Elephants and turtles: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|g|[[File:Elephants and turtle.jpg|450px|thumb|center|The origins everything.]]}}
{{a|philosophy|[[File:Elephants and turtle.jpg|450px|thumb|center|The origins everything.]]}}A Hindu cosmological myth, in which the world is borne upon the back of four elephants who in turn stand on the world turtle, Akupāra (Sanskrit: अकूपार), which has a pretty obvious logical flaw that atheists like to think neatly demolishes the intellectual pretensions of organised religion — which it does — while not noticing how neatly it ''also'' demolishes the intellectual pretensions of secularists, lawyers, scientists and, well, ''atheists'' at the same time. For what — or who — is Akupāra standing on? There is of course an infinite regression here. Had Douglas Hofstadter been a hindu cosmologist he might have placed the lowermost turtle at sufficiently remove ''back on Earth''. A strange loop. Anyway he wasn’t, and they didn’t so we’ll all just have to ponder the opportunity missed.  
A Hindu myth with a pretty obvious logical flaw that atheists like to think neatly demolishes the intellectual pretensions of organised religion — which it does — while not noticing now neatly it also demolishes the intellectual pretensions of secularists, lawyers, scientists and, well, ''atheists'' at the same time.


For here is the problem, [[lazengem|friends]]: ''Every'' good dictionary is circular. Not just the Hindu one. If Douglas Hofstadter is to be believed, that very circularity — reflexivity — is the special sauce.
Note, though, that ''pace'' the atheists, this is not a problem with religion, but with ''[[epistemology]]''. ''Every'' truth depends on a previous one. There is no bedrock truth; they loop around: ''Every'' good dictionary is circular. A non-circular dictionary is complete. Indeed, if you take {{author|Douglas Hofstadter}} at his word, ''that very circularity'' [[Reflexive proposition|reflexivity]] — is the special sauce of language.
   
 
So, like all good [[metaphor]]s, the Hindu creation myth works best if you don’t interrogate it too closely. It begins to run out of explanatory force. Once you start poking around ibn the basement, with all the turtles, you see things you can’t unsee. Hence, successful religions have all kinds of mind tricks and guilt trips to stop punters rooting around in the basement.
 
But all good creation myths have in common a profound commitment to ''truth''. It’s in their constitution: their very purpose is to stop folks bickering and encourage them to get along, by means of a uniform, universal, comprehensive code of things: There ''is'' a truth about the universe, and it goes like ''so''. So all the major religions have commandments, pillars, principles of behaviour and thought.
 
To make a whopping great narrative, try this: the enlightenment slowly suffocated God: it fell to [[Charles Darwin]] to deliver the ''coup de grace'' and {{author|Friedrich Nietzsche}} to announce it to the world — some parts of the world still haven’t quite caught up — and this yielded the crisis of modernity.  
 
Now, “God” is a Big Idea — it answers a lot of questions and gives a lot of guidance about how to behave, and how to organise, and over four millennia generated plenty of auxiliary hypotheses to adapt to the species’ changing circumstances, so when we killed God, we gave quite a lot else away. A means of telling right from wrong, and true from false, for example. The enlightened western intellectual tradition tradition needed to reinvent all these organising principles from scratch: to ditch ''one'' Big Idea, you need to replace it with ''another''. For otherwise — ''nihilism'', right?
 
Now, here is an interesting thing: what if the very idea that there must be a Big Idea, at all, derives from the very Big Idea that now lay lifeless on Charles Darwin’s specimen table? Hold that thought, for the Big Ideas that rushed in to replace it ''all'' cleaved strongly to the notion that there must be a Big Idea. The enlightenment was, in a profound way, utterly bound to the intellectual mores from which These attempts to do so, from the rational precepts of enlightenment: the scientific method, we call [[modernism]].
 
 
 
In any case, failure of the “world turtle” [[metaphor]] is in its own inadvertent way, a potent symbol for the malaise of our time. A ''meta''-metaphor. Knowledge, friends: we are getting rather close to the turtle.
{{draft}}
{{draft}}
{{sa}}
{{sa}}

Navigation menu