Justifications

After all this, you might be wondering: “It’s all cool and stuff, but what’s the point? It won’t advance science per se, doesn’t really say anything new about the human condition or the universe that hasn’t been said a thousand times before, and most importantly, doesn’t lay out a path or route to be followed. If this is philosophy, it’s at most a very nihilistic one.”

I partially agree with the objections, but would like to make some points nonetheless.

First of all, science doesn’t need anything to ‘advance’ it. Perhaps tellingly of its success, here’s a field more resilient than any other human enterprise ever; it corrects itself, learning from its own mistakes and adjusting to any new information provided, and it does so in the most unapologetic, anarchic fashion possible. Any attempts to put boundaries on what can or should be investigated by science are doomed to fail, and no amount of institutional red-tape or adversarial opinions can stop the right ideas from reaching their rightful position within the community. It has never been, therefore, my intent with this effort to impose some sort of categorical-imperative metaphysics, but simply to try and see if all these elements could be stitched together nicely into a single framework. I maintain that the value of said model is only true insofar as it has the strength to express all phenomena manifest through nature in its multiple facets, and if a single piece of evidence were to appear which would contradict the essence of the concepts here exposed, they should be discarded without remorse. The entire point of this saga was to develop a comprehensive set of ideas to account for everything and anything conceivable, so wiping undesirable elements under the rug would most certainly beat the whole purpose of the enterprise. Science can only advance through its own undoing, and it isn’t in Synesism’s interests to push it towards any particular direction, but all of them in an indiscriminate manner — it is, after all, meant as an open, ever-evolving framework, and zealotry is its foremost enemy.

And yet, I’d like to point out that, even though it doesn’t aim to provide a “guiding North” to scientists, Synesism can indeed contribute to the advancement of knowledge. By inspiring an open mindset in researchers (not leaving aside a healthy dose of skepticism and the formal method), it can encourage explorations further from the established boundaries of our knowledge. It’s a conciliatory worldview that supports interdisciplinarity and recognizes the valid and vital social value of scientific progress, so a practitioner would be very open to assist these processes in any form, be it through funding, collaboration, political support or even active involvement — it’s hard not to feel motivated to be a part of it all after you start seeing yourself as directly linked to the object of your study.

Moving away from the science-y angle a bit, it is true that the social implications of this paradigm shift wouldn’t revolutionize the ways of the world like, say, Christendom or capitalism did, but I think it’s wrong to assume its effects would be negligible either. More than societal change, we can safely assume that said worldview would bring upon much greater transformation on a more personal level. Just like the comfort of religion lies on the reassurance it offers us that our existential worries (death, oblivion, suffering, etc.) are mere background noise to the bigger-picture, awesome reality of life, the possibility of answering some of the most profound questions we pose ourselves has a liberating effect, and the fact that the answers offered are of such positive tone (well, at least I found them really comforting) enables a certain fulfillment I’ve only ever encountered in touching works of art or profound religious ecstasy; and though I am an atheist, I place a high value on just this sort of mystical experience (remember mysticism quite literally translates as “sense of oneness”, so no need to supernatural connotations to it in order to be a meaningful thing).

That being said, one point can’t be emphasized enough: this is NOT, nor was it conceived as or should anyone whatsoever regard it as a religion — let alone an organized one! The reasons for it are plentiful — for one, I myself am completely against the idea of institutionalized religion -, but suffices to say that the very notion of religious dogma contradicts some of the main tenets of Synesism, like falsifiability, decentralization, plasticity and openness to varying worldviews. It’s true it wouldn’t be fair to put all world faiths on the same basket in this regard — Buddhism, for example, makes for a compelling exception -; but even among the less archaic examples available, these well-known vices are not exempt. Moreover, the structure of Synesism isn’t compatible with this sort of arrangement — there are no figureheads, priests, commandments, liturgy or fixed canon. The only perennial element, needed for it to be even remotely defined, is our uncompromising belief in the unity of all things, in the most profound sense of the term; but even that doesn’t qualify as unambiguous signifier — broader fields, like monism or naturalism, could just as rightly claim to be holders of that assignment -, making it as much a belief system as Peano’s axioms of arithmetic: a useful, justified construction, yet ultimately just another choice of arrangement.

Synesism is, rather, more like a framework, encompassing several different interpretations which might or not hold true across varying disciplines. Perhaps the closest example of its aspirations is what the Modernist movement sought to accomplish in the 20th century, spreading its ideals through every corner of human enterprise — from literature to architecture, painting and philosophy, essentially shaping up history on its path.

Alas, we’re brought back to the original question: what value does one derive from Synesism? I believe the sincerest answer to that is that it’s a liberating philosophy. Its core takeaway is, after all, that every boundary or confine we experience exists merely as an accidental, rather than essential divide among beings, and that nature is an all-encompassing flow that operates precisely by constantly shifting the lines between its participants. That shines a whole new light on the nihilistic paradigm we’re usually faced with, by replacing the pessimistic outlook that all our actions are ultimately meaningless over its head: all actions are meaningful, for the ‘ultimate’ is a cause-, but not an end-in-itself — it needs to bloom and unravel itself in order to be full, and if our existence arises out of a necessity so deeply embedded into the fabric of reality, we’re suddenly struck by the realization that “as long as we’re here, might as well do something about it and try to enjoy it”.

And therein lies the kernel of the argument: this call-to-action, though indifferent as to the ends being pursued, invariably brings us to the synesistic maxim that unity is strength, which may not be exactly news to anyone but can now be put under a more solid and rigorous foundation. And though there are more prominent examples of this principle gone bad than otherwise (fascism, jingoism, racism, religious fundamentalism), its true force lies exactly in overcoming these bare, superficial allotments and reaching for a deeper sense of community underpinning all human experience. It is, in its essence, an ecumenical doctrine, and given its interpretation of value as being ultimately about expressivity, its signatories should always seek for tolerance and comprehension in the world.

As such, Synesism is, I believe, well positioned to become a formative influence in the twenty-first century and beyond, providing the support and justification for several of humanity’s requisite core values — civil liberties, environmental sustainability, non-aggression, scientific development, economic justice, openness and integration. Not only that, but I believe it carries a very small conceptual burden; its ontological commitments (number and complexity of entities involved) are as small as they could possibly be to provide such a fully-fledged body of knowledge, and though it brings upon some radical notions, the underlying idea can be easily grasped by anyone, making itself a valuable proposition in a cost-benefit dimension as well. All in all, a real bargain of a life philosophy, if you bother to follow through.