Senior Thesis 2012 (Title to Be Determined)

2012-01-06T00:00:00-08:00

Essay

One of the most simple, yet beautiful things in nature is that of a rainbow. A rainbow at its base is simply an arch of colors seen in the sky. However, when a person dives deeper into this simple display of nature that person is confronted with some interesting facts. First off, when one looks upon a rainbow most people think it is made up of only the colors red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. However, a rainbow is actually made of colors that even a person’s eyes can not see. That, though, is not the only thing unique and special about this simple thing. Rainbows are formed by light refracting water droplets at a 42° angle and strike the view’s eye. However, two viewers’ eyes can not be in the same place at the same time. Thus, no two people receive the refracted light. As a result, every person who looks upon a rainbow, see their own “personal” rainbow. To some, this might seem like an intriguing “fun fact” to share with friends in some form of entertainment. To some philosophers, this simple “fun fact” presents a problem.

According to these philosophers, a person does not simply know a rainbow. After realizing the nature of how a rainbow is observed, a philosopher is bombarded with a series of questions: How should a person actually view a rainbow? Since every vantage point from which a person views this rainbow is unique, which vantage point is the true or best vantage point? Another question that might be asked is, if every one of these vantage points is unique, how can they all still be the same rainbow? In contrast, an ignorant person might put this thought aside stating, “This is a phenomenon and does not come about often,” or, “This is a trivial thing, and thus we should not concern ourselves with it.” However, a well versed reader will be quick to point out to you that this simple difference of vantage points causes immense differences in how things are viewed. A situation similar to this comes forth in Abbott’s work, Flatland.

In Flatland, Abbott presents to the reader a scene of a square who is unaware of the world (dimensions) around him. The square believes that the way he sees and is able to understand things in his simple two dimensional vantage point must be the only way things should be understood. It is not until a series of events, including looking upon things in dimensions below himself, as well as being ripped from his own dimension of existence into another, that he is pulled into “the light”, truth. From these new vantage points, he is able to fully see himself, and his relationship to everything else. As a result of his new found enlightenment, he is compelled to announce to the world his revelations. This is similar to how the philosopher Vicki Hearne’s feels the need to confess the truth and thus write Bandit.

In Vicki Hearne’s Bandit, Vicki Hearne is a professional (a professional dog trainer to be more specific). However, at the same time, she is a philosopher. As a result, since they are both a part of herself, she must appeal to both. One scene that clearly presents this troubling split is that of her brining Bandit out of the pound. During this scene, while she is taking off Bandit’s collar, she pinches her finger in it. From this simple moment, results to completely opposite responses. As a professional, she does not confess to those around her that she has done this. However, the lack of laying out the truth compels her to confess the experience in the form of a book. Thus, she creates the book in which this whole scene takes places. Through this book, she is able to examine herself from the vantage point of overlooking herself. This is much like how Plato’s Socrates is able to, with his metaphor of the city and his soul, fully view himself. Aristotle ponders the method or force that allows this movement.

Aristotle presents to us a force: a mechanism by which one is able to move. The means that cause movement prove a way in which a man is able to move between viewpoints – perspectives. As a result, in Abbott’s language, he gives us the force that allows a person to move “upward” not just northward. By that, it is meant that he provides the force that allows something to move in and out of something not just across. This is the same as when Plato pulls someone out of his cave in order to bring them out of a lie and towards the truth.

In order to know truth, it must be known fully. This simple statement might seem self-explanatory but it is discovered that this is not the case. How can someone fully know something? In Abbott’s Flatland, the shapes debate this and determine that sight is inferior and angles are the best. However, the square later discovers that this is not the best method. As soon as he moves outside of his viewpoint, his rules of knowing suddenly become insufficient. They are found not to be applicable to each dimension. He finds that there are many ways of knowing a truth based on the perspective. As a result, to truly know something, he finds it must be known from all perspectives. Thus, the square discovers he didn’t fully know, as he didn’t know it from the vantage points of all the dimensions.

