The Philosopher

I am in an odd relationship to truth these days. On one hand I am finding truth to be more and more elusive, to the point where I have doubts about the usefulness of talking about it and even question whether it exists at all. On the other hand I still act and feel as if truth were something I value highly. 

In particular my self identification as a philosopher seems to me to be one with my commitment to truth. The most striking example of this was my suddenly dropping a career as a moralist to become an amoralist, literally in an instant when I had the “anti-epiphany” that moral values are entirely subjective (and so, insofar as morality is conceived as objective, morality does not even exist). This realization had profound and pervasive effects on both my professional work and my personal life. Yet there was not a moment’s hesitation on my part to go wherever my reason led me. Indeed, I have pursued the inquiry with unrelenting vigor to this day, 18 years later. 

And (but?) now I am undergoing the same thing again, this time in the opposite direction: I begin to see how the last two decades of intensive work developing and promoting an amoralist ethics may be nothing but an exercise in self therapy for a peculiar personality (namely, mine) rather than something of genuinely theoretical and practical value for the world. Such a transition has not yet occurred definitively, the way my original “conversion” to amorality did. I still remain very much committed to amoralism. But no matter whether I will finally revert to moralism, or simply moderate my conception of amoralism, or recommit to a thoroughly amoralist ethics, I am, again, “bolding going” wherever my thinking leads me. So it seems to me appropriate to cite this as another instance and evidence of my commitment to truth, come way may for my personal or professional fortunes. (This also suggests that I have a stunningly small amount of ego invested in “being right.” Indeed, my style can be downright confessional.[1]) 

But the oddness I mentioned at the outset is that my rejection of morality has also been leading me to reject truth itself. Or more precisely, what I reject is moralism, which is the psychological embrace of morality (and all of that embrace’s “external” manifestations in personal, social, and institutional settings), and, mutatis mutandis, truthism. For the parallels between the reasons for both rejections became too obvious to ignore. First of all there are powerful (albeit distinct) arguments for the non-existence of both morality and truth. Second, whether or not morality and truth exist, there are powerful arguments for the net noxiousness of believing that they exist.[2] 

Where, then, does this leave my sense of identity as a philosopher? Is it a mistake, analogous to a madman who believes he is a prophet of God? (And does the egolessness of my commitment to truth then turn out to partake of the same egotism with which that prophet claims to be a humble servant of God?) 

Well, first let me note the self denigration (or at least self doubt) I am engaging in. That in itself is an example of my pursuing truth come what may. And that is why I also speak of oddness and irony, since this self denigration is in service of disparaging truth. This is the kind of absurd circularity skeptics always land in, where there assertions of skepticism belie what they are asserting. (And now even my self denigrating smacks of the pride of pursuing truth.) 

I conclude that what must “give” in order to eliminate the absurdity (and so, note, being logical is something else I value) is my conception of the philosopher as a pursuer of truth. Such a conception begs one of the central questions of philosophy, namely: What is truth (including, is it even real)?[3] It is also pompous. So my asserting and even strongly feeling that I am committed to trying to figure out what is true must, if I wish to be consistent (and truly humble), go by the board along with my moralistic feelings of doing the right thing or being a good person. These are all very flattering, but also based on myths. There are more straightforward and mundane ways of describing what defines a philosopher, such as a person who ponders and questions his most fundamental assumptions or, more broadly, a person who is forever pondering and questioning people’s assertions of truth. Otherwise, I’m just this guy, you know? 


[1] Although the very fact that it is may itself be revealing beyond what I intend.

[2] I have spelled out the various arguments at great length in several books, so I won’t go into that here. See especially Reason and Ethics: The Case Against Objective Value. (Routledge, 2021)

[3] It also fails to distinguish philosophers from scientists and journalists and historians and biographers and so on.

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