Yes and No? Yes and No!

I have proposed (and indeed internalized) a philosophy I call Yes and No* (or Yes and Yes),  according to which any question can be answered either way with equivalent legitimacy or cogency. The most straightforward kind of example is a question that invites an explicit yes or no answer, such as, ”Does free will exist?” But I mean the suggestion to apply more generally, such that any opposing views receive equal respect of this sort.

For example, one way to think about the Democratic/Republican divide in the United States is as a clash between two ideals of society. The Democratic ideal is of a society in which everyone is living a good life. Call this welfarism. The Republican ideal is of a society in which everyone receives what they deserve. Call this moralism. I myself hold the former view. I simply like the idea, or prefer it to the alternative (as I imagine them both). Well, not “simply,” for I could also give reasons; for example, I think a society of deserts will be one in which even the well-off must forever confront the sadness and resentment of those who, for whatever reason, behave so as not to “deserve” better, and that makes me (as one of the presumably well-off) uncomfortable. In addition, the notion of not deserving better strikes me as utterly wrong-headed for at least two reasons: One is that none of us can help the way we are, and the other is that desert is always a matter of subjective judgment. I’m sure Republicans can adduce equally compelling (to them) considerations to support their values.

The point I want to make in this essay is that the Yes and No philosophy is itself a matter of yes and no. (How could it be otherwise?) I don’t just mean that some people could and do oppose it, with some conception of absolute or objective Truth (however difficult, they may concede, it often is to know what is true, or false). What I have in mind now is an ambiguity in Yes and No itself. For the philosophy might be proposing or suggesting that each of us is, therefore, left to choose one or the other according to our best light or preferences (as I choose to be a Democrat). This is in fact what I have had in mind (until this new thought occurred to me, thanks to my friend Kelby’s suggestion).

But it might instead intend a kind of merging of the two answers -- a grey instead of black and white, a complementarity instead of contradiction, a Yin/Yang holism instead of duality. Thus, someone might envision a society in which everyone deserves a good life (this being one of any number of ways to merge the two ideals previously articulated).

Well, you don’t expect me to choose between these two conceptions of Yes and No, do you? 

* I also call it analetheism (or letheism) to indicate that Truth thereby becomes of questionable value or coherence.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What Is It to Be Rational?

Like any word worth its salt, “rational” has many commonly accepted meanings or senses, or has a compound (or polysemous) meaning. Here is an attempted inventory of its meanings that I myself accept: The logical sense : To be rational is to think logically, to reason validly. This means, in formal terms, that one is able to, or actually does in a particular case, or tends to in general, draw conclusions that conform to the recognized rules of logic, which is to say, conclusions whose truth, regardless of the subject matter, is guaranteed by the truth of one’s premises. Thus, it is rational to believe that whales are mammals if one’s cited evidence or reason is that whales give birth to live young and only mammals give birth to live young. The logical form of this   argument or inference is: p (Whales give birth to live young.) If p then q (If something gives birth to live young, then it is a mammal.) Therefore q (Whales are mammals.)       ...
Read more

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

Leaf and Litter

When I hear my neighbor’s leaf-blower, I wonder: What manner of beast is this? I don’t mean the beast that is roaring, but the beast that is using the blower. What kind of mind can motivate spending money to buy a gas-guzzling, noise- and other-polluting, obesity- and laziness-inducing machine, when simple raking is superior in all respects?  The same goes for littering. What kind of mind would motivate tossing the wrapper of a cheeseburger into the street or road when out walking or driving?  But then, what kind of mind would motivate buying a cheeseburger to begin with, when equally tasty and healthier plant-based alternatives that involve much less animal cruelty and killing are known to be available?  And how can people smoke? How can so many people not vote? Etc. ad inf.  These phenomena seem unfathomable to me. That is my feeling when I encounter them, anyway. Of course a little effort does enable me to fathom them to some degree. There are several main...
Read more