Home | Philosophy | General

First Principles/Part Three
By: textman

On the Utility of Reason

Russell then raises the bogey of induction, which is "perhaps the most difficult problem in the whole theory of knowledge … and yet it is difficult to see why we should believe it to be a valid logical process" (11). Again Russell is right. Expectations in and of themselves are simply not enough to justify any claims to certain knowledge. For example: Say I get up one morning, go into the kitchen, whip up a cup of coffee, and put a spoonful of white crystals into the liquid. I am now expecting my coffee to taste sweet because I assume it is sugar I added, and I also remember that sugar is sweet. Logically speaking, any of these subjective and internal expectations and inferences and assumptions COULD be mistaken, after all, someone could have put salt in the sugar bowl (accidentally or deliberately). Thus Actuality is everywhere ringed about by myriad possibilities. We expect the World to be stable and consistent and lawful, but we really have no direct and ironclad evidence that the Cosmos must always and everywhere behave in an orderly fashion. Russell is quite right about this, but he also misses the point. Even if expectations and assumptions are only based on suppositions and probabilities, then that's fine, and all to the greater good … as long as they work!

You see, dear reader, it seems that Uncle Bertie has an odd flaw in his philosophy that encourages him to see Logic and Reason as being virtually synonymous, and thus almost indistinguishable, for they are basically one and the same thing. This is why Russell is unable to see that the justification for our assumptions and expectations lies chiefly in their utility. Thus I expect - no, I KNOW - that my coffee will be sweet, even before I taste it, because my "belief" that the world is an orderly place works. It works often, and it works consistently. But even more important than that is the knowledge that Reason is much more than merely Logic, Mathematics, and Science. Logic is essentially a useful and flexible tool that the rational person uses to gain clarity and precision in all his thinking. Mind & Reason are both supreme over Logic. But to say, along with Russell, that Logic is Supreme Over All is more than a little irrational, and perhaps even a wee bit illogical as well.

Mind Over Time

I think that the main problem with Russell's philosophy - at least in this small corner of it - is that he is perhaps just a little too eager to accommodate Philosophy to the needs and desires of Science. Consider for a moment Russell's conception of History: it is basically just another special-science. It has special problems to solve, particular ideas and concepts to analyse and criticise, conclusions to reach, and explanations to offer by way of dispelling doubt, confusion, ignorance, and misunderstanding. But what if Russell's vision of History is inadequate? What then? In order to find out, we must first take a quick peek at Philosophy's relatively short history …

Philosophy was born not so long ago along the northern shores of the Great Sea. It emerged at that point in time when history was just getting its own legs under it for the first time (as it were). Which simply means that civilization and language was then developed enough to start throwing off documents with some substance and quality and depth to them. Which also allowed thoughts to survive their original thinkers by way of a semi-independent existence of their own (by way of scrolls and pieces of papyrus). So, for example, you just get a bit of ink and add some little squiggly jots and marks (representing elements of the ancient Greek language) onto the surface of a sheet of papyrus, and you have just enabled a mind (i.e. a philosophers mind) to transcend time and space! As long as that simple sheet of paper survives the ravages of ignorance and misfortune, that sheet has the potential to allow two minds to merge and mingle and interact. I do not think that I exaggerate much when I say that this particular invention is (next to fire, of course) the single greatest development in human history. For it not only gave philosophers (and everybody else too) a powerful new tool to transmit their thoughts with, but it also gave the ever-emerging process of rationalization a tremendous boost (more like a shocking jump-start, really).

Thus Philosophy emerged out of the chaos and anarchy of the foggy mists of grey prehistory. Philosophy was ignorant and unruly, lacking direction and coherence, but shining insights were made nonetheless. Just a few centuries later, the Sophists were stymied by a bothersome anti-sophist named Socrates. His name is known today only because one of his students just happened to be not only a philosopher, but also a writer of considerable skill and genius. And it is in his writings (which have survived to the present) that Philosophy first finds a strong and relatively solid foundation upon which to build towards the future. And then - just a few years later - another student / writer / philosopher of equal talent and genius also began writing books that would stand the test of time. This man's name was Aristotle, and he merely invented Science! And with both Aristotle and Plato backing up a small host of other philosophers, both before and after their unique generation, Philosophy became firmly implanted within civilization and culture and the historical process.

