Is it worthwhile to search for Truth? Can we even succeed in finding Truth? What benefit is there in knowing the "Truth," assuming such knowledge is even possible?
Before beginning a search for Truth, we have to determine our criteria for evaluating ideas or concepts that purport to be True. But here, we encounter a problem.
As Sextus Empiricus pointed out, the search for a criterion of Truth leads to infinite regress. If we have a criterion for evaluating whether an idea is True, then that criterion itself is an idea which could be true or false; so that criterion itself would need another criterion in order to be verified as true, and so on.
There does seem to be a way around this objection: we appear not to need a criterion of truth if we accept that some truths are truly self-evident. But does the idea of "self-evidently true" ideas really solve anything?
What is this faculty of ours that is capable of judging whether something is self-evidently true? In calling something "self-evident," what we really seem to be saying is that we know it's true, but we cannot articulate or consciously understand how we know that it is true. We have an intuition that a statement is true, and this intuition is so strong that we cannot sincerely believe that the statement is not true. But we can't explain why it is true or how we know that it is true.
But is the "self-evidence" of an idea a property of the idea itself? Or is it a property of the mind to which the idea appears to be self-evident?
The Declaration of Independence declares that it is self-evidently true that humans have fundamental and inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Is that declaration self-evidently true? If I believe that it is, am I saying something about Nature or Nature's God? Or am I really just saying something about myself and what my ideals are? Even if lots of other people believe that these political sentiments are self-evidently true, does that make those political ideals any more objectively true? Or are these ideals merely a subjective truth about us as human beings?
I certainly want it to be true that "all men are created equal," and I really want to believe that we really do have certain inalienable rights, such as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But in saying all that, I have really only declared something about myself and my preferences. If I say that some statement is self-evidently true, I am really saying only that I have a very strong desire that the statement be accepted as true, and that my preference so strong that I cannot even imagine the statement being false.
Calling an idea "self-evident" or "properly basic" appears to be a shortcut in the Search for Truth. But if this shortcut yields anything at all, it is a subjective feeling of certainty, not a real insight about the Universe.
The fact that we believe something to be self-evidently true is a fact about ourselves, not about the Universe. Nevertheless, that insight is still valuable to us. Maybe we need some feeling of certainty about not only ourselves, but about the world around us.
Maybe "self-evident" really means "posited as something undoubtedly True by human convention," and maybe we posit such truths out of a sense of overwhelming need for certainty. Maybe we need such feelings of certainty in order to get on with the business of living and to enjoy our lives. But does any of this change the importance of the "self-evident" truths of the Declaration of Independence?
The overwhelming majority of us (at least in America) have a very strong belief that we really do have certain basic rights that are given to us by Nature and by Nature's God, and that among these are the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We have a very strong belief that these rights need no justification or support. We strongly believe that these rights are a properly basic foundation for our political system. We have a very strong belief that these rights cannot be lost or given away, and we strongly believe that the preservation of these rights is a valid justification for the coercive power of the State, as well as a necessary restraint on the State's power. The overwhelming majority of us share these beliefs, and this agreement provides a solid starting point and a meaningful reference point for us as we participate in the social and political life of our society. That, in itself, is something very valuable.
Can we do some sort of Orwellian double-think and accept this posited Truth as something objectively real? Most people are not intelligent or sophisticated enough to understand that a "fundamental and inalienable right" could be posited by mere human convention or to make the mental leaps needed to do the double-thinking needed to use philosophy as a ladder, then kick the ladder away, and finally see ourselves as being where we have really always been. For those who cannot climb this sort-of Wittgenstein-ish ladder, we urge them to believe the noble lie that these truths really and truly are self-evidently true. For those who ask the right questions that show that they see through the self-deception, we encourage them to climb the ladder with us, but then to kick the ladder away, once they have gotten to a place of seeing it all for what it is.
