Preface
Understanding the world is a complex task. One must examine the philosophical underpinnings of knowledge, as well as what the meta-philosophical abstractions sublate. The fact of our reliance on our apprehension of reality, and how they bias our way of looking at the world, has dire implications for peace, and the threat to future habitation of our planet.
Our way of looking at the world is determined by this bias. Bias can manifest itself in many forms. One may see, for example, through the lens of individualism, where the world becomes little more than an objectivized plaything. People might see the world as a concrete jungle, where all must compete. Others might see it as a place where, through cooperative labor, the community can thrive. Or one may make judgements about others simply based on physical characteristics.
All people have biases. It can be argued that these biases are innate, where the mind categorizes the world to make sense of it. Yet many of these biases can and do go awry. Some of these biases include the isms: racism, classism, sexism, speciesism (among others). Certain biases are fundamental in our beliefs and distort our way of understanding the world. These biases are of other “objectivized” groups that can result in misunderstandings: animosity, hatred, antagonism, condescension, dogmatism. Yet sometimes it can seem like biases add a sort of equilibrium and permanence to the world, which is in a constant state of flux or even chaos.
When evaluating the peccadillos of human behavior, it can be found that many attitudes about others, and their concomitant self-justifications, are not justifications at all when looked at objectively. Humans find their attitudes in a constant state of flux. That which is considered true immutably, later on may be thought to be flawed and changeable. One’s dogma, that which one takes for granted, often later on changes to be a discarded and eschewed belief.
Life seems to be in a state of flux. Not only are our belief systems pliable, but the world around us is always changing. We are moving from birth to death, from pliancy to resistance, and then atrophy. Nothing seems constant, except the dogmas that we accept at a certain point in time, which eventually are discarded too for other more comforting, contemporary and convenient ones.
We reassure ourselves that we are conscious and aware beings, capable of making informed choices and holding coherent opinion, yet find our beliefs contrary to what so many others believe. Religion seems to form a sort of foundation in life that one can stand firmly on and feel secure. Yet religions often find themselves in conflict, and religions too are in constant flux, meaning one thing, then another in a later age, then perhaps to be supplanted by another belief system never seen before.
One might get the idea that the author’s intent is to find a firm foundation, or to present a case for a firm foundation to the reader. Unfortunately, this is not the case. To try to show or prove such a foundation one would find themselves locked into some new dogma which too would eventually be swept away.
Little can be known to be certain. As Socrates once said something to the effect that “To know not, and know not one knows not, this is wisdom. To know not and know not one knows not is ignorance”. It seems a meagre sort of knowledge to only know that one does not know.
Yet with this pearl one can bring to thought a form of skepticism that can serve one well throughout one’s life. That being said, must one assume there is no foundation for our beliefs, and are people therefore consigned to a form of nihilism? We must hope not. Being skeptical implies that there is something to be skeptical about. With skepticism one can look at the so-called truths of the world and decide whether they are worthy of merit, and if not, what would or could be a viable alternative.
The job set out here is not easy. When examining the history of philosophy, one soon can find many seemingly plausible arguments, that upon examination by another can be shown to be absurd. The history of philosophy is a sort of historical argument, engaged in dialectic, which subsequently results in different and unique knowledge. So, can one arrive at the truth if this attempt is made successfully?
As we ordinarily understand truth, it seems that when all’s said and done one should arrive at the solution, like a solution to a difficult math problem. One interesting thing about the dialogues of Plato is that sometimes it is unclear if a resolution to a problem is ever reached through the Socratic dialectic. What once seem true, becomes apparently false, and we then rest assured that the new truth is reliable. Yet later we find that this new truth collapses before even another argument.
One of the main contributions of philosophy then is not simply to solve problems, but to provide tools for analysis, often dissecting arguments, and perhaps generalizing what is left to make new truths. Can truth be found? Perhaps – but a dogged pursuit of the truth using only adequate tools makes drawing conclusions difficult. Perhaps immutable truths may not be arrived at, but new insights may be gained, including any new questions that may arise from the new propositions.
Truth is not finite so one cannot hope to ever arrive at the ultimate truth
One person’s truth seems to be another person’s lie. People can be so contrarian in what they believe. Who can judge the truth? Does only God know the truth? Individuals seem unreliable when making suppositions about truth.
In order to know the truth and speak the truth, people must be autonomous beings. Without freedom a person cannot make what seemingly is the right choice. To be “truthful” is a very human endeavor. The question continually comes up about whose truth has merit, which truth is reliable. The problem with an assumption of truth is even more complex than people might think.