These authors present a framework, a compiling of a set of perspectives that are a kind of dimensional way of viewing truth based on a person’s analyzing of their self in relationship to ultimately the universe. The first perspective being that of realizing one’s existing and being able to view one’s self internally. The second is one’s relationship with others (humans). The third dimension is being able to look upon the relationship of one’s self and his other taken as one compared to the rest of world. Finally, the fourth is creation’s relationship with the divine. This is one’s cosmic relationship – one’s relationship with his universe, existence, divine, creator, or the ultimate highest truth.

According to these authors, a thing must be analyzed in the order of these perspectives. Therefore, in order to find the truth of the universe, a man must not only know truth from a single sight, but rather see it from all perspectives. A man who does not see a thing from all perspectives does not truly know it. Thus it can be said: Man’s compounding climb of perspectives gives him the global vantage point to fully see and thus identify truth. As a result, from using the four vantage points, man gains a better sight and identification of truth.

For the purpose of this paper, we will explore four types different vantage points. In order to derive them, we must first steer our sights towards Abbot’s text Flatland. In Flatland, the square is initially unaware of the other dimensions around himself. From this simple standpoint, it may seem, since he is unaware of the other dimensions around him, that he would not have many vantage points to look from. However, that statement is untrue. From this moment, we can see that he has the viewpoint of 3 vantage points.

The first is that of being able to look upon himself. From the text it can be seen that he is able to look upon himself: he is aware of his own thoughts and emotions. This vantage point, for this paper, will be labeled the first vantage point. As a result of the first vantage point, a person is able to judge and evaluate himself on a personal level, and explore himself internally. He is not able to realize he himself exists, but he is able to realize his own nature. This is powerful because, as a result of having the first vantage point, one may start understanding himself at a basic level. One can find a person using the first vantage point in places where the first person of speech is used. An example of this is seen when the square is describing about himself. Although this vantage point is powerful, as it is the basic block to self discovery, a person does not fully understand himself. In addition, this vantage point is only concerned with a single party. It is not until the second vantage point that another party is added.

In the second vantage point, one is able to view his own relationship with another. In this vantage point, a person must be able to view himself and the other, abstractly speaking, from a point at which he can see his own self and the other person at once. It is from this vantage point that a person first starts to leave himself. It is also the first time a person needs another to establish a new vantage point. It is because of this vantage point that, as we will see later, even the most intellectually advance people need another to fully view things. An example of this is seen in Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. Aristotle states,

”…it is perhaps absurd to make our Happy man a solitary, because no man would choose the possession of all goods in the world on the condition of solitariness, man being a social animal and formed by nature for living with others: of course the Happy man has this qualification since he has all those things which are good by nature: and it is obvious that the society of friends and good men must be preferable to that of strangers and ordinary people, and we conclude, therefore, that the Happy man does need Friends.” (X, Nicomachean Ethics)

From this Aristotle asserts to us that not even the happy man would choose a lack of friendship. However, Aristotle later expands this and concludes that as a result, all men need a friend. Friends no only provide a please for one another, but they help bring each other to a better standing. They are a kind of springboard used. This is why, for Aristotle, even the Great Souled man needs a friend, so that he may springboard to the truth, and have someone to share the truth with. It can be seen from this, that as a result of this vantage point, the second person is used. More importantly, we can see that as a result of this vantage point, it is the first time action comes into place. A person has now been expanded to have action, thoughts, and feelings. Empowered with these new found abilities, a person seems to be able to start to accurately view things. However, the person is lacking another vantage point. He is lacking something to use in order to characteristics and draw conclusion his own relationship with the 3rd party. As a result, the person needs an even higher vantage point in order to make a better judgement. This vantage point, we will call the third vantage point.

The third is being able to look upon one’s self and a third party taken as one compared to the rest of the universe. By universe it is meant the set of things that have come to exist, which includes time itself. As a result, of this vantage a person is able to compare almost anything to each other, and himself. The person becomes both a master of space, and time. An example of this person is those that exist in Aristotle’s contemplative realm. . Those who exist in this realm are able to leave physical existence altogether, through thought. They once again go back to a metaphysical realm, similarly to the first vantage point, but unlike the first vantage point, the third is outside of one’s self and is more inclusive. However this is not the last vantage point that a person can have.

