Holism versus reductionism


In her book, "Are you an illusion?" Mary Midgley supports holism

She argues that the thoughts we have, the longing and the choices we make are important -
it's i not only signals in the brain. Perhaps obvious, but not if you are a 100% reductionist...
We also have some freedom, I can lift my arm when I decide to do so...
So our will  seems to influence the brain and the muscles in the arm - we are not totally ruled by the genes, as Dawkins seems to mean.

A Buddhist would say that the  brain and the mind is interrelated. Without the brain there would be no mind. But without the mind - no brain.

Or; the brain has been developed to construct mind - without the mind the brain would have no
function and would therefore be smaller and smaller  like our smallest toes are... - because of that we now seldom climb trees,

There must for sure be a self in each men, she argues. and mocks the philosophers  that  claims that the self just is an illusion, though a necessary one.


She compares holism and reductionism as she is looking at the Thames. In a scientific and reductionist view, the river is made of atoms and it has no name. In the a holistic approach it has a name and we can use it for boat-trips and so on. Maybe we can say that it is two contexts, but as
Midgley points out, the contexts, or "thought words", can  be complements to each other.



But for  the no-self in Buddhism she makes an exception; Even if  Buddhism says that we have no
separate self, Buddhism allows us to be together with everything,

In Buddhism the worlds conventional and absolute realities often is used.
In the conventional reality there is a separate person and also a self, I suppose.

But in the absolute reality there are nothing of this, but that reality can only be reached in meditation.
 But even  if you know that reality you still have to live in the conventional world.
Perhaps they are interrelated too...

Anyway it is okay to live in this conventional world, where you are a person, with ambition and goals. But  somewhere in your mind you can remember the other another dimension  where we all are one...  To be angry at someone that insulted you, means that you, in the absolute dimension, are angry at yourself....



The humble people seem to be the happiest, though they never will have any great titles or portraits made of them.

Here is Mary M (a phenomenal hat!)






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more