I am taking it only because I can assimilate this into what I already know. But I hate it even more when people don't even realize they do it. The best example is English class- we read these works of literature and people agree or disagree with them off the top of their heads. They don't appreciate the days put into these works because they have already assumed that their world-view is the correct one, or at least that their view cannot be assailed by other people because it is their point of view. Arguing with these people is especially frustrating because you can go over the same points again and again and they can always retreat back to "the way I see it..."
But if we cannot escape from being subjective, how do I know that they are not in the right? Is there any purpose for me to look for transcendental truths if I cannot work outside of my own head? What is the dividing line between fundamental philosophy and psychology?
If I cannot be sure of finding and being sure of proving objective truth, then I can at least look for subjective truth- the idea that what people consider fundamental tells more about them than it does about actual fundamentals. But is this a mere cop-out to humanism?
Even now I am subjecting my decisions to my sense of rightness. Why should I consider fundamental truths to be more important than human truths? Because I have assumed, from study and from custom, that they are.
If understanding was the reason why we are here, then we fail miserably.
So, my quest for knowledge has become simply a game I play. I hope that it still yields rich results. I hope that people will hear of me and say, "Well, at least he thought." But I am a little saddened by my loss of naievity.

posted by Emmett @ 15:47