The last vantage point is that of the a person’s (a creation’s) relationship with his creator. This is the fourth and final vantage point, which we will more formally refer to as one’s relationship with the divine (his source of existence). As a result of this view point, one is able to evaluate being, and as a result be able to understand himself in a different way. When humanities creation is looked at from a scientific view point, it can be seen that we are actually made of small simple “ingredients”. All things are made up of matter. This matter is made of atoms. Atoms are an unusual small building block in the universe. If one was to view the atom, they would find tiny particles held together by invisible forces. Within these particles they would potentially find tiny clusters of vibrating energy. This energy would be the foundation of our universe. If one was able to understand this energy, they would understand the basis for the creation, and manipulate what is known to us as our universe. This way of understanding the universe from the fourth dimension is commonly referred to as quantum theory. This from first glance should have a discrete, and as a result definite answer, but it turns out Quantum Theory is bizarre and even some great thinkers such as Einstein could not wrap their minds fully around it. Thus, it can be said that this final dimension is the of course infinite, and thus impossible to fully comprehend.

Reviewing our vantage points, from a macro look at these perspectives we can see that as vantage point increases man’s scope of view compounds. Thus, an initial guess would be that the last vantage point is the best and allows man to more fully see truth. However that is not the case, as will be shown. In reality man needs all vantage points in order to be able to more fully look upon truth.

In order to compare and contrast these two, a unified plan or template to use to look at each is needed. Similarly, when attempting to build a chair, one can suddenly stand up and decide, “I am going to build a chair.” However, one can not go ahead and build that chair without first determining how they are going to first go about building that chair properly. In making of a chair, artists take time to determine what it should look like, and how they should go about to make the chair. In this way they are provided a path to follow on their course of chair making that helps them reach their ultimate goal of making a chair. Similarly, before going about the endeavor of determining qualities of the nature of perspective, and truth, a plan of attack must be made. As a result, before diving deeper into the topic at hand, some guiding questions, and a plan of attack must be laid out. For this new section of the paper, we will propose a series of questions. We will then look at our primary text in order to explore this question and how the results from it for each of our vantage points.

The reason for writing this paper, is to explore how vantage points help one see and thus identify truth. However, until this point, it has not been the main focus. Thus, let us make it the focus. After transitioning to our new form of focus, one would begin to see we have not yet identified specifically if even one of these vantage points can see truth. As a result, we are compelled to ask “From which vantage points can one see truth?” For this question, I steer us towards Plato.

In Plato’s Politea, Plato presents, through Socrates, the idea of the divided line. The divided line consists of different ways in which one can view truth. Plato begins by first giving us a visual image of the division between the visible and intelligible realms. He states,

“…picture them the visible and intelligible realms as a line cut into two unequal sections and, following the same proportion, subdivide both the section of the visible realm and that of the intelligible realm. Now you can compare the sections in terms of clarity and unclarity. The first section in the visible realm consists of likenesses, by which I mean a number of things: shadows, reflections (on the surface of water or on anything else which is inherently compact, smooth, and bright), and so on. Do you see what I’m getting at” (509D6-510A3, Plato’s Republic).

At the bottom of his line are the shadows and reflections of the thing at the top. While the shadows and reflections are not the thing itself, it still gives insight into the nature of the object. Step in front of a mirror and stare at the image presented before you. This reflection of you, though it is not you, helps you understand the truth that is your face. Instead of viewing your face from its actual 3 point perspective, you are rather viewing it from a 2 point perspective (i.e. a flat 2 dimensional figure). As a result of this reflection you are to view your own face from a new perspective that you normally would not be able to view it from. This might at first seem strange. How can different vantage points help understand an object? Would it not be best to view the object in its naturally form in order to gain some insight into it? This opinion would seem to be familiar in the fields of mathematics and science.

