The intellect is a double-edged sword: it has the potential to support a grounded, conscious life but if we are not careful it will keep us spinning in endless abstractions
How can we decide on the pragmatic good and good for all if these come only from within a paradigm? How do we build an overencompassing paradigm of translatability without the heavy use of words and abstractions?
Great question. This points to something I could have talked about here, which is that the answer might not, and actually likely isn't it, to arrive at one all encompassing paradigm that is helpful in all contexts. From this perspective thought is more a tool we can use to make helpful distinctions in particular contexts. Once the context changes, we will likely have to change the framework of thought we are using. So anytime we fix any framework as all encompassing it becomes abstract and a bit too rigid because we are not allowing the unpredictability of experience to interact with the framework in a fluid way. We have to be willing to continually ask ourselves if our framework is useful and if so how. Thanks for the contribution!
Yes, I immediately wondered if all perceived realities, callused into experience and remembered as landmarks to guide our future decisions would defeat our ability to benefit from a flexible understanding of what is. Your reply corresponds with my experience (of course making that conclusion suspect, ha!) that humility and a willingness to know nothing when you have the space and time to do so is a fertile environment to understand the moment we are in.
Yes that is so important. Being willing to rest in not know or knowing nothing for periods of time is the space from which a flexibility can come into our intellectual frameworks. Very important point. I should maybe write about that at some point.
I agree with your arguments, and I do think the pragmatism is a next level of understanding from knowing abstractly.
Therefore, I often argue that the truth is not defined nor definable rather it is in an active form of constant pursuit which acknowledge the limitation of our scope, yet committing to pursue deliberately as if it was discernable.
Ergo, abstract thinking is an initial process to approach pragmatic thinking which is the terminal point of understanding.
Thanks so much for this. I 100% agree and think this leads to a very interesting and counterintuitive conclusion about the nature of truth. As you rightly point out, in order to practically pursue knowledge or even just a simple, mundane life goal, we have to assume a certain theoretical/abstract context of meaning as fixed in which that pursuit has any significance. However, if we are honest with our philosophy, we find that this fixed context of meaning is only invoked as true as a kind of grounding mechanism for the practical activity to have significance for an individual or community, we can't justify its truth outside of this pragmatic function. So we find that even though we can never have a final abstract, fixed context of meaning, assuming we have one is a necessary condition for any action. A professor in graduate school called this the "transcendental illusion" that we have to assume is true to have a stable sense of self and world. I also think this is why Mahayana Buddhism is motivated to say that all things are empty, because there is no fixed foundation in which any determinate action or judgement can be grounded.
Thanks for your insight and specific example of "transcendental illusion."
My approach to truth is actually more of epistemological questions or concerns in metaphilosophy rather than metaphysic. I think I understand where Mahayana Buddhism is motivated to say that all things are empty which reflects my approach to truth or the implication of the necessity of initial assumption(which I think can also be defined as a "leap of faith" in epistemological sense or brute fact in causality argument).
I do acknowledge the truth or morality is contingent and relative to pragmatic function. However, the way I approach this matter is about how things get to exist relative to the different perspectives we take which ultimately carry out different themes or meanings. For example, there are many ways we can describe the object's movement based on different perspectives:
1. The object is moving
2. The object is being moved
3. X has caused the Object to move
3 statements share all similar statements of saying "Object is in motion" but differ in what statements ultimately purport. For example, the first statement is more concerned with a first-perspective account of what is moving relative to what is not moving, the second statement is more concerned with the autonomy of an object in motion, and the third statement is more concerned with investigating or identifying causality.
Therefore, when we make statements about truth or transcendental illusion, I would like to categorize them into greater detail where we can find the flaws in that system.
First, as I mentioned above, a valid perspective is required to accurately measure whether the statement can truly depict the nature of truth or condition.
For example, “transcendental illusion” is a hypothetical statement that depicts possible flaws in our thought process which can give us insight or skepticism. However, the argument is self-contradictive as the perspective of the argument relies heavily on the possibility of a flaw in the system which draws out faulty cognition. For example, if the premise of the argument is grounded by a consequence of necessary assumption which results in instability and faulty reasoning, we may perceive it as a strong premise for the "transcendental illusion" argument, but it is also a strong criticism for itself if we treat transcendental illusion as the necessary assumption in processing cognition. Similarly in "The Brain in a Vat thought experiment," I would argue that regardless of whether the brain exists in a vat is true or false, what one experiences will always be true, because this condition is necessary to even begin with skeptical concerns.
