Descartes or the Mob
I can relate to Descartes’ quest to overcome his conceptual framework and the subsequent ideas (true and false) that flowed from such a framework.
Some years ago I was struck by the large number of falsehoods that I had accepted as true in my childhood, and by the highly doubtful nature of the whole ediface that I had subsequently based upon them.
I can appreciate his attempt to explore and possibly overcome those false ideas that had been handed down to him before he had the ability or the desire to question them. His journey led him to battle skepticism as he cast doubt upon virtually everything. While I have not journeyed quite that far (and am in general resistant to this form of radical skepticism) I am definitely on a similar quest. Following a path blazed by thinkers far more proficient than myself I want to discover, if possible, what is true and what is mere opinion. Those before and after Descartes wanted to find out those things that were really true. So it is with me. I’d like to think that as I discover things that don’t meet the criteria for justifiable belief I will, for the most part, toss them out. I can also admit that there are ideas that are as yet unjustified but that I hope will be at some point in the future.
What is curious to observe is how tightly people hold onto ideas that are not their own. By that I mean they uncritically accept what they have been taught or adopt some way of viewing the world that they have not truly investigated. Some would say this is the very epitome of unjustified belieft. What’s funny is these ideas are thought, despsite all this, to be correct or even true. These ideas are nothing more than preferences or hopeful expectations disguised as truth or justified by popularity. Of course there is nothing wrong with preferences or hopeful expecations, but elevating their status to beyond that is a mistake. Look around, listen and you will see yourself or others in a similar situation. You can decide if you want to be a Descartes or part of the mob. To avoid artificial duality I guess a better question is what percentage of you is the mob and Descartes. I’d like to think that the closer we are to Descartes (in the questioning/seeking sense, not pure skepticism) the better off we can be.
Anathemapth on 17 Oct 2006 at 10:05 pm #
I find that you are very critical of peoples reasoning, yet at times you tend to lapse into the very thing you are critical of. In this post, you are critical of people who are not willing to give up something they believe, yet you make the following statement: I can also admit that there are ideas that are as yet unjustified but that I hope will be at some point in the future.
What are your criteria for “holding on to hope” that is different from the average person?
roodee on 17 Oct 2006 at 10:58 pm #
In this post I am criticizing the dangerous habit of refusing (by accident or with intent) to acknowledge those ideas that we *know* are unjustified. By unjustified I mean that there isn’t sufficient reason for one to count their ideas as true knowledge (there are a few methods of moving ideas into the category of knowledge). As I side point, I think we all “know” when our particular points of view are groundless (or without sufficient evidence if you prefer) with a modest amount of reflection. My point was that, while we all do this, we have to recognize when our ideas fall into this dangerous category. We seldom do this and this results in sometimes ridiculous and dogmatic assertions without real substance. I think understanding the various categories of ideas in our heads enables us to be a bit more mellow in our presentation of information and interactions with others. So, to directly respond to your first point I am fine with people holding onto all sorts of unjustified beliefs. It is when these unjustified beliefs suddenly become true simply because one prefers a particular viewpoirt or is passionate about an issue that I have issue with. To separate that dependency from my argument is to miss the main thrust of my post. Hopefully, this clarifies it a bit.
To answer you last question, I recognize that it is simply a hope, and as a result you won’t hear me discussing *those* ideas with many people (if at all). Contrast this with those that do not recognize this and, hopefully, you can visualize the difference.
Finally, I know that I switched from first person in the first paragraph to the third person in the last, but without question I lump myself into the “people” of the last paragraph. I reread the post so I’m not sure where the opinion that I am “very critical of people” comes from (insider information). If anything I think it is a sad state of affairs when “we” are confused about the difference between knowledge and opinion. If everything is mere opinion, why do we argue? If everything is knowledge, which version of it most accurately reflects what is true and how do we measure this? These are fundamental to meaningful dialogue.