The other day in class I really left considering what's wrong with being simple. I couldn't remember where exactly I had first learned about the idea of simplicity, but then, after some google searching, I remembered the term Occam's Razor and learning about that in Newman's course on mind and consciousness. You would think that something like the mind would require a really complex explanation as to how it processes the world around it. Maybe you do in the context of neuroscience, but even then, it would make sense to "shave off" the frivolous details. What do these details do other than keep us weighted down in unnecessary tangents and confusions? But, at the same time, what if these superfluous details have some meaningful relation to the problem as a whole? What if cutting these seemingly unnecessary aspects would actually prevent humanity from fully understanding something like the mind, or other philosophical quandaries?
A parsimonious way of going about things is making the decision that the most simple, yet also correct, answer can be considered more rational than the more complicated answer. While I don't think I have enough understanding on the subject, I think it is a fairly easy idea to grasp that if something can be explained fully AND simply, then, on a grander human scale, that explanation should be celebrated and disseminated for the sake of greater understanding. Further, I would much rather opt for a simpler, almost humbler explanation for the mind, rather than a convoluted and hard to follow explanation if both say exactly the same thing. By starting small and getting a better grasp on an easier to digest explanation, that would allow for a greater number of people to take that information and build upon it in a progressive, yet easy to digest manner.
The subject of parsimony or simplicity is a necessary conversation to have when dealing with the idea of freedom. I'm excited to begin our class discussions on Why the World Exists.
In a non-scientific context, I think the same idea that you would choose a simpler version over a more complex version of the very same idea is completely relevant in the disciplines of theory and philosophy. Shoot, if we could make these ideas easier to understand, we'd all save plenty of time and effort. Also, I believe we discussed if/how "commoners" or any random person of society thinks about the meaning of existence. I think simplification would certainly increase the number of people who could be affected by scientific theory. But the problem with why the world exists is that it is yet to be proven, so the overlap between simplicity and fact is very difficult to find.
ReplyDeleteHere's my issue with simplicity vs complexity: how can one ever know that the simple and complex answer say the same thing if one is only ever given the simple one? There is clearly great value in exploring the complexities and nuances of any idea. For example, I generally feel stifled when in theory courses the professor resigns to just give the "simple" explanation of an author's theory. Take feminist philosophy for example: the simple explanation is that it's all about equal rights between men and women. Arguably, you could say that's an "over"-simplification, but then where do you draw the line between "simple" and "overly-simple"? Personally, I think this world is mind-bogglingly complex, and the quest for simplicity seems like lazy intellectualism.
ReplyDeleteI think that simplicity has more things to argue about and have different answers just because it is simple. Due to its simplicity, it can come up with different explanations to certain ideas such as god. Humans are not absolutely certain of the existence of god and therefore many religions and ideas exist. However, complex ideas are already explained and complex itself that people do not need to make it more complex. I think existentialism also starts on the simple idea of why is there life? or why is there a being instead of no being? and that is why people question those simplistic ideas and I don't think it is being wrong to be simplistic.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete