Читать книгу Does The Universe Need Me? - Raphael Dorsainvil - Страница 5

One might argue, it is clearly obvious that mere existence does not require a human being’s moral disposition to bear in the plans of the universe. One might argue further, such a description of human use by the universe is cheap and unsophisticated. By answering, “Yes the universe needs me because I exist,“ the person means that, “The universe needs me because I feel that I have some measure of importance or goodness; I exist for a reason, not simply to occupy space.”

Seemingly, most people do not subscribe to the notion of being mere physical instruments subject to the volition of the universe. It seems people believe there is a measure of purpose to their life either grand or mundane.

Stating, “The universe needs me because I feel that I have some measure of importance or goodness,” implies the universe only needs those who feel that they are good people. If this is the case, then those who are categorically immoral may claim that the universe needs them because they also feel that have some measure of importance or goodness. Suppose there is a political leader(Leader-y) who aims to vanquish corruption in the world. With the definition of corruption encompassing those who do not abstain from the use of technology, purifying the adulterated human from technological contamination becomes the core belief driving legislation. People are required to abandon a relatively comfortable life of electricity and automobiles in lieu of sun and horses. In seeking to vigorously purify human beings, puritanical obedience is required with torture and death as the consequence for minor infractions. Leader-y genuinely believes human beings will live happier lives without technology, so toleration of minor infractions is impermissible. Human happiness is too important, and without draconian enforcement human happiness may not be obtained.

Under this draconian system, medical technology has been banned, resulting in the death of thousands, but Leader-y is not deterred. Ultimately he believes human beings will be happy, and deaths are transient inconveniences to withstand on route to agrarian happiness. As the mortality rate increases exponentially, Leader-y fortifies his belief further by asserting, “No great deed is ever achieved without great sacrifice.” Although Leader-y may be described as oppressive, his self-perception is one of importance, because he feels he became a political leader specifically for the purpose of liberating human beings from technology. Leader-y firmly believes his intentions are good regardless of how many people die. The death of many is justified as long as technology is eradicated in the realization of happiness. So if Leader-y feels he is of some importance and of some good, then the universe needs him albeit of mass death. So how can the universe need such a person? If the prerequisite for universal need were for people to feel they are of some good or importance, then the universe would need Leader-y.

The pronounced point is the feeling of goodness and or importance indicating universal need. Merely existing will not suffice, but existing and feeling a measure of importance or goodness will suffice in meeting the requirements for universal need. Universal need from the standpoint of goodness or importance indicates, a tyrant such has Hitler who labored to establish a pure race to rule the world would be needed by the universe because he felt some measure of goodness and importance. If universal need is to be based on feelings of goodness or importance, then the moral mind may have to tolerate⎯there are plenty of immoral people who may feel a measure of goodness or importance.

If someone were to indeed answer the question of universal need in such a manner, what level of goodness and or importance would one have to feel to suffice the prerequisites of universal need? If someone feels only a minor level of goodness or importance, what would be the nature of universal need? If someone feels a “little” goodness or importance, then the universe would only need that person a “little.” In contrast, if someone feels very good or important, then the universe would need that person very much. Furthermore, if someone feels a moderate level of goodness or importance, then the universe would need that person moderately. Human emotion is rather complex. People may not feel a steady level of goodness or importance during their day. Human emotion changes throughout the course of a day. Thoughts and incidents alter mood and self-perception. A person who feels very good and important in the morning may not feel very good and important in the afternoon.

Proportionately, this indicates the universe may need someone in the morning and may not need someone in the afternoon. Universal need would not be static, but relative. Universal need would seemingly behave in accordance to the various degrees of emotional intensity.

So If universal need were based on anger, then one would be needed based the intensity of one’s anger. Low intensity anger would signify the universe only needs this person minutely. High intensity anger would signify the universe needs this person intensely, but if the universe needed anger alone, the intensity of anger would not be pertinent.

If universal need is potentially understood in terms of proportion in relation to importance and goodness, then defining universal need in this context is in order. How is universal need understood in terms of low, moderate, or high degrees of goodness and or importance? Ascertaining the levels of importance and or goodness from a human perspective is obtainable, but understanding universal need in relation to feelings of importance and goodness is rather arduous.