Harsh & Brutal Masters

And then came the Christians. For the first few centuries of the Common Era, many distinguished Christian writers and thinkers used and enjoyed the many traditional philosophies thriving within the Roman Empire. Christian theology was always heavily dependent upon the great and classic achievements of BCE (and even CE) Philosophy. Even today Aristotle and Aquinas remain a marriage made in heaven. On rare occasions some of these early Christian thinkers even contributed some worthy material to the ever-flexible Sophia. But then the Christians gained worldly and political power, and then their true nature gradually emerged. In a not so rare moment of madness they destroyed by fire the single greatest creation of human Mind & Spirit that was ever conceived *and* realized, namely, the still famous Library of Alexandria.

Now Christians don't brag much about this anymore, and their scholars don't make much out of this particular embarrassment, of course, but for Philosophy it was a shattering body blow! After that tragic disaster Philosophy was soon declared unfit for 'the Kingdom of God', arbitrarily labelled a heretic, and then tightly wrapped in chains. And as if all that wasn't enough indignity suffered by this fair and noble young virgin, She was then dishonoured yet again. She was made a slave, and forced to labour exclusively for the theologians and priests. They were harsh and brutal masters who also enjoyed beating up on Her helpless, and already bruised and battered, spirit. Such is the nature of priests and theologians - parasites feeding forever on Her life and energy. But at least they did one thing right, and that was to *preserve* those necessary documents that gave Philosophy its passion and direction and purpose and spirit.

Blessed Relief & Liberty

And then, a few centuries later, blessed relief in the form of the new Arab / Islam civilization. They not only preserved and copied those most special documents, they actually went one step further and contributed new material to Philosophy, chiefly, but not exclusively, by way of commentaries and studies on the old Greek scrolls and books. And then, another surprise: more blessed relief! This time in the form of the Renaissance, when all these new and old books and documents moved west and north, deeper and deeper into the heart of Europe in the Middle Ages. And what would that bring in its wake? Sophia had no idea, and little hope that her now-feeble powers could influence the dark minds of the semi-civilized half-barbarians that called Europe their land and home. Yet something seemed to spark a fire in the most unlikely place. Soon after the great Renaissance awakening another major development occurred: the invention of the printing press. And that revolutionary technology changed everything! In Europe it allowed for the Reformation to emerge and explode new ideas and new ways of thinking all across Europe, sweeping aside international borders as if they were nothing.

And soon after all that, Philosophy finally threw off Her heavy chains of menial servitude and degradation, and began (at long last) seeking Her own way once again. And then along came Rene Descartes, and thus modern philosophy emerged all fresh and new, and very much still wet-behind-the-ears (and bottom). But now Sophia had a new purpose, and a new identity, and baby, Her newfound freedom tasted very sweet after Her centuries-long torture and imprisonment. Philosophers soon began sprouting up all over the place, like mushrooms after a warm and refreshing summer rain. Hume, Kant, Hegel, and many other distinguished names (not to mention the multitudes of their spiritual offspring), added more depth and substance to Philosophy before, during, and after the so-called Enlightenment. And it is their combined heritage, along with the Ancient and Medieval ones, that makes Philosophy what She is for the current 21st century generation.

And Religion Takes the Rest?

And yet here Russell serenely sits in my room, casually smoking his pipe, calmly carrying on the noble tradition of Aristotle & Descartes. In the Past, Philosophy was forced to be the handmaiden of theology (the self-proclaimed Queen of All-Knowledge), but now Russell would have Sophia willingly shackle Herself to dry and near-sighted Science, and to basically make Her a slave to said Science, just as She was before a slave to the Churches. This is chiefly because Russell sees no alternative path for Philosophy, no third direction or option for Her to take. Slavery on this hand, and a worse slavery on the other hand! For Russell there can be no other way. Philosophy is that human enterprise that is forever caught midway between Science and Theology. … But Russell is wrong! There IS a third path for Philosophy: the path of sapience. Gathering knowledge is all fine and well and good, but it is simply not enough for our beloved and strong Sophia.

Philosophy was birthed out of the semi-barbaric wisdom of the ancient Greeks, and woe unto any who would dare deny Her the rightful heritage that belongs to Her, and Her alone. Yes, Philosophy must be tentative and provisional. Yes, Philosophy must always learn and seek after knowledge. But She must also teach and lead and show the People the way out of the darkness of superstition and ignorance. Learning without teaching is pointless, futile, and irrational. Moreover, it is counter-productive, and about as un-utilitarian as it can get. So if Russell's 'outline of philosophy' fails the test of Utility AND also fails the test of History, then it is surely safe to say that the current popular paradigm of philosophy is erroneous, misleading, and flawed to the core! If Sophia discards Her honour and duty to show the masses the way to the right path (leading to wisdom and liberty), then who, pray tell, will? Will Mr Russell abandon the People to the whims and caprice of Religion and Faith in all non-scientific matters? Why? What is Faith if not a means of providing false confidence in false knowledge? Yet perhaps Russell is indeed willing to abandon them, this despite the fact that Sophia is NOT meant to be exclusively married to a small elitist group of highbrow scientific specialists.