If I take the approach of different perspectives which yields different meanings, these two "transcendental illusions" and "The Brain in a Vat thought experiment" fail to create a meaningful connection that is pragmatic.
Therefore, going back to my main argument, I would argue Buddhism's idea that all things are empty is a valid statement, but it is an inaccurate statement to be applied to any principle or implication which makes itself meaningless and useless. This is where I pointed out the truth to be "acknowledged the limitation of our scope, yet committing to pursue deliberately”
This statement fits two qualities differently:
acknowledged the limitation of our scope: certainty of our belief in the past
yet committing to pursue deliberately: uncertainty of our belief in the past
this statement describes the nature of truth by presenting two conflicting ideas, while transcendental illusion or Buddhism's idea only supports the “certainty of our belief in the past.” This style of approach is similar to the idea that 0 divided by anything is 0 while anything divided by 0 is “unknown”, but we can create a special case where 0 divided by 0 is 0 rather than unknown-it since it cancels out each other. Similarly, when we approach with both certainty and uncertainty, my statement is not concerned about whether we can know the truth or not, but rather certainty is a necessity for uncertainty and uncertainty is a necessity for certainty for truth. Therefore, truth is the only quality that holds both certainty and uncertainty. If truth is to be only described as certainty or uncertainty, then we are making the nature of truth fallible and the subject of testing falsifiability which is the opposite of truth.
Finally, if something is true, then it should also be explained as “it is true because it could have been false,” in the case of truth, it cannot be explained as “it could have been false” which rises to quality of true nor be explained as “it could have been true” which rises to quality of false.
Thanks so much for this, its really spot on. There is really nothing I disagree with. Your connection between "transcendental illusion" and the brain in a vat thought experiment is a good one, in the sense that both only make sense to discuss if we assume there is a perspective independent truth. You put it very well, that they both "fail to create a meaningful connection that is pragmatic," precisley because they assume truth claims can be detached from their dependence on the perspective from which they are made, which can only lead to empty abstractions with no concrete, pragmatic meaning. This whole point about truth containing falsehood and truth is a good one. You might be interested in Wittgenstein's "On Certainty," he discusses extensively the idea that doubt and certainty cannot be understood independently of one another.
How can we decide on the pragmatic good and good for all if these come only from within a paradigm? How do we build an overencompassing paradigm of translatability without the heavy use of words and abstractions?
Hi Teodor,
Great question. This points to something I could have talked about here, which is that the answer might not, and actually likely isn't it, to arrive at one all encompassing paradigm that is helpful in all contexts. From this perspective thought is more a tool we can use to make helpful distinctions in particular contexts. Once the context changes, we will likely have to change the framework of thought we are using. So anytime we fix any framework as all encompassing it becomes abstract and a bit too rigid because we are not allowing the unpredictability of experience to interact with the framework in a fluid way. We have to be willing to continually ask ourselves if our framework is useful and if so how. Thanks for the contribution!
Yes, I immediately wondered if all perceived realities, callused into experience and remembered as landmarks to guide our future decisions would defeat our ability to benefit from a flexible understanding of what is. Your reply corresponds with my experience (of course making that conclusion suspect, ha!) that humility and a willingness to know nothing when you have the space and time to do so is a fertile environment to understand the moment we are in.
Yes that is so important. Being willing to rest in not know or knowing nothing for periods of time is the space from which a flexibility can come into our intellectual frameworks. Very important point. I should maybe write about that at some point.
Anything that people can use to exit the fog of emotions and memories without retreating to ego would be a great service.
I agree with your arguments, and I do think the pragmatism is a next level of understanding from knowing abstractly.
Therefore, I often argue that the truth is not defined nor definable rather it is in an active form of constant pursuit which acknowledge the limitation of our scope, yet committing to pursue deliberately as if it was discernable.
Ergo, abstract thinking is an initial process to approach pragmatic thinking which is the terminal point of understanding.
Hi Jukwang,
Thanks so much for this. I 100% agree and think this leads to a very interesting and counterintuitive conclusion about the nature of truth. As you rightly point out, in order to practically pursue knowledge or even just a simple, mundane life goal, we have to assume a certain theoretical/abstract context of meaning as fixed in which that pursuit has any significance. However, if we are honest with our philosophy, we find that this fixed context of meaning is only invoked as true as a kind of grounding mechanism for the practical activity to have significance for an individual or community, we can't justify its truth outside of this pragmatic function. So we find that even though we can never have a final abstract, fixed context of meaning, assuming we have one is a necessary condition for any action. A professor in graduate school called this the "transcendental illusion" that we have to assume is true to have a stable sense of self and world. I also think this is why Mahayana Buddhism is motivated to say that all things are empty, because there is no fixed foundation in which any determinate action or judgement can be grounded.