Of course, a problem arises if someone promotes a harmful idea on the basis that its truth is self-evident. On the fringes of society, we can always find some lunatic who strongly believes an idea that most of the rest of us find crazy and odious. When it's just one lunatic, or even a small group of them, we can more or less leave them be, without worry -- at least as long as they don't arm themselves and promote their crazy beliefs through violent oppression or terrorism. As long as they agree to live at peace with those of us who believe differently, we can respect their right to live out their bizarre beliefs to their hearts' delight. After all, we may sometimes find ourselves in the category of people who have beliefs that are held to be wrong, or even crazy, by the mainstream masses. But when the lunatic fringe becomes big and powerful enough to impose their agenda on everyone else, then this whole idea of "self-evident" truths can really come back to haunt us. If we can insist that a noble ideal is self-evidently true, then perhaps a demagogue can insist that some barbaric belief is also self-evidently true.
But there seems to be no way to protect ourselves in advance from the possible misuses of the idea that some truths are really self-evident. Either we admit candidly to ourselves and the world that our most cherished beliefs are without basis in fact or reality, or we allow ourselves the comfort of this noble lie, while simultaneously arming the lunatic fringe with an epistemological basis for their destructive ideology.
However, I suppose that insisting upon certain rights as being "self-evident" is really the best defense against a would-be tyrant who insists that everyone agree with him because his premises are self-evidently true. If enough people accept on almost religious faith that everyone should have certain basic rights, then hopefully that quasi-religious zeal can overcome the demagoguery of a would-be tyrant.
In the above discussion about the "truth" of certain political ideals, I believe that I have hit upon a pattern that may guide the individual in her search for Truth. We find that we have certain very strong beliefs or intuitions or feelings about ourselves and how we want the world to be. These beliefs appear to be facts about ourselves. We appear to benefit from believing them as true, since that belief gives us a starting point for our practical beliefs, as well as a reference point for navigating through Life. We really want these beliefs to be true, but deep down, we worry that they may not actually be true. So how should we proceed in our search for Truth?
One of the most important insights of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) seems to be that we should think of ideas as being harmful or helpful, rather than as being true or false. That sounds strange and counterintuitive and a bit dishonest. But it turns out that we are doing just that already, only we are doing it on a subconscious level.
We believe some things are self-evident because of a subconscious desire or need. In addition to helping us obtain our desires, our conscious Reason works through rationalizing and justifying our subconscious desires, both to ourselves and to others. By consciously acknowledging to ourselves what we are already doing, we can free ourselves to evaluate all our ideas and beliefs, including those that seem "self-evident," on the basis of whether they are helpful or harmful to us.
We can be honest with ourselves about what we really want, without worrying about what we "should" want. After we acknowledge what our most basic desires really are, we will likely discover that our most basic wants correspond with our most basic needs, and that our fundamental needs are not "bad," but only what make us human. Moreover, our basic human needs are something that appear to be common to all people, something that can unite us and provide a basis for empathy and an ethic of mutual care, as well as a foundation for reciprocity and mutual restraint in order to safe guard each other's rights.
So perhaps the truth about ourselves is the starting point and reference point for the individual search for Truth. We have certain essential needs; we take it as self-evidently true that any legitimate system of law or morality must permit and protect the fulfillment of those basic needs. If eudaimonia or human flourishing or the blessed life is possible, it can arise only in a context where our most basic needs are met. So when we envision our ideal selves or our ideal world, we use our "self-evident" truths as both our starting point and reference point, and we evaluate all our ideas and habits on the basis of whether they are helpful or harmful in our quest to flourish as human beings.
If you enjoyed this article, you may enjoy other articles or blog posts on the search for Truth, such as "Is the Bible True?" Also, if you have any thoughts that you'd like to share, please take a moment to leave a comment below. Thanks for reading!
 |
| The Search for Truth |
An initial objection to the Search for Truth
Before beginning a search for Truth, we have to determine our criteria for evaluating ideas or concepts that purport to be True. But here, we encounter a problem.
