Copernican Revolution

Like, I imagine, you, Dear Reader, whenever I form an opinion I assume it manifests Truth. A certain smug aura surrounds this feeling, especially relative to another person or people who may have a different opinion. But in recent months or years I've had a very sobering thought (I resist saying "realization" to avoid forming another smug opinion!), namely, that, far from occupying a position of Truth at these times, I may be (again, I resist saying "am in fact" ... although that is what the strength of this thought feels like) only falling into a slot relative to other slots. I thereby acquire a perspective on myself that much diminishes my presumed authority in all things; surrenders the human-oh-so-human prerogative to situate oneself in the very lap of Truth; a mini-Copernican Revolution to remove myself from the center of my known universe.

Concrete (and chilling!) example: In the Trump impeachment proceedings my natural inclination is to side with the intelligent and sincere Democrats against the idiotic and cynical Republicans. But ... there is no Neutral Standpoint from which my (and the Democrats', not to mention Trump and the Republicans') position can be objectively judged to be the correct one. (In a word, there is no God.)

Here, BTW, is an op-ed I came across today, about the candidate debates leading up to the next Presidential election, that seems to me to exhibit the (or what I am now -- smugly -- viewing as naive) faith in such a Standpoint:

"Today there are those who ask the questions, those who debate and those who watch on TV. That’s it. There are no separate panels of expert judges. The true winners will never go down in the history books as the true winners. That’s a shame, for there’s value in knowing what makes for a winning debate for the sake of our future politicians, voters and citizens."

https://www.ctpost.com/opinion/article/Opinion-The-trouble-with-debates-15032543.php

I find it absurd to suppose that there is a "winner" of these or any debates who can be decided by "experts" and not the audience or electorate. It's analogous to evolution by natural selection: The "fittest" are those who survive. There is no independent determinant of being "fit." Just so, the winner of a debate, it seems to me, is the person who achieves whatever the particular debate is supposed to arbitrate, such as high poll ratings or election to a political office. Thus, as far as I'm concerned, Trump won the debates in 2015 ... even though he was, by expert standards, a lousy debater.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reality, or, The Philosophy of Yes and No

 ©2020 by Joel Marks*   A Tribute to Joel J. Kupperman Most people, I imagine, think they know the world or reality directly. You open your eyes (or touch something, etc.) and there it is. That was certainly what I assumed at first too. What could be more obvious? But now I believe that what we experience is very far removed from reality. Or, more precisely, I think the answer to the question “Do we know reality?” is “Yes and no.” In fact, what I am about to talk about could be considered as much a demonstration of the Philosophy of Yes and No as an essay on our knowledge of reality.               My first step away from the naïve belief in knowledge of reality came in college, when I was introduced to the concept of the visual field by psychology professor J. J. Gibson at Cornell University. Ironically he intended to use that concept to  debunk  the idea that we  don’t  know reality directly,...
Read more

A Discouraging Thought

I have been extremely puzzled or shocked or perplexed these last many years and perhaps decades by the loss of confirmation of my ideas about so many things by the rest of the world. Of course baldly stated in this way my feeling is exposed as silly. What could be more obvious than that people do not agree on things? But the disagreements have come at such a profound level that I was finally obliged to give up on the very idea of truth … or else go mad. (Of course giving up on the idea of truth could itself be a sign of madness.) But just today I have thought of another way to articulate this phenomenon that has seemed so bizarre to me (however silly that may make me), and it is almost somber in its import. Clearly my sense that there is even such a thing as a consensus about certain fundamental or “obvious” truths comes from having grown up in some kind of ideational cocoon, such as a rather closed circle of friends and relatives and neighborhood. Also I grew up in an era when there s...
Read more

Desirism: a reassessment

Desirism -- a reassessment Desirism arose from the ashes of morality after my anti-epiphany on Christmas Day 2007, when I quite suddenly and unexpectedly became convinced that morality is a myth. Reeling from this realization I struggled to find my footing in an amoral world. Over time I felt I had found it in desire. Since then I have happily developed a new ethics, which continues to be fruitful for my thinking and life. However I have also become aware of problems with its original formulation, including the very name “desirism.” I would now therefore like to carry out a full reassessment. In what follows I will begin with a review of the motivation for desirism, then proceed to a critique, and conclude with a summary of what I consider still to be of value.  The Reasons for Desirism  The original motivation for desirism was my having become convinced that my lifelong assumptions about morality had been radically mistaken. It hit me that deeming something to be morally righ...
Read more