No indeed. Philosophy is of the People, by the People, and most especially FOR the People! If She isn't that, or refuses to be that, then Philosophy may indeed have purpose and direction, but She will have failed to do the right thing. She will have failed in Her true purpose, which is to serve as a vehicle and engine to advance the entire process of the Rationalization of human history by promoting and increasing rational thinking in ALL human beings, regardless of their status or station. Russell is himself aware that Reason must grow and spread everywhere. Near the end of this same chapter that we have been here criticizing, Russell lets slip his hope: "And even if we cannot be completely rational, we should probably all be the better for becoming somewhat more rational than we are. At the lowest estimate, it will be an interesting adventure to see whither reason will lead us" (11).

Paved With Good Intentions

Now the key issue regarding all of these much touted philosophic doubts - from Descartes and Hume to Kant and Russell - is the question of confidence. Certainty, logic, suppositions and assumptions, inferences and inductions, expectations and probabilities, deductions and conclusions, observations and perceptions, and so on and so forth ad nauseum … are all of them SECONDARY issues. If Descartes had been more attuned to the simple and direct primacy of confidence, he would not have been so eager to dismiss the senses for being too illogical and unreliable. One almost suspects that he did it just so that he could then get on with the important business of electing Reason to be Supreme, and then spending much time and energy on discussing the existence and actions of gods and demons! If it is illogical to use Logic in order to undermine Reason, then it is equally silly to say that because our memories and senses are obviously imperfect (and thus our confidence as well) it is wrong (somehow) to place our trust in the (supposed) veracity of the Cosmos, and must therefore doubt everything, because that's the logical thing to do. Well, it may indeed be the logical thing to do, but it most *certainly* isn't the sensible thing to do. No, the sensible thing to do is to kick Logic off of its exalted pedestal, put a 'this is a tool' label on it, and then stick it in the toolbox, right between Mathematics and Science.

So Russell built a fine and useful system of philosophy (out of logic) that is ruthlessly geared toward the acquisition of knowledge. And yet it never does anything with that knowledge (other than to analyse and categorize it), because *that* is not philosophy's function, and has nothing to do with philosophy as such! By thus draining History & Philosophy of all its non-scientific utility, Russell has unintentionally impoverished History of its meaning, and Philosophy of its true value to the lives and minds of ordinary people. Philosophy thus becomes the exclusive preserve of technocrats and academics. So it all comes down to a few simple questions, really, that all of us are called to answer in our own minds: Do we want Philosophy to be forever in the service of Science? Or do we want Philosophy to be forever in the service of Reason and Liberty? Do we make Philosophy a passionless slave of the intellectual elite? Or do we make Sophia a willing and happy servant of the People?

Welcome to Century-21…
Right back where we started!…
"The goal of philosophy is not to know the world,
but rather to put men on the right path." - Heraclitus
But now Sophia is new *and* improved . . .

On Building Solid Foundations

Well and good! Let us now make a short list of those things that we can now consider as having passed the test of *reasonable* doubt:

1. Awareness is ... happening [observation]
2. This awareness exists here [observation]
3. This awareness exists now [observation]
4. This awareness is called mind [observation]
5. Something must exist because awareness is happening [supposition]
6. I exist because I am this mind and/or awareness [assumption/conclusion]
7. This awareness is a part of something larger that is not-awareness [supposition]
8. This not-awareness is called world (or cosmos) [observation]
9. All that I know of this world here and now is what I am aware of
. . . here and now (e.g. space, time, motion, objects, etc) [observation]
10. A major part of all that I am aware of is what my senses tell me
. . . about myself and the world around me. [assumption/conclusion]
11. Therefore I am aware of many things in and around me. Some of
. . . these things are tangible or material or constant or undeniable, while
. . . other things are intangible or fleeting or hard to grasp onto. [observation]
12. Moreover, I-philosopher am a mixture of some of these many different
. . . things that I am aware of. I am a unity or harmony of mind and body
. . . and will and spirit, being what is commonly called a human person. [conclusion]

All of this seems to me to be quite beyond my power to (responsibly and sensibly) doubt, even though I do not yet know with certainty why or how I am or why or how the world is. *That* I am is certain. That the world of which I am aware is real is *also* certain. If reality is made up of all those things that cannot be doubted, all those things that have a measure of certainty, then its safe to say that reality's two chief components are myself and the world around me. All else must be built upon these foundations, or else risk falling to the ravages of doubt and uncertainty.

