My reading of Nietzsche these days just reminded me that the very meaning of writing a book is not providing a set of ideas but a way of thinking.The secret of  philosophizing doesn’t lie at digging a given bunch of ideas but being creative. That might be problem of Marxists who idolize materialism.

Neverthless, I am now writing that bunch of ideas, just to note down things that do not seem to find way to get out of my mind now but sooner or later get out without well apprehension. So here it go.

The first one i have come up with about 2 months ago when  i was reading Russell in his Problems of Philosophy-quite comprehensive and above all easy for beginner like me. The idea is that when you see size of a flagpole’s shadow changing because of the sun’s motion, for example, you probably think it is most obvious fact in the world that the shadow is caused by a general law saying light travel in straight line in uniform environment so the the angle of sun light in relation to the ground makes the size of shadow. I was so striking me that the way people think as described is one of those idols of mind that Francis Bacon was always talking about. Let me put it to you this way, the shadow’s size was actually fixed and surrounding objects’ size change constantly when sun’s light angle was changing, so you would see the same effect.  There must be no way to detect the difference between those. David Hume said ” Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions” in his A treatise on human nature which means human desire does control reason and all other social behaviors. That is so true in this situation, people often care more about motive objects rather than fixed ones. Easy understanding, motive objects might help a lots in improving lives while fixed ones only find a little use such as north star for pilot. Plus, it would become very complicated to consider many moving objects in relation to a fixed one in the old time. It was the problem of convenience.

The second one is what i personally call idols of near and immediate interaction. It is now pretty weird for me that i seldom find explanation on the issue in contemporary text book. Why doesn’t any one wonder why those electromagnetic, gravitational interaction are always considered as immediate? Don’t get me wrong because i am totally aware of that speed of gravitational interaction; according to Newton, is infinite; according to General relativity of Einstein, is precisely speed of light. Basically, maths is maths; granted you have the whole ideas, the rest to do is calculation; if there is anything unmatched in comparison with experimental data, there must be something wrong with the ideas, except you are poor at maths. Previously, those ideas were some sort of wave form or radiation. And experimental confirmation for such hypothesis is always thought of in analysis of planets of satellites’ movement, probably because people lean to think that gravitational field ‘s propagation is so fast that only observation of such objects might reveal the truth. Neverthless, there is no valid experimental confirmation of such a fundamental prediction yet. From philosophical point of view, i just wonder  is this another problem of convenience? Lets first consider the size of human body in relation to surrounding object which first shape our perception of nature which probably made the foundation of sciences. That size of body might somehow constraint our sensation of phenomenons. For example, if you were an ant with same visual ability as human, you would see carbon nanotubes, which was discovered quite recently and still on the edge of science,  as clear as human see sewing thread because we human are approximately 1000 times bigger than ant in body size. Perhaps someone could argue: “well, ant is blind and possesses an undeveloped brain”, so we might make another example this way: as discussed in a very long time ago entry, i did claim that the earth also has soul, that fact makes it equivalent to human in term of sensation and reasoning. Now this might sound unsound but lets just grant it for now, the earth would perceive those planet motion and spacetime curvature, if they ever exist, as clear as we human perceive the wind. Of course we are not sure about sensation of the earth’s soul. So this is all to say that our perception of space is no way independent of sensory organs. It is also true for time.