The Path to Objective Reality
The Greek philosopher, Plato, is well known for his epistemology of rationalism, in which he claims that knowledge is intrinsic, and must be brought to the surface by recollection. In his theory of the forms, he ascribes this innate knowledge to absolute concepts, of which all people have some awareness. Advocates of this body of thought believe that time should be spent looking “within” oneself and theorizing in order to give these vague ideas a more concrete form. Opponents of rationalism, known as empiricists, believe that all knowledge is acquired by collecting physical data. Clearly, knowledge obtained through the senses is less abstract than anything drawn from theory, as that is how humans process information. However, all knowledge acquired through the senses becomes subjective, limited to the perception of the individual. Differences in perception lead to discrepancies within a body of knowledge, and so there is always the question of the true nature of anything, its objective reality, that which Plato would classify as its “form”.
It seems that rationalists and empiricists only subscribe to their own epistemology, dismissing the other as having no credibility. For anyone to argue that collecting physical data is not a legitimate means of obtaining information is ridiculous. It is equally absurd to believe that without some innate comprehension that humans could even make sense of what they learn.
Almost two years ago, I began to postulate the existence of a “universal will”, a massive collective consciousness inhabiting and shared by all beings throughout the “universe”. This was before I had read anything of Plato. How can it be that my theory shares so much in common with Plato’s theory of forms, even before I had read or even heard anything about them? Where ideas coincide, they must in some way be derivative of a mutual source of information. Even if I were to say that my theories were drawn from some innate knowledge, I could not deny that the things I have learned and my experiences in life influenced them. The same was surely true of Plato and his ideas. How then, without being privy to Plato’s life experiences, could I come to some of the same conclusions? For that matter, how is it that Plato and many of history’s other great thinkers, were able to come to conclusions that even the staunchest empiricists cannot dispute? Why are ancient theories, written before high technology elaborated on the workings of the mind, still applicable in discussions of the human thought process? How do people across the world and throughout time, who have never met or compared notes, come up with the same or similar ideas if they are not derived from common data? A universal will would account for all of these things, and in fact can even explain how I am able to conceive of its existence.
Earlier I mentioned how differences in perception can account for discrepancies within any body of knowledge. According to my theory, no one life form has the mental capacity to harbor the universal will in its entirety. Therefore, it is feasible that this massive consciousness is divided amongst its countless possessors. By definition, perception is “recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory”. It is also possible that perception is how any information acquired corresponds to related knowledge drawn from the subject’s stock of the universal will. This coincides with Plato’s theory of forms in that both refer to an absolute body of knowledge, all derivative information limited to the perception of the individual.
Most of my theories stem from the idea that all life, all existence for tat matter, is drawn from the same singular source. If this is true, then both rationalism and empiricism are equally valid, because information drawn from within and absorbed from the surrounding environment would all be derivative of that source. The very inclination to observe, to study, to gather information all begins with an idea, whether it is the person’s own, or one passed down from others. The idea may not even be concrete in terms of human reasoning, but rather an abstract desire, as is the case with infants. A person acts on that inclination, collecting data through their senses, correlating it with what they already know. Where there are gaps in the universal will, fostered by the existence of individuals, they are filled by interaction amongst those individuals, and between them and the environment. In essence, the acquisition of knowledge as a whole is the piecemeal reassembly of a fragmented state of existence.
People should be encouraged to engage in higher thought, to truly contemplate the workings of the world around them. They should then aspire, where possible, to affirm their ideas through the support of physical evidence. Rationalism and empiricism, working hand in hand, help us come closer to defining an “objective reality”.