In mathematics, it would be silly to conceptualize a cylinder in the fifth dimension, in order to contemplate how to solve a how much work it would take to pump water to a specific height above it. The cylinder, by definition belongs to the third dimension. Similarly, one does not ask,”What is the volume of a circle?” It seems illogical to look at something from a perspective in which it is not at its natural state. However, the square in Flatland finds quiet the opposite. Throughout his story, the square views geometric figures ranging from a point all the way up to the order of a sphere. All of these figures believe it is silly, to think about themselves from a dimension of a higher order of themselves. In fact, in the squares own dimension, even revealing of a possible dimension higher than his own to the public is punishable by death. However, unlike the other figure in the story, the square proceeds to view other objects from different dimensions. As a result of this the square is able to determine more about the nature of these figures that he would have from viewing them in their original dimension. From viewing his own dimension from the dimension above his own, he is able to see all the shapes in his world at the same time. This causes him to be able to see the fright of his wife, as well as overhear the sentencing of another shape from the circles. This might not seem beneficial, but this new view point gives the square more insight to the nature of his own dimension. In another instance, the square sees the sphere moving in and out of his own dimension. From this, the square is able to determine the the sphere must be related some way to a circle. If you were to view a sphere from its own dimension, this might not be immediately apparent. Thus we can see again that there is a benefit to view things is multiple ways.

This all intellectually benefiting, but we have strayed from our series of questioning. However, don’t worry, we simply need a little insert of text to steer us back on course. The mathematicians in our case with dimensions is a metaphor, as will be seen later, for using different vantage points that are not typical. By this metaphor, we aim to show that it is often thought that things should not be analyzed from different vantage points. This metaphor carries through to Abbott’s square. The square is taking figures and viewing them outside of their natural perspective. In each perspective, a different view of truth is revealed to the square which is not always existent in other perspectives. As a result, the square is able to more fully see truth as a result of receiving many vantage points. What is the nature, though, of moving about vantage points? This one question that Aristotle touches on in his writings Physics, and Metaphysics.

In Physics, and Metaphysics, Aristotle discusses movement between objects. He aims to discover the causes of movement, and motion. He is most interested in most ion in living things, and non-living things. First Aristotle asserts that when one half ones, the other half must move as well. Next he states the the moved can not move the one moving it. He begins to further create a unique movement by classifying it as something that is instantaneous and can not be spilt up. This seems similar in nature to Plato’s spring board in his divided line. In order to get to the form of something, from a hypothesis, according to Plato, you must spring board from the hypothesis to the truth. This sudden motion is what causes, and gives the ability to move between vantage points. However, unlike Plato, Aristotle believes that the soul can not move itself. According to Aristotle, something is always moved by something else. This is one reason why everyone according to Aristotle needs a friend. Everyone needs something in order to move them through vantage points and thus better obtain truth.

Going back to the original question we presented, it can now be said that all our vantage points produce a view point of truth. Further more, it can be said that the vantage points have truths unique and shared between them. One can not see something fully from just one vantage point. Thus the mathematician has a false mindset. There may, however, be a few readers still unconvinced. Thus, I call to our investigation Vicki Hearne’s Bandit, in order to provide further evidence.

In Bandit, the most important scene is that of the scene that was brought up earlier in this writing. This scene produces, the stubble between balancing professionalism, and philosophical beliefs causes her to write the book. In writing this book, Vicki Hearne gains a new vantage point. She is able to view herself, and the world around her. As a result of this, she not only is able to evaluate Bandit, and his breed, but better understand herself. However, Vickie Hearne does not decide to continue to view herself from outside herself. She defends back into various vantage points in order to gain more from truth that they teach her. In this case she descends from the third vantage point (the writing of the book) to the second to be with Bandit once again. This shows that it is not ideal for her to be in this state, otherwise she would have stayed. There are parts from each vantage point that she needs in order see and more fully view truth. This is similar to viewing an object from simply one angle or perspective, like in the case of our previous square. When buying a house, if one simply looks at the front of the house, they may not be able to identify all of the nature of that house. If however, they view the house’s multiple sides, they are able to more see fully the nature of the house. This is the same way with truth.

Based on the text of my choice one might argue that the pursuit of truth is similar to, as said by Zach Neely,”A laser and a series of mirrors.” In this theory, the laser is man’s pursuit of truth, and the mirrors is man’s random attempts in order to direct himself towards truth. If this is true, than truth seems to be of the nature that you have no sense of direction, or view of it until you land upon it. However, as we have seen in our vantage points, from different vantage points you can see different parts of truth. In Plato’s line, each part is showing off another aspect of the truth of thing. In a way they are all reflections of the whole. As a result, if you are trying to springboard to get to the truth, would you not have some sense of direction in order to get to truth? Would you not be able to direct yourself toward something? Lets assume then that you are able to place the mirrors with some sense of direction. You then would be circling around the truth, until you aim on it. Life a golfer, you would hit a ball towards a hole, again, and again till you got in the hole. Each time you would be trying to readjust your overshot, and obtain truth. However, the truth does not seem something that can be obtained in this way. In addition, I believe can be easier to gain.