Worlds Within Worlds

But wait! Just what is this human person entity that I so easily call myself? Awareness is. This awareness is clearly a large part of who and what I am. Who I am has a name, textman, for I am but one person among many. What I am is an awareness with a name, a focused awareness, a directed awareness, a willed awareness. Thus this awareness is also activity and process, it is a coming from, and a going to. Therefore this awareness is a point of dynamic life. All this is direct and obvious and undeniable, and so beyond a reasonable doubt. And all this also means that this awareness (and its source) are entities of a very mysterious and complex nature. What is it? Is it really just a tiny point of rational awareness composed of sensations and impressions and thoughts brought about by the process of intentional perception housed within a handful of brain tissue encased within the skull of an animal that journey's through time and space and life upright on two legs, and sees the world all around it by way of two small and round optical organs (and a few secondary senses on the side) that are driven by a highly intangible force we call mind?

Body + Mind = Philosopher

When we ask what this named-awareness is exactly, it seems that textman is a strange creature called a philosopher, and a philosopher is a human-type person composed of two parts, mind and body, that function together as an inseparable unity. A philosopher is also different from other persons in that a philosopher does things that other people normally don't do, such as doubt everything, reason about things incessantly, and irrationally demand that the multi-verse provide him with the satisfaction of perfect certainty to consume in great quantities. Anyway, the body portion of this philosopher person is certainly certain enough to escape from any reasonable doubt. Here it is sitting in this chair. It has two legs, two arms, a trunk with a head (partially attached), and two hands on the end there that I am currently keeping occupied with the loathsome task of typing letters and words upon this keyboard and into the file that contains this essay. You can't get certainty any more perfect than that! But the Mind, that 'Great House of Reason' that Descartes took be the sole arbiter of all Reality ... well, this intangible entity is not nearly so easy to grasp as the body is. I certainly can't see it, or smell it, or touch it, or hear it, or taste it, but it's obviously right there ... I mean right *here!* That is, inside my rather hastily evolved brains, which is only to say that self-awareness appears to be processed in the superior frontal gyrus…

What is Philosophy For?

Awareness is. I am a creature that observes and reasons. I am, therefore I think. I think, therefore I reason. I reason because it is my nature and function to reason. I have a will to reason. I see and accept the value and primacy of reason (although its supremacy is rather more doubtful). I recognize and acknowledge the utility and importance of rational thinking. I think logical and rational thoughts, therefore I am a philosopher. Rational thinking is the substance, goal, and method of philosophy. The process or enterprise of philosophy is to increase rational thinking in everyone, and in doing so to answer our doubts and confusion, and even perhaps to constantly push back the difficult and fluid boundaries of doubt. I am, therefore awareness is. I am aware that I am observing and thinking, and reasoning about those observations and thoughts. I am also an awareness that is intentional and wilful. I am an awareness that is wilfully rational (albeit more than a little irrational as well). That I am a wilfully rational creature composed of awareness and consciousness and sapience is surely beyond all reasonable doubt.

That the world is also wilfully rational is not, or, at least, it is not as immediately obvious. In other words, while my rational nature and intent cannot be doubted, the world's rational nature and intent is not nearly as apparent, and therefore can be doubted (to some extent). Indeed, we have plenty of room to doubt whether or not the ultimate nature of the cosmos is rational and/or benevolent. This is all the more so the case when we realize that we are imperfectly rational at best, and that we are capable of doubting not only our thoughts and sensations (along with all the data that these provide), but also our reasoning and logic as well. Doubt is just as much a part of philosophy as logic, but Descartes and Russell (and indeed most committed sceptics) put too much stock in doubt, and consequently take it to unhealthy (and irrational) extremes!

On the Supremacy of Complexity

Awareness is. I am, therefore I reason. I am, therefore I doubt. I am, therefore I think and feel and observe and reason and doubt and question. Clearly I am aware of many things. I am aware of sensations and feelings and thoughts. Through these I am aware of myself and the world around me. I am aware of many things in myself, such as life, mind, reason, will, idea, intention, perception, and so on. I am also aware of many things in the world around me, such as time and space, movement through space-time, various particular material objects (such as this piece of wax here), and so and so forth. Because I am aware of all these various entities (both tangible and intangible), I am forced to become aware of a prime feature of the cosmos, namely complexity. Reality is complex. The cosmos is complex. The world, even just my little part of the world, is complex. Awareness is complex. Reason is complex. Personality is *very* complex. Hell, even doubt itself is complex, for doubt can be sometimes rational, sometimes irrational, and sometimes irrational