2014 to 2020 Exploring my younger self

Gabrielle Conrad-Amlicke written at Lesley University | Intro to philosophy: James Haag 

Processed with VSCO with q2 preset

Imagine if philosophy was concrete. Imagine if, the majority of people agreed with a certain philosopher, on his or her views, and these views became rules. Philosophy is formed from ideas, ideas attuned to defending all possibilities. Possibilities are events that are not determined as fact. But, they have potential or had the potential of happening or not. If certain philosophies were in fact, facts, every aspect of life would change. If Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle were true, we could predict future states. Whereas, if Immanuel Kant’s interpretation of beauty were true, beauty would be ruled by those most intelligent. For the sake of this paper, imagine a world where both of these philosophies were true. We see that the very nature of society as we know it would be predetermined. 

To start off, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle works against determinism. If it were imagined true, humans could predict future events based on subatomic particles. Subatomic particles in our world are not caused or predictable. Therefore, in this world or time, they would be predicted, as well as, interpreted. However, if subatomic particles were predicted, humans would redefine freedom and individual choice. The position and motion of particles would be known and the determination of their future position and motion would be predicted. These predictions would give us the future states of particles. In other words, humans would be able to tell the future. Time would be stopped for short moments and evidence from particle position would give light to expected outcomes. By the Uncertainty Principle being determined as false, because we now have knowledge of future motion and position, this revokes a free will. People would no longer have choices. “Choices” given to us by our internal mind would be more of illusions than fact. People may believe they have choices, but we (this world) would be able to give concrete evidence to the fact that their subatomic particles were in control. Conclusions can be made that if there were Principles that determined facts of subatomic particles human actions would be determined and no events would be left to free will. 

To illustrate another interpretation of concrete philosophy, we can imagine Immanuel Kant’s interpretation of beauty true. The world’s beauty would now be determined by those who were most intelligent. If beauty were based on basic principles of knowledge, those who were “not smart” would have no say on “good art.” Things like test would determine true intelligence because society could not bank on anything else. People would not be intelligent because they excelled in one specific area. For example, dancers or musicians may only be intelligent and proficient in that one area of knowledge. Rulers of beauty would become those with, overall, higher intelligence. Immanuel Kant who rejected David Hume, believed that inherent structures of the mind give us the basic principles of knowledge. So, societies would agree that those who are inherently smarter than others will always be. These inherent rulers of beauty would be able to determine “good art” solely justified by their personal choice. Those that are less intelligent would have no justification in refuting their taste because they, themself, are inherently less intelligent. Yet, Immanuel Kant’s inherent structures of intelligence would bring about new issues. These capable rulers would have to share aesthetic responses. It seems it would be difficult to have concise personal aesthetic responses. Even so, Determining Intelligent would be forced to determine “good art” for the rest of the world. Those who are not intelligent would lose freedom of interpretation. The only beautiful things that would be known to them, would be those chosen for them. These people would lose personal preference because all arts would be good. Even if these people had preferences, these preferences essentially wouldn’t matter because they were choosing between two “good” artworks. This declaration of art and beauty would create false realities for the majority of the world. To further elaborate, there is no room for interpretation or disagreement if these philosophies are true. The stability of freedom and beauty would rely on facts. In one case, the facts would be scientific and in the other fact would be intelligent. Even though art will be subjective for the intelligent a common ruling of good art would be made. I can only purpose that these philosophies as fact, would produce a better utopia. Perhaps a utopian society derives from common law. In order for utopia, society must work collectively. If every human in the world believed these philosophies, and those philosophies of others, it would leave no room for dispute. Unless, of course, those deciding on a specific piece of art, to be deemed beautiful, were selected by their subatomic particles. Of course by someone else in charge.   

Posted by:Gabrielle Francis Conrad-Amlicke, MSW @the_environmentalsocialworker

An attunement to social welfare focuses on the intersectionality of policies, gender, environmental, and systems. Critical thinker who can support programing project development and mass media/communication needs on local and global scales. Designing, analyze, and implement solutions grounded in evidence while considering client systems and structural dimensions and potential outcomes. My advocacy work transcends

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s