The Value of Philosophy

Philosophical Inquiry

I see philosophy as the primordial soup from which ideas arise. Some are good, some are bad, some are merely laughable. But it is all worth it for the few good ideas that arise.

Scepticism (note the "c") was a good idea, even if it has been denounced throughout human history by the powers that be and their mindless followers. Scepticism taught us that the dogmatism with which the dishonest addressed epistemic ground zero was a ruthlessly and epistemologically bad idea, and indefensible. Humans are still struggling with this today.

The modern version of scepticism is scientific skepticism (note the "k"). It doesn't have the all-inclusive scope of philosophical skepticism, but for the work for which it was was intended, it serves.

So, if you ask me what good philosophy is, my answer is that without it, nothing new in human thought ever arises.

Logic, in recent decades, has been under attack, replaced in modern curriculums by "critical thinking" (which is anything but). This is an attempt to try to stop logic from putting a stop to internally inconsistent nonsense of new dogmas. That was part of logic's purpose after all, to put a stop to nonsense, so it had to be decimated or redefined to permit the nonsense.

Of course logic had its own issues. In my view logic is not the impartial path to truth that most envision it to be. It is prescriptive, with "true truth values" being good and "false truth values" being bad. Also, the "maps on to" links between analytic logic and synthetic reality can be as strong or as weak as we wish, and that is unfortunate. Also, the initial hope of logic being the pathway to new and novel truths didn't quite pan out as hoped. This is to be expected since all the information in any argument is already present in the premise(s). This is fairly obvious now, but it took humanity a few hundred years to start to figure that out. We are still working on it today.

So, is philosophy valuable, even today? I say it is, because we still need to keep that primordial soup bubbling to get new insights an ideas. What - do you imagine we understand all there is to understand now? We imagined that at every age in human history, and we were always wrong - always. Investigation requires deep intrusion into held and sometimes difficult ideas and for that we need the detachment of philosophical inquiry.

Fortresses of Nonsense

Today (and of late), we do philosophy like we are building and fortifying towers, every brick painted and designed to keep anyone within or without from asking if the ground is secure, or if the structure inside is sound.

More often than not, the mortar is corruption or irrational normative nonsense, and the stones' shapes and paint are prescriptive dogma - demanding orthodoxy of belief through the command force of language (perlocutionary force).

Our struggle as modern thinkers is to keep the relentless mind-washing (seductive lures or polarizing rhetoric) of loud and shining prescriptive dogma from all sides and angles from dulling our critical faculties and/or our will to inquire.

The question about the value of philosophy is an expression of surrender - of our bowing to the dogmas that surround us. I do not ask this question - I already know the answer.

Atheism, Advocacy, and Skepticism

On Describing Atheism as a Faith, Advocacy as Evangelism and Skepticism as Fundamentalism

There is mistaken perception (I'll say "perception" rather than "delusion" out of politeness) among the religious that all ideas are equal - rest on an equal footing - that there is nothing to choose between ideas at the most basic level. In their minds, all ideas are affirmations, made despite epistemic nihilism, and supported only by faith. Hence, we get the claim that atheism is just another faith.

 In order to try to bring all ideas down to their level, the religious will often refer to characteristics of other views in their terms, terms like "fundamentalism" or "evangelical" or "zeal." These terms traditionally have a particular religious content involved in their use. The goal is to present any idea as just another baseless competing ideology.

 This is not the case. All ideas do not suffer the same weaknesses as dogmatic religion. There are approaches to the challenge posed by epistemic nihilism that do not just assume as true in the form of an affirmation. Instead they posit provisionally. This is important in that it is subject to correction as the need arises, rather than subject to orthodoxy requirements like affirmations are.

 There are two possible responses to epistemic nihilism:

(1) do not accept that we do not "know."

(2) accept that we do not "know."

Human history has been of trying to desperately avoid accepting that we do not know with certainty. This has been a fool's game and has had tragic results, as orthodoxy has been traditionally enforced by the sword. In order to deny accepting that we do not "know," various campaigns of rhetoric have been conducted to paint the acceptance of not "knowing" as irrational, or contradictory or even just with negative connotations.

 However, if we accept that we do not know, then we can take a different approach. At the heart of epistemic nihilism we find ourselves presented with a question: What now? Do we:

(1) Curl up in a fetal ball and die?

(2) Affirm truths without basis?

(3) Posit provisionally and see what happens?

Some think that 2 and 3 are the same. They are not, as I indicated earlier, precisely because 3 is provisional and subject to correction, while 2 is not.

 In order for an idea or philosophy to posit provisionally, it must call itself into question without negating itself. The reason it must do this is because, if it holds any ideas as "sacred cows" (with apologies to DJ), then it has effectively become an affirmation. A tall order, but it just so happens we have such a philosophy - the only one of its kind: skepticism. And it just so happens that a methodology based on calling itself into question (error-correction) and eschewing certainty exists as well: science - and science is ridiculously effective.

 The religious (and dogmatic "scientific skeptics") would have us believe that skepticism contradicts itself. If you are skeptical of skepticism then you have negated skepticism, right? Wrong. Doubt is not denial. (We can get deeper into that later perhaps). So let's ask ourselves what happens if we subject skepticism to skeptical inquiry. We find ourselves in a state of uncertainty, a state of doubt - and this persist through as many meta-levels of skeptical inquiry as you care to conduct. At every level we are left in a state of non-assent - which *IS* skepticism. In this way, skepticism critiques itself while resulting in skepticism. No sacred cows; even the most basic ideas are subjected to critical inquiry.

And this is where the distinction between a critique-based philosophy and an affirmation-based one comes into play. Skepticism does not assume itself as an affirmation. It is the result of critical inquiry, and that is different in kind from affirmation-based philosophies (like religions).

And this is part of the reason the religious want to paint all ideas in their terms - to hide the essential error of presuming that skepticism negates itself - that critical inquiry negates critical inquiry. To affirm affirmation. To make the idea of sacred cows itself a sacred cow. To pretend we "know" when we don't. This is why they try to refer to atheism as a faith, all advocacy as evangelism and basic ideas as fundaments (hence fundamentalism). They simply cannot conceive of such a thing as a critique-based approach - it's been socialized and internalized out of them by a lifetime of conditioning. They've been indoctrinated into a terror of "not knowing." Hence we hear derision of people who say, quite properly, "I don't know," as if even admitting lack of knowledge is some sort of weakness of character somehow, rather than just being honest.

All ideas are not created equal, nor are they held equally - and how they are held (as truths or as provisional) matters. It influences how one approaches information and the ability (or inability) to revise information. Provisional holding of information allows for error-correction. Holding information as truth does not.

Philosophical skeptics, like myself, are doing something radically different than what the religious do, and painting me with those sorry terms to try to disguise or hide that is worse than disingenuous - it is an outright lie.