Parts of truth, as we have seen through Plato, are presented before actually gaining of the whole truth. As a result, one knows the truth before knowing the whole. This is the same idea of I know something about someone if I know their name, but at the same time I do not completely know them. Going off of this idea, we know parts of truth can already be seen from a multitude of vantage points. Once again, in Plato’s divided line, every section of the line gives a new detail or vantage point from which to view truth. Since,all parts are contributing to the overall image and ability to identify truth, each part is needed, and it is with the addition of more vantage points that the ability to see and thus identify truth expands. For example, say one wants to understand the truth of a perfect chair, much like Plato would do. At the top level, to know the truth of a chair, one must know the chair’s cosmic relationship. By this, the person must know the nature of its creation, and how it relates to its creator. Next, the chair’s relationship to the rest of the universe must be known. This can be restated as the vantage point from which you can view the chair’s relationship to other things in the universe which exist, in all of time. Another level down, you must know the perfect chair’s relationship to other chairs. Finally, you must know the chair’s relationship to itself. If the chair could think, this final level would give you an insight into the thoughts, and opinions of the chair. With the addition of each vantage point, the scope of view compounds, the number of comparisons compound, and the ability to thus see and identify truth compounds. However, one might ask? Why does one not truth to view everything as a whole from the top level? If one was to try to fit the entire universe into their head they would go insane. However, if one was to split the world into parts, and view these parts, he would be able to more fully see and thus identify truth.

People who are like this are sometimes characterized as imaginative, which can be defined as a mastery of images. As the y are the masters of images, they are able to see from many vantage points and obtain a more full view of truth as a result of this. Gilbert K. Chesterton in Orthodoxy says,

“Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason…The general fact is simple. Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustion… To accept everything is an exercise, to understand a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.”

As we can see from Chesterton, those who try to fit the world into their heads go insane. This is because they are trying to preform an action that is not feasible. They are trying to put the infinite (truth) into the finite (their mind). The masters of images however, wonder about the sea of truth. In this way they are wandering through vantage points and viewing in order to more fully identify truth. As a result, we can gain that not only do vantages increase the ability to identify truth, we can see that man can not fully put truth into his mind, and this is why he needs different view points instead of the whole truth presented at once. Further more, as Chesterton points out, this is what causes men to never be able to obtain the joys from viewing and identifying truth. Discovering truth its whole vast infinite being into your head, but rather taking pleasing glimpses from various vantage points in order to better see and identify truth.

…………………

Truth is normally observed as a process to compress an infinite thing and fit it into your head. Truth has a definite way that it can be perceived and viewed from. However, as we have described, and discovered, first truth is infinite in nature and thus you can not put the infinite in the finite without going insane. One’s “head would split open”. Thus man can merely identify truth. Further more, man can identify truth from four vantage points.Since we can not see truth as a whole (since it is infinite), we must view parts of it. It is thought that there must be a better way, a best, or a define way to view truth. However, as we have seen, there, each vantage point presents a different way to view truth that may not be apart of another, as a result. In addition the knowledge from each vantage point causes our sight of the truth to be able to compound. Thus it can be said that man can needs all vantage points in order to view truth and it is a result of these vantage points that man is able to better view, and thus identify truth.

Sources

For now I will just jot things down and write them properly later….

http://www.fi.edu/color/rainbow.html “Did You Know? The Rainbow - The Franklin Institute Resources For Science Learning”

Non-Gender Specific Pronoun

He He laughed I called him His eyes gleam That is his He likes himself

She She laughed I called her Her eyes gleam That is her She likes herself

It It laughed I called it Its eyes gleam That is it It likes itself

One One laughed I called one One’s eyes gleam That is one’s One likes

Hie Hie laughed I called ‘erm Hir eyes glean That is hir It likes hirself

Anthony kosednar

Senior Thesis 2012 (Title to Be Determined)

Essay

Sources

Non-Gender Specific Pronoun

Jekyll. Why?

Test