Water and Pail - An Analogy of Existence
C. Cheng, Dec., 1998
Water and Pail
When you are blind, how do you tell whether a pail has water in it? Well, this is not rocket science. You may dip your hand to feel for it. You may toss a coin and anticipate a splash. You may also ask another person who can see. All three methods should lead to the same conclusion; however, they don't. Senses are fallible; reasons such as induction and deduction are often flawed; moreover, experiences and witnesses of others are often lies. Even if they are not lies, they are infested with prevarication and exaggerations. Thus, I propose a forth way to the problem of the pail and the water. That is, create it.
Before looking at the "creation", there are at least two premises taken at the moment the question is asked. First, we bravely assume that there is something known as water; that from former knowledge and experiences (which are fallible and undependable), there exists a matter water. Second, we bravely presume we can know the answer. The first three methods, senses, reason, and others' experiences are based upon these two false assumptions. It is in countering these three human errors and fallacies that I propose the fourth method of creation.
My first attack is, does water exist? We use the word "existence" too lightly that everyone presumes he knows what existence is. Let's grant that they know, for the sake of argument, that existence means a materialistic presence of the subject. With this definition, it follows that "existence" must be in the same plane as our thoughts and physicality, both; because we know (N.B. know!) that we think and we are. Let us extend this logic to the water and the pail. Even if we "know" (though we don't, ever!) what water is, can we say the water in the pail perfectly satisfy that "absolute knowledge" of "aquatic existence"? Since no two "water" is the same, thus it follows that we cannot conclude there is "water" in the pail. It is water merely because man changes the definition of the word "water" to simplify and identify the ever-changing natural phenomenon. This is a fallacy in itself, since it is no more than "a fabrication of beings" (quote Nietzsche), defining, identifying and quantifying entities that are never identical. If there are identical entities, such as one that suits the human understanding of water, it must be in the heavens, not in the world. Thus, I can safely claim that no one really knows what water is, because we can never grasp things that are not in this world. This extends to prove my second attack, that people falsely assume they can seek the heavenly answer in this pragmatic world.
If we can change, mold, define, and rationalize existence, why can we not create it? Water exists because we will it to existence. If we can simply take it as faith that there is water, why can we not be the authority itself and define our own water? Imagine. We can call air water and there is thus "water" in the pail. There is nothing more than conventions. Remember that we are all blind anyway. There lies truth, for the first to create and claim it as the "objective".
And if we can't get an answer after all, why not pour some form of "water" into the pail ourselves? Then we would know for sure.
Ps. The collective "we" is used intentionally, such that truth is not relative to individual creation, but is a created "absolute" as a product of the collective human will. This article is written to point out this very phenomenon and dismiss the foolish belief of divine metaphysics above humanity.