Is a key still a key without a lock?

Is a key still a key when it has nothing to unlock?



A classical philosophical question which relates to my recent pondering. There's a rather old question, within eastern philosophy that was often associated with Zen Buddhists. How do you define something, or someone without first comparing them to anything, or anyone else within this universe?

Is it not true that we are, essentially creations of the environments and people around us? A person can only be gifted in musical talent if you compare them to someone who is not. Or perhaps how difficult that task is to complete, without these comparisons, they are nothing more than what they are. How then do you define someone without subjugating them towards everything else?

When I ask myself, how can I define myself without acknowledgment of everything else within our universe, or at least anything else within our universe, I truly it difficult to completely separate myself from it. I could state that I am an entity that exists within its own right, clear of thought which is its own. However in that same sense, without truly realising it, I am in fact stating several points in relation to everything else. What is thought? If we don't accept that thought is a mindset or evaluation of certain artifacts then we do not accept what thought is, in that same sense it clearly has relations to alternative things, in which case classifying myself as an entity with thought, therefore instantly places me in relation to everything else.

To even state that I am an entity, an object, a living creation, a thing still places me in relation to everything else, as the simple fact is, without understanding an alternative and entity, thing or living creation is nothing more than a word. So to use such a thing within my description requires me to compare myself to alternative things, simply to understand the meanings of the words themselves. As such clearly, is is quite impossible to truly yourself, or anything else without defining or comparing yourself or anything else to the universe and everything that is within it....

Then again, why would you want to? In reality, we are not separate from this universe, or anything else within it, we are after all a living aspect, part of the universe. As is everything, we are in essence the universe, a part of it yes, therefore we are it. So to try and separate ourselves in definition of it, would be illogical.

To consider myself a creation of the universe, something made by nature, by other means, God perhaps. Then I would once more be separating myself from the universe, from everything as this, would suggest a differential between the two. One could be presumably defined without the other, as it is something within its own self. However that seems to be impossible.

Thus I must conclude that I am no more a creation of the universe, anymore than I am separate from the universe. To suggest such a thing would seemingly be against normal religious and even scientific view points within the world. I don't want to get too much into the religious side of things, let's stick with philosophy.
As I can only truly be define as an aspect of everything, as a part, in essence as everything. Then surely we can consider ourselves to be a singular form of everything, that we are merely particles of everything that is in essence one thing as it can only be defined by comparison of itself without anything else... I'm not sure that made sense.

As we move on, we see that everything is linked, in simple definition, the very descriptions and understandings of everything, require us to understand the alternative. To go back to the heading, you give someone who has never seen or heard of a key and lock before, give them a key without a lock. To them it's merely a piece of metal. Even that has description, we understand the general properties of metal, to understand what it actually is and to use it in relation to other things.
In essence, everything seems to require other things and as simple as something as the definition of everything appears to require everything else. I'm aware how many times I have said everything within that sentence...

In final conclusion, I think it is fair to state, that as we all need and require everything else around us, simply to define ourselves, then surely in reality, we are essentially a singular form of everything, with a multitude of aspects outside of itself that can only be truly defined by understanding everything, as everything is in reality one thing, which holds many parts. That in itself is the only definable reality.







Authors notes: Some answers to questions/thoughts asked in relation to the article.



" An action can not change an object, if the key is made without a lock, it is still a key. The action of unlocking is a function played out by the object at hand however, the object still holds its state of being without the action. Whether the action be created before and disappeared or never truly being created in the first place. "



Of course an action can change a thing. The action of placing a piece of wood in a fire clearly changes the thing, the wood. Actions constantly affect and change everything that is around us. The only true constant in life is change.

As for a key being made without a lock, the only reason you know that to be a key is because you have experienced what a key and lock are before, or have been told such. There may not be a physical lock but a theoretical one still exists and always will. The point still remains, to define what is, you must first understand what it is not and that which makes it what it is.







" 'To define what is, you must first understand what it is not and that which makes it what it is.'
I disagree. I can define a square but not everything it's not because to do that I would need knowledge of everything (except the object). As for the second part I can define a chair well enough but I have very little idea of the particles and individual elements and compounds that it is composed of, or any idea of it's history or the etymology of it's name."


To define a square, you are talking about an object, what is an object? It is in relation to other things, what aren't objects etc etc'. Okay, you have defined it as an object, it has four sides, what are sides? They are parts which separate one thing from another, in the case of a square, lets focus on a drawing of a square. The square therefore has sides, the sides therefore are pen marks on a piece of paper. What is paper? What is a pen? What is ink?

You can see where I'm going with this, if you actually try to define something, without comparing or using anything else, you suddenly find yourself either with a loss of words, or actually defining a million other things. Which can quite literally lead on forever. Yes to us, most people, we would be able to define a square as a shape which has four equal sides and four corners. However that is because we are familiar with what all of these terms are and therefore differentiate them from everything else.

Break it down to basics and understand that without understanding everything, to at least a mild degree, we can not truly understand anything at all.