Thanks for your insight and specific example of "transcendental illusion."
My approach to truth is actually more of epistemological questions or concerns in metaphilosophy rather than metaphysic. I think I understand where Mahayana Buddhism is motivated to say that all things are empty which reflects my approach to truth or the implication of the necessity of initial assumption(which I think can also be defined as a "leap of faith" in epistemological sense or brute fact in causality argument).
I do acknowledge the truth or morality is contingent and relative to pragmatic function. However, the way I approach this matter is about how things get to exist relative to the different perspectives we take which ultimately carry out different themes or meanings. For example, there are many ways we can describe the object's movement based on different perspectives:
1. The object is moving
2. The object is being moved
3. X has caused the Object to move
3 statements share all similar statements of saying "Object is in motion" but differ in what statements ultimately purport. For example, the first statement is more concerned with a first-perspective account of what is moving relative to what is not moving, the second statement is more concerned with the autonomy of an object in motion, and the third statement is more concerned with investigating or identifying causality.
Therefore, when we make statements about truth or transcendental illusion, I would like to categorize them into greater detail where we can find the flaws in that system.
First, as I mentioned above, a valid perspective is required to accurately measure whether the statement can truly depict the nature of truth or condition.
For example, “transcendental illusion” is a hypothetical statement that depicts possible flaws in our thought process which can give us insight or skepticism. However, the argument is self-contradictive as the perspective of the argument relies heavily on the possibility of a flaw in the system which draws out faulty cognition. For example, if the premise of the argument is grounded by a consequence of necessary assumption which results in instability and faulty reasoning, we may perceive it as a strong premise for the "transcendental illusion" argument, but it is also a strong criticism for itself if we treat transcendental illusion as the necessary assumption in processing cognition. Similarly in "The Brain in a Vat thought experiment," I would argue that regardless of whether the brain exists in a vat is true or false, what one experiences will always be true, because this condition is necessary to even begin with skeptical concerns.
If I take the approach of different perspectives which yields different meanings, these two "transcendental illusions" and "The Brain in a Vat thought experiment" fail to create a meaningful connection that is pragmatic.
Therefore, going back to my main argument, I would argue Buddhism's idea that all things are empty is a valid statement, but it is an inaccurate statement to be applied to any principle or implication which makes itself meaningless and useless. This is where I pointed out the truth to be "acknowledged the limitation of our scope, yet committing to pursue deliberately”
This statement fits two qualities differently:
acknowledged the limitation of our scope: certainty of our belief in the past
yet committing to pursue deliberately: uncertainty of our belief in the past
this statement describes the nature of truth by presenting two conflicting ideas, while transcendental illusion or Buddhism's idea only supports the “certainty of our belief in the past.” This style of approach is similar to the idea that 0 divided by anything is 0 while anything divided by 0 is “unknown”, but we can create a special case where 0 divided by 0 is 0 rather than unknown-it since it cancels out each other. Similarly, when we approach with both certainty and uncertainty, my statement is not concerned about whether we can know the truth or not, but rather certainty is a necessity for uncertainty and uncertainty is a necessity for certainty for truth. Therefore, truth is the only quality that holds both certainty and uncertainty. If truth is to be only described as certainty or uncertainty, then we are making the nature of truth fallible and the subject of testing falsifiability which is the opposite of truth.
Finally, if something is true, then it should also be explained as “it is true because it could have been false,” in the case of truth, it cannot be explained as “it could have been false” which rises to quality of true nor be explained as “it could have been true” which rises to quality of false.
Thanks so much for this, its really spot on. There is really nothing I disagree with. Your connection between "transcendental illusion" and the brain in a vat thought experiment is a good one, in the sense that both only make sense to discuss if we assume there is a perspective independent truth. You put it very well, that they both "fail to create a meaningful connection that is pragmatic," precisley because they assume truth claims can be detached from their dependence on the perspective from which they are made, which can only lead to empty abstractions with no concrete, pragmatic meaning. This whole point about truth containing falsehood and truth is a good one. You might be interested in Wittgenstein's "On Certainty," he discusses extensively the idea that doubt and certainty cannot be understood independently of one another.