As Sextus Empiricus pointed out, the search for a criterion of Truth leads to infinite regress. If we have a criterion for evaluating whether an idea is True, then that criterion itself is an idea which could be true or false; so that criterion itself would need another criterion in order to be verified as true, and so on.
What about Self-Evident Truths?
There does seem to be a way around this objection: we appear not to need a criterion of truth if we accept that some truths are truly self-evident. But does the idea of "self-evidently true" ideas really solve anything?
What is this faculty of ours that is capable of judging whether something is self-evidently true? In calling something "self-evident," what we really seem to be saying is that we know it's true, but we cannot articulate or consciously understand how we know that it is true. We have an intuition that a statement is true, and this intuition is so strong that we cannot sincerely believe that the statement is not true. But we can't explain why it is true or how we know that it is true.
But is the "self-evidence" of an idea a property of the idea itself? Or is it a property of the mind to which the idea appears to be self-evident?
The Declaration of Independence declares that it is self-evidently true that humans have fundamental and inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Is that declaration self-evidently true? If I believe that it is, am I saying something about Nature or Nature's God? Or am I really just saying something about myself and what my ideals are? Even if lots of other people believe that these political sentiments are self-evidently true, does that make those political ideals any more objectively true? Or are these ideals merely a subjective truth about us as human beings?
I certainly want it to be true that "all men are created equal," and I really want to believe that we really do have certain inalienable rights, such as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But in saying all that, I have really only declared something about myself and my preferences. If I say that some statement is self-evidently true, I am really saying only that I have a very strong desire that the statement be accepted as true, and that my preference so strong that I cannot even imagine the statement being false.
Calling an idea "self-evident" or "properly basic" appears to be a shortcut in the Search for Truth. But if this shortcut yields anything at all, it is a subjective feeling of certainty, not a real insight about the Universe.
How the shortcut of self-evidence helps us in our Search for Truth
The fact that we believe something to be self-evidently true is a fact about ourselves, not about the Universe. Nevertheless, that insight is still valuable to us. Maybe we need some feeling of certainty about not only ourselves, but about the world around us.
Maybe "self-evident" really means "posited as something undoubtedly True by human convention," and maybe we posit such truths out of a sense of overwhelming need for certainty. Maybe we need such feelings of certainty in order to get on with the business of living and to enjoy our lives. But does any of this change the importance of the "self-evident" truths of the Declaration of Independence?
The overwhelming majority of us (at least in America) have a very strong belief that we really do have certain basic rights that are given to us by Nature and by Nature's God, and that among these are the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We have a very strong belief that these rights need no justification or support. We strongly believe that these rights are a properly basic foundation for our political system. We have a very strong belief that these rights cannot be lost or given away, and we strongly believe that the preservation of these rights is a valid justification for the coercive power of the State, as well as a necessary restraint on the State's power. The overwhelming majority of us share these beliefs, and this agreement provides a solid starting point and a meaningful reference point for us as we participate in the social and political life of our society. That, in itself, is something very valuable.
Can we do some sort of Orwellian double-think and accept this posited Truth as something objectively real? Most people are not intelligent or sophisticated enough to understand that a "fundamental and inalienable right" could be posited by mere human convention or to make the mental leaps needed to do the double-thinking needed to use philosophy as a ladder, then kick the ladder away, and finally see ourselves as being where we have really always been. For those who cannot climb this sort-of Wittgenstein-ish ladder, we urge them to believe the noble lie that these truths really and truly are self-evidently true. For those who ask the right questions that show that they see through the self-deception, we encourage them to climb the ladder with us, but then to kick the ladder away, once they have gotten to a place of seeing it all for what it is.
