{"id":3017,"date":"2012-04-10T01:22:35","date_gmt":"2012-04-10T08:22:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/?p=3017"},"modified":"2020-01-09T04:34:59","modified_gmt":"2020-01-09T11:34:59","slug":"the-way-the-truth-and-the-life","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/index.php\/2012\/04\/the-way-the-truth-and-the-life\/3017\/","title":{"rendered":"The Way, the Truth and the Life"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is the post that I did not want to write.\u00a0 Like the man who tells us not to think of elephants, I didn\u2019t think there was any way that I could clearly articulate my position without producing the exact opposite of the intended response.\u00a0 However, my recent post about the two competing moral theories which logically entail one another has unexpectedly given me a tool by which I might avoid the Scylla of silence without be caught in the Charybdis of contradiction.\u00a0 We\u2019ll see how this goes\u2026<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

We can depict the game of Rock\/Paper\/Scissors with an equilateral triangle with R, P and S at each of the vertices.\u00a0 In this triangle, R beats, and therefore points to S which in turn points to P and P to R for similar reasons.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I now want to use this logical map to unpack the ideas which have been floating around in my head for the past year or two.\u00a0 In order to do this, let us reinterpret the arrows as meaning \u201centails\u201d or \u201cleads to\u201d rather than \u201cbeats\u201d.\u00a0 Let us also replace \u201cRock\u201d with \u201cReligion\u201d, \u201cScissors\u201d with \u201cScience\u201d and \u201cPaper\u201d with \u201cPragmatism\u201d.\u00a0 These are pretty rough and ready labels (we could have used \u201cRevelation\u201d, \u201cSkepticism\u201d and \u201cPost-modernism\u201d, etc.), but I think they\u2019re good enough to get the job done.<\/p>\n

Each of the three points has a different conception of truth which cannot be fully reconciled with those of the others.\u00a0 R sees truth as a path toward some destination which is transcends this world.\u00a0 S sees truth as an objective picture of the world.\u00a0 P sees truth as a contingent tool by which we navigate the world.<\/p>\n

Let me now tell a story which links the three points together.\u00a0 For a long time, people lived in a state of R wherein they cooperated with each other by obeying and enforcing those rules which essentially defined the path they took themselves to be on. \u00a0Beliefs were true to the extent that they lead toward the transcendent destination. (Iron rod anyone?) However, people soon became uncomfortably aware of many different paths which other people seemed to be following.\u00a0 Whether these other paths ultimately lead to the same destination or not was unimportant.\u00a0 What was important was that following their particular path which its particular set of rules now seemed contingent, arbitrary and optional.<\/p>\n

It thus became imperative that they find some way of deciding which path was the \u201ctrue\u201d one.\u00a0 (Notice that the meaning of \u201ctruth\u201d has already changed!)\u00a0 People thus embraced a number of rules which no reasonable person could disagree with, rules against contradicting observed experience or other known truths.\u00a0 These rules were usefully employed in the form of criticism (in order to eliminate opponents) and skepticism (in order to fortify themselves against their opponents).\u00a0 This practice, S, effectively eliminated essentially every reference to any destination which transcended this world and truth came to mean a fully consistent picture which corresponds to reality.\u00a0 Beliefs, then, were true to the extent that they accurately corresponded to reality.<\/p>\n

At this point, people within S began to notice that a complete correspondence between beliefs and reality seemed like a rather mysterious goal which was no more of this world than the transcendent destinations of R.\u00a0 In other words, S was really just one more path among all the others whose rules were entailed by a shared destination which constantly lay out of sight.\u00a0 Accordingly, the rules of S also came to seem contingent, arbitrary and optional to these people who came to be known as P.\u00a0 Of course, the fact that no set of rules or beliefs could be shown to be necessary, universal and binding did not mean that these rules must be bad or worthless.\u00a0 On the contrary, the people of P came to see beliefs as tools to use and live by and those beliefs were true to the extent that they were good tools to live by.<\/p>\n

At this point, however, the people of P began to ask themselves whether this belief concerning the nature of truth was itself a very useful tool to live by.\u00a0 Besides serving as a criticism of S, it did not seem to do much good, for tools can be put to at least as many purposes as there are people and preferences.\u00a0 In other words, the truth of P was like using an open field as a path in that it pointed nowhere and everywhere all at once.\u00a0 At any rate, there was clearly no longer any reason why two people were bound to tread the same path, let alone obey the rules which defined any such path.\u00a0 Thus, in order to live meaningful and fulfilling lives with those around them, it became expedient that they bind themselves together in a shared path which led to some destination not unlike the people of R.<\/p>\n

Consequently, we have three states within a closed loop each of whose doubts and suspicions about the others serve to indicate the direction of its flow.\u00a0 R is the escape from the individualistic nihilism of P by way of a truth which is transcendent and sees S as leading right back to that mess.\u00a0 S is the escape from the irrationalism and superstition of R by way of a truth which is objective and sees P as leading right back to that mess.\u00a0 P is the escape from the delusions of objectivity and hypocrisy of S by way of a truth which is contingent and sees R as leading right back to that mess.<\/p>\n

The question now is where does one stop in this cycle?\u00a0 By whose criteria does he\/she make such a choice?\u00a0 How does one justify this decision to those who have stopped at a different place?\u00a0 Is stopping at any point even justified at all?