Rebelliousness vs. Conformity
There seems to be a contradiction at the heart of the philosopher. On one hand the philosopher is supposed to rebel against any authority; they are to question everything, and take nothing on authority as being true or good.
On the other, they are supposed to conform to the authority of Reason, to the authority of the Truth. For , as being lovers of wisdom, one cannot find wisdom unless they find knowledge. One who is wise who knows all there is to know about a particular topic. One cannot have knowledge unless they have true justified belief. And thus, we are left with the dilemma, that the philosopher is always rebelling against truth claims but simultaneously seeking to find knowledge to which they acquiesce.
There are two possible outcomes then: 1) the philosopher will always be in a higher state of doubt than certainty. Constantly rebelling against, unsure of, and doubting truths as they come to him/her, even ones that were previously believed or "proven" true. These ones are too sceptical, too much the "haters of hypocrisy". 2) The philosopher succumbs to some truth, or system thereof and holds on to it and never examines it again. These people are the "lovers of truth" and they only submit to what reason tell s them is true - BUT this only leads them to accepting the first truth system that seems sufficiently good enough (and corresponds with their bias that the truth is good and ought to be so). This is as much biased as the first group. Now matter how much they may call themselves philosophers.
There seems to be this divide, a constant battle, between the two primary tenets of a philosopher - their love of truth, and their hatred of hypocrisy. A person's own inclinations allows them to slide off into one or the other camp over time.
But perhaps there is a third option? Perhaps knowledge is not a persistent state, but only comes when one is forced to give an account (either by their own doubt in their own mind, or by a persistent outer questioner). As such, no one knows anything until such time they are forced to - and the process of rehashing old arguments becomes so familiar to them after repetition that one can ramble off an argument without even thinking, thus satisfying their doubt nearly immediately - intuitively, instead of calculatively as it must have been when forming these relational matrices. In this way, one can maintain their freedom of thought, their potential doubt of any truth claim, until such time they are forced by said doubt to prove to themselves again something is indeed true.
On the other, they are supposed to conform to the authority of Reason, to the authority of the Truth. For , as being lovers of wisdom, one cannot find wisdom unless they find knowledge. One who is wise who knows all there is to know about a particular topic. One cannot have knowledge unless they have true justified belief. And thus, we are left with the dilemma, that the philosopher is always rebelling against truth claims but simultaneously seeking to find knowledge to which they acquiesce.
There are two possible outcomes then: 1) the philosopher will always be in a higher state of doubt than certainty. Constantly rebelling against, unsure of, and doubting truths as they come to him/her, even ones that were previously believed or "proven" true. These ones are too sceptical, too much the "haters of hypocrisy". 2) The philosopher succumbs to some truth, or system thereof and holds on to it and never examines it again. These people are the "lovers of truth" and they only submit to what reason tell s them is true - BUT this only leads them to accepting the first truth system that seems sufficiently good enough (and corresponds with their bias that the truth is good and ought to be so). This is as much biased as the first group. Now matter how much they may call themselves philosophers.
There seems to be this divide, a constant battle, between the two primary tenets of a philosopher - their love of truth, and their hatred of hypocrisy. A person's own inclinations allows them to slide off into one or the other camp over time.
But perhaps there is a third option? Perhaps knowledge is not a persistent state, but only comes when one is forced to give an account (either by their own doubt in their own mind, or by a persistent outer questioner). As such, no one knows anything until such time they are forced to - and the process of rehashing old arguments becomes so familiar to them after repetition that one can ramble off an argument without even thinking, thus satisfying their doubt nearly immediately - intuitively, instead of calculatively as it must have been when forming these relational matrices. In this way, one can maintain their freedom of thought, their potential doubt of any truth claim, until such time they are forced by said doubt to prove to themselves again something is indeed true.
posted by JB @ 8:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home