Of course, a problem arises if someone promotes a harmful idea on the basis that its truth is self-evident. On the fringes of society, we can always find some lunatic who strongly believes an idea that most of the rest of us find crazy and odious. When it's just one lunatic, or even a small group of them, we can more or less leave them be, without worry -- at least as long as they don't arm themselves and promote their crazy beliefs through violent oppression or terrorism. As long as they agree to live at peace with those of us who believe differently, we can respect their right to live out their bizarre beliefs to their hearts' delight. After all, we may sometimes find ourselves in the category of people who have beliefs that are held to be wrong, or even crazy, by the mainstream masses. But when the lunatic fringe becomes big and powerful enough to impose their agenda on everyone else, then this whole idea of "self-evident" truths can really come back to haunt us. If we can insist that a noble ideal is self-evidently true, then perhaps a demagogue can insist that some barbaric belief is also self-evidently true.
But there seems to be no way to protect ourselves in advance from the possible misuses of the idea that some truths are really self-evident. Either we admit candidly to ourselves and the world that our most cherished beliefs are without basis in fact or reality, or we allow ourselves the comfort of this noble lie, while simultaneously arming the lunatic fringe with an epistemological basis for their destructive ideology.
However, I suppose that insisting upon certain rights as being "self-evident" is really the best defense against a would-be tyrant who insists that everyone agree with him because his premises are self-evidently true. If enough people accept on almost religious faith that everyone should have certain basic rights, then hopefully that quasi-religious zeal can overcome the demagoguery of a would-be tyrant.
How does this apply to the individual's search for Truth?
In the above discussion about the "truth" of certain political ideals, I believe that I have hit upon a pattern that may guide the individual in her search for Truth. We find that we have certain very strong beliefs or intuitions or feelings about ourselves and how we want the world to be. These beliefs appear to be facts about ourselves. We appear to benefit from believing them as true, since that belief gives us a starting point for our practical beliefs, as well as a reference point for navigating through Life. We really want these beliefs to be true, but deep down, we worry that they may not actually be true. So how should we proceed in our search for Truth?
One of the most important insights of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) seems to be that we should think of ideas as being harmful or helpful, rather than as being true or false. That sounds strange and counterintuitive and a bit dishonest. But it turns out that we are doing just that already, only we are doing it on a subconscious level.
We believe some things are self-evident because of a subconscious desire or need. In addition to helping us obtain our desires, our conscious Reason works through rationalizing and justifying our subconscious desires, both to ourselves and to others. By consciously acknowledging to ourselves what we are already doing, we can free ourselves to evaluate all our ideas and beliefs, including those that seem "self-evident," on the basis of whether they are helpful or harmful to us.
We can be honest with ourselves about what we really want, without worrying about what we "should" want. After we acknowledge what our most basic desires really are, we will likely discover that our most basic wants correspond with our most basic needs, and that our fundamental needs are not "bad," but only what make us human. Moreover, our basic human needs are something that appear to be common to all people, something that can unite us and provide a basis for empathy and an ethic of mutual care, as well as a foundation for reciprocity and mutual restraint in order to safe guard each other's rights.
So perhaps the truth about ourselves is the starting point and reference point for the individual search for Truth. We have certain essential needs; we take it as self-evidently true that any legitimate system of law or morality must permit and protect the fulfillment of those basic needs. If eudaimonia or human flourishing or the blessed life is possible, it can arise only in a context where our most basic needs are met. So when we envision our ideal selves or our ideal world, we use our "self-evident" truths as both our starting point and reference point, and we evaluate all our ideas and habits on the basis of whether they are helpful or harmful in our quest to flourish as human beings.
If you enjoyed this article, you may enjoy other articles or blog posts on the search for Truth, such as "Is the Bible True?" Also, if you have any thoughts that you'd like to share, please take a moment to leave a comment below. Thanks for reading!
The website will match a certain share of your first deposit as much as} a specified amount. For instance, the on line casino may offer a bonus worth 100% as much as} $100. If you deposit $100, you'll have have} $200 to bet on your favourite sports. The most typical technique is by inputting the code in a delegated field and urgent redeem. Red Dog is a relatively new on line casino with some extent to prove, and what better way to take action than by offering a set of fantastic deposit bonus codes? You are now are|are actually} able to play 카지노 on line casino games and on-line poker at Ignition, with your welcome bonus cash and bonus spins of course.
ReplyDelete