Subjectively, humans are capacitated to measure feelings such as goodness and importance. One can describe feelings of importance and goodness in degrees trough inner senses. People sense when feelings are intense, subtle, or mild, and they can inform you by saying, “ I feel great” or “ I feel ok” or “ I’m not doing so good.” Empathy allows other humans a relational understanding of such terms on the basis of experiencing similar feelings. We can have an approximate understanding how others are feeling, and thus measure to an extent, if other people’s feelings are intense, subtle, or mild.

While witnessing someone committing an act of kindness, we can have an empathic understand of how good the person must feel, because we ourselves may have committed acts of kindness, which resulted in feelings of goodness. Also, people can assess their level of importance through introspection, and how others rank them. For instance, individuals can determine their self-worth by evaluating if they have executed the goals they have set for themselves, or if the significant others in their lives are extending love and affection toward them first and foremost or exclusively. Some may feel a low amount self-worth by failing to commit and act of kindness when they feel that they should have; in contrast, some may feel a high level of self-worth by committing an act of kindness proper.

Human goodness and importance is comprehensible in some capacity that is potentially expressed as a variation or a spectrum, but universal need and its relation to human goodness and or importance is difficult to comprehend.

Universal need signifies indispensability. The universe needs humans, necessarily, to function. The term “need” and its imposition on the universe from a human outlook, leaves the universe personified. Need from a human perspective in relation to the universe involves emotions such as ones feelings of importance or goodness and possibly other emotions. From the human perspective, need has an emotional connotation, but from the perspective of the universe, what connotation does need have? From the perspective of the universe, need may comprise a mechanistic connation, preventing emotion from being imposed. The mechanistic connation seemingly describes universal need as causal in its use of human beings, in that they are mere systems of molecules interacting with other molecules.

To claim that universal need has a mechanistic connotation is less risky then claiming universal need has a mechanistic denotation. The mechanistic perception of the universe is an imposition itself; it is an imposition of human intellectualization on the processes of the universe. Scientific belief systems that are wrought to explain instances in reality, explain a given reality, but the explanation may not be an infallible reflection of the reality itself.

Universal need explained in terms of causality may not be causal at all. Causation may not exist in the universe; causation may be a human artifice that allows us to organize the complexity of reality in our minds in approximation. Typically and justifiably, observations about the world through rigorous empirical methods are considered the denotative account of the items being examined. Conventional thinking has accepted this precept with good reason. The subject of hypotheses have to be tested to make sure that they are⎯what they are proposed to be. However, considering the complexity of the universe, observations made about the universe on many levels should always be made tentatively and carefully, and not with absolute certainty, and universal need from the perspective of the universe as oppose to the human perspective, is not exempt. With the preceding in mind, how can we conclusively denote that the universe needs us in a mechanistic manner through testing? Again, such a conclusion would be rather arduous to realize. The mechanistic perspective may not be the explanatory terminus, if testing is not possible.

Trough a mechanistic lens, molecules interact with other molecules in many capacities including the interaction of molecules of human lung tissue with air molecules. Does understanding this particular molecular interaction within the context of universal need, indicate that the universe needs us?

The mechanistic perspective may not answer the question of what universal need is from the standpoint of the universe, for how can we conclude that the universe needs us from understanding molecular interaction? Accordingly, we are led back to the issue of questioning the construct of universal need. Is it causal, correlative, emotional, or non-existent? Whatever the answer may be, the mechanistic perspective albeit traditionally useful, may not help us in this case, for in contrariety, the universe may need humans in an emotional manner. However, even if the universe indeed needed humans emotionally, what would be the constitutive nature of universal emotion?

In order to answer this question, the mechanistic perspective would have to be invoked. How can empiricism formulate tests to come to a conclusion about the existence of universal emotion? The degree of difficulty in answering this question is inconceivable. How is universal emotion recognizable? For example, what would universal emotional dependency look like? When humans are emotionally dependant, certain symptoms are pronounced, and they are recognized by systemic observation, but what empirical methodology can delineate when the universe is being emotionally dependant?

Again, answering these questions is arduous, and the employment of empirical methodologies is essential, but also ineffective because of the prodigious level of difficulty in forming conclusions about the intrinsic nature of universal need.

Understanding universal need from the human perspective is feasible, but understanding the universal need from the standpoint of the universe is not so feasible. Human emotions can be measured in some empirical facet, but measuring universal need from the standpoint of the universe, inclusive of all possible intrinsic proponents, is incalculably difficult.