S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 5 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 1 9 2 1 Michal Kutáš either. Just like infinite distance cannot be traversed, e.g. it is not possible to reach its end, because there is none, also the infinite amount of time cannot pass, e.g. it is not possible to arrive at the end of the infinite interval of time by a passage of time, because such an interval just does not have an end. Thus, it is not well imaginable that past is infinite. And what would it even mean? Do we know? So, both possibilities, that of a beginning and that of no beginning, are indigestible for reason. Yet, according to its logic (or maybe only according to the classical logic), there are no other possibilities. Let us note finally that positing an instance out of time like is for example a God existing beyond time, also does not solve the problem. His act of creation is an act, and act is not imaginable out of time. But he presumably created time too. On the other hand, if he did not created time, but acted in it, the question moves to him: is he eternal or did he also had arisen? Both of these possibilities we already discussed, and with no success as to understanding them fully by reason. To me, both – and seemingly only possible – answers seem nonsensical. 7 Logic Let us look now at the issue of logic, so intimately connected with reason. Classical logic, in past considered to be the only logic, or the logic, is, as we know, not the only possible logical system. To this day, many different logical systems were developed, including intuitionistic logic, many-valued logics, fuzzy logics and so on. Many of these non-classical logics are developed as well and soundly as classical logic is. From this point of view, they are not worse than classical logic; they are not less logics than classical logic is. As logical systems, they can be defined as well and as exactly as classical logic, and also studied in the same manner. Does it even make sense to ask which of the many developed logics is the right logic? In some senses no, and in some senses yes. In logic understood as a study of logical systems, many non-classical logics are equal to classical logic (those, which are fully developed and exactly defined), and it does not make sense to ask which one of them is the true logic or the logic. But, if we are interested in what logical systems may be involved (and to what extent) in our actual reasoning and in language (for example in its connectives), or which of them are useful for the description of the world, for example in physics (hidden in mathematics, which is a tool for description of a physical world), the question of the right logic has a meaning. Maybe we should, though, reframe the question from “Which logic is the right logic?” to “Which logic is used, useful or practical and so on, to what extent, and where?” And I think the only sure thing we can say about the relation of logics to reality in respect of knowing it is just that. We cannot say with much confidence that any logic mirrors some deep or universal aspects of reality, but we can say, for a given logic and given set of problems, whether this logic is useful tool for solving these problems and to what extent. 8 Scientific Theories This is connected with the question of truth, including the truth of scientific theories, which are the offspring of reason, investigation, experiment and so on. In my view, we cannot confidently say that our scientific theories are true. The only thing we know with a sufficient degree of confidence is that thanks to these theories we were able to do some things which we were not able to do without them: for example to go to the moon, to construct a computer, to travel faster, to see what is very distant or to communicate over great distances almost instantly, and so on. These achievements cannot be questioned. But do we know more about scientific theories than that they enabled us to do these things? I think we do not. We do not know to what extent they are true. Although I do think that if something is useful there also has to be some grain of truth in it, it needs not be more that this grain. It is quite possible, that even our most advanced scientific theories taken together do not reveal more than this tiny grain of truth from what is real. 9 Language As to the issue of language, which is also deeply related to reason, I would like to give the word to Geoffrey Samuel, who when describing the Mahayana Buddhism concept of emptiness, explained it like this: “Mahayana Buddhism holds that there cannot be an ultimately valid and accurate language in which the universe can be fully and definitively described. […] Phenomenal reality is ‘empty’ or ‘void’ in the sense that our understandings of it are empty and illusory; the ultimate reality that lies beyond it is also ‘empty’ in that emptiness is all that can be positively asserted about it.” (Geoffrey 2012, 55). But, “‘emptiness’ is not quite the same as there being nothing there. The universe is not a void in the sense of an absence of anything real, in some ways quite the opposite. It is rather void or empty in the sense of the absence of any specific thing, concept, feeling or state that human processes of consciousness may assume is there.” (Geoffrey 2012, 55). Here, inadequacy of our mental biological equipment is extended even to our feelings and conscious states. Although the question of our feelings and conscious states is not the focus of this paper, it is interest-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=