In order to hold a truth people must think freely. People often assume that they think freely and are fully conscious beings. Unfortunately, studies show that people can act upon impulses not associated with conscious thought[1. “The work on people’s lack of introspective abilities again points at the importance of the unconscious, but also at the fact that human behavior does not necessarily follow conscious intention or conscious goals”(Page 233). Handbook of Social Psychology: Fifth Edition-Volume 1. Edited by Fiske, S., Gilbert, D., Lindzey, G., Wiley: New Jersey.] . There seems to be a discongruity between those behaviors that are innate, and those that are freely chosen. It seems even more so that one can be blind to this difference.
It is critical to know what constitutes our instincts, and what comprises our free will. If not, how is one to know when they think in an objective manner? If one does not think freely, then they cannot claim to live a completely autonomous life. Without these attributes of reliably free cognitions, one might cease to be fully human, and must be no longer inerrantly an ethical beings. To be an ethical being one must be able to choose what the right choices are. Without autonomy, one may not be immoral, but one must be “amoral”.
A more practical reason why one would want the human species to act freely, is that one can have a well-ordered society, based on good principles of behavior. Without autonomy one cannot have this. On a larger scale, not only must autonomy be beneficial for the individual, but it is necessary for a well-ordered society, and hopefully someday a world at peace. Of course, all this falls asunder if freedom cannot be reliably asserted.
It is clear that peace must be a goal of all peoples, even with the great distrust that exists between peoples. While in a more enlightened age, one country might not covet the resources of another, but rather share them, an autonomous being could (if they so choose) make such a thing reality. While this might be dismissed as claptrap, it is important to remember the fate of rulers in the past who have ignored the “other” after which the ground shook from unrest.
Identifying one’s dogmas are vitally important for social cohesion. From evolutionary theory, one knows that when traits that are passed on, they can survive into successive generations. This innate nature of Homo Sapiens, and all life, may be biased to enhance one’s survival, even to the detriment of others. This orientation may have worked well in agrarian societies, but in our large urban centers our instincts can often get us into trouble. One only needs to look at the prison statistics in the USA for example.
While it may be a tall, and perhaps an even impossible order, one must endeavor to understand one’s innate nature that hovers right behind their consciousness. In order to identify one’s dogma, one must be critically aware, not only of themselves, but how one understands the world. For the way one views the world (i.e., Weltanschauung) can tell us how individuals understand themselves.
In order to change the way one looks at the world then, one must look intimately at the way the individual looks at themselves. Most people are confident they are “good people”, that they are morally upright, and act according to principle; although one may be marginally conscious, if at all, of how self-serving this principle could be when based on an innate need.
How can one remedy this situation in which people find themselves? If there is no immutable truth, then how can one decide if one is right or wrong? Unfortunately, different people attach different meanings to truth. For example, it might be true that the Democratic Party goals are more aligned with the working people. It might be true that the Republican goals ultimately enable others in society to thrive if they so choose. It may be true that the Socialist believes that all wealth should be more equitably distributed, for a more stable society. Or it might be true that the Libertarian values liberty over all others and such a society would be the best.
How is one to decide what is the most desirable of all goals? How is one to decide what belief system one adheres to for a firm foundation and growth? In order for people to find what is wrong about the world, people must know first what is wrong with their own way of understanding this world. People often have different views and may even change radically their views over a lifetime. Understanding is necessary to examine these dogmas.
In order to examine dogmas, one must suspend one’s beliefs. If one is interested in stamp collecting, and they are reading this, this person will likely move on. Or if one wants to understand the Hubble Constant, one will not look here, but will look into the discipline of Astronomy or Cosmology. Yet, when one considers; the stamp collector and the astronomer both have a stake in what is said here. The stamp collector might dismiss this missive because it has nothing to do with commerce. The astronomer might dismiss it because it has nothing to do with science. The stamp collector and the astronomer can both benefit from this appeal, being subject to the human condition. Dogma enters all lives. Bias manifests based in class, status, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, species and so many other innumerable ways that touch all.
It is through this understanding, through our perception, that the world can prevail as it is. Some think of the human race as sheep, choosing whatever path the leaders choose. The call to arms, the making of treaties, the resumption of ties, all happen while one lives their lives, make their decisions – whether good or bad – and after, if one is so fortunate, take themselves safely to their graves.
The goal of this book then is to pierce beneath the façade, to ennoble those among us that can search for the truth. This is for those who will take up the mantle of Socrates and more. For whether one finds the truth or not, nor is even able to do so, that is better than not knowing the truth, but being deluded. If there is no truth to be known, how can one know this if one is not willing to search for it?
