What is Philosophy?
Once, a student called the professor, expressing his thought to commit suicide, and asked him, "What is life?" The only response Professor Park could give him was, "I don't know either." Professor Park was an honest scholar; he couldn't give any answer beyond his understanding.
I thought that human philosophy is like an endless cycle. All disciplines are built on hypotheses, and new hypotheses have been formed on existing ones. However, due to human limitations, any reached conclusion is nowhere. Therefore, this honest scholar acknowledged the limits and refrained from speaking recklessly. It's more conscientious to admit ignorance than to claim knowledge he doesn't possess.
Many who claim success fail to be humble and instead boast their knowledge arrogantly. They may outwardly show humility but subtly flaunt their wisdom to others, as if they have reached a higher level of lesson. They may have a comparative advantage over others, but it doesn’t mean they've succeeded in life's journey.
Arrogance often leads to slothfulness and wasting life to fulfill desires, ultimately resulting in being trapped without escape. When the desires remain uncontrolled, we may experience a sudden downfall. If people become enslaved by money, it's difficult to break free of the trap.
Humans think because they exist, and through thoughts, they come to understand the essences of life and seek the answers why they exist. When confronted with the emptiness and lack of conclusions in scholarly pursuits, it's worthwhile to question whether the hypotheses are flawed.
I don't intend to delve into the principles of scholarship here, but I hope this idea encourages a shift in perspective and prompts consideration of what choices would be wise.
Returning to our definition, is it truly right to define truth as a universally accepted fact by many? This definition sets a humanistic trap where facts can become both false and true if most people deny or assert them.
The origin of existence presents a similar dilemma. Approaching the origin of life is only feasible after elucidating the origin of existence. Academic studies posit hypotheses about how material could have existed in the universe. Ultimately, it's a teleological approach. They are saying they have to assume that, amidst all the twists and turns, material existence came to happen. Then, when scholars approach the origin of life, they explain that its probability is almost zero. They also discuss with almost zero probability that celestial bodies are orbiting in the universe. Interpretations of existence, as well as interpretations of the order of the natural world and celestial bodies, are all based on hypotheses with almost zero probability.
Such hypotheses and assumptions, veiled as coincidences, appear utterly unconvincing no matter how much you ponder. Have you ever considered that human scholarship rests upon such rarefied hypotheses and assumptions? I merely suggest considering it.
Ultimately, our philosophy is situated in the inability to draw conclusions when existence remains inexplicable. While humans can employ their knowledge to interpret phenomena, they cannot provide evidence to explain the most fundamental aspects. This is truly ironic. However, many scientists claim that those hypotheses are true. Why? Are they fanatics?
Briefly departing from the realm of human categorization and transitioning to the philosophy rooted in the divine, we can surprisingly find no difficulty in unraveling the origins of existence and life. Without acknowledging a divine entity, everything becomes shrouded, leaving us to interpret using the term “almost impossible coincidence.” Then, which philosophy will you adopt?
댓글
댓글 쓰기