The Desert: A Study in Conscious Thought and Philosophy

In an unnamed continent on an unnamed planet, there exists a man, living in a desert. He roams the desert for years and years, discovering random oasis after oasis so that he may persist. It’s not so much an oasis, as just random points in the land where the man can find sustenance, typically in the form of fresh water and a single fruit tree.

So, after many years, the man begins to believe that these were put here specifically for him. The question is, is he right? He appears to be the only creature on the surface on the planet, and, ignoring any arguments counter the existence of a God-like creature, is he really wrong to believe such a thing? It’s highly illogical that such things would persist in a barren, arid desert environment, and, even if they appear to be somewhat random (inasmuch as they can be considered such, as he has not recorded their location) is it really wrong for him to assume that they were put there for him? There appear to be no other creatures in this world, he would appear to be the only living being.

Another thing to consider is that the world he is in, is essentially one giant desert. It receives little to no rain at all, considering there aren’t really that many bodies of water in it. Granted, there is at least one, but the man has never encountered it, considering he hasn’t walked all the way around the world. So, is it that illogical to assume that things have developed this way? This man knows nothing of the physics of rain, of how the world works; all he knows is silence, food, and water (yes, he obviously does not require protein.) Is it too far-fetched to say the man is right?

Or is, perhaps, the man his own god, his own creation? God is dead, for we have made him such… and with his death, is it not necessary that we ourselves become gods? Is it a rational human behaviour, a common human behaviour, to view completely random events and assume that, especially if they benefit specifically us, they happened specifically for us?  And, the real question is, is it really wrong to think like that? Is it really wrong to feel that certain specific things happen for one of us and not anyone else? If we have no way to know better, if there’s no other input in the functionn, if the equation is missing a few variables, and you lack the entire big picture, is it wrong to make up your own details?

The point is, whether or not it’s wrong, it still happens. The man still comes across many an oasis and fruit tree, with no sign of any other life, no sign of any other biological organism taking from these points. Is it wrong to find your own explanation? What if that is the only one that will work for you? Perhaps it goes counter to the walls of reality, perhaps it is contrary to how things go, but when you are in the position of this man, who does not understand the laws of reality, who no more knows the laws of physics than he knows the other side of the planet he is on, what are you left with other than just the ideas you come up with on your own?

And thus, philosophy is born. The ideas may be inherently wrong, and flawed, but that is the beauty of it. Whether or not they are flawed, they provide a paved road for future thought, a basis, and, a point for creation. Whether they are correct or not is immaterial, all that matters is that they exist in order to base new thoughts and ways of life off of. For instance, there is the Platonic belief of forms. It’s not necessarily possible to prove whether such a thing is real and true or not. Yet, based on that single quasi-axiom of truth, it can be said that inspiration is found. No matter how flawed and wrong a philosophy is, it does the one most important job: it provides a basis for future thought.

So, the man can assume that the things were made for him specifically… and then, many a year later, he could begin to map out all the locations that he encounters, and realize that they are spread uniformly in specific places where such an oasis could persist. Based on new input and data, he has the ability to change his philosophy.

And that is the beauty of thought and relative statements. Nothing is permanent so long as you are willing to change. There’s a whole other world waiting to be explored by him, a world containing so many new features that he has never seen, other continents, non-desert areas, ocean, rain, clouds (en masse, rather than just the few sparse drifters in the sky). Just because his philosophy becomes nullified by new data does not mean it was wrong.

Philosophy is all about what works for the time. Just like sciences, it is constantly renewed and kept fresh. Just like life, it is very dynamic. It is not ours to control the flow of thought and philosophy, merely only to bask in the fact that it exists, and live in it each and every day. Thoughts can not be controlled by any one but the experiencing party.

So, the end point is… what does it matter if we’re wrong, as long as we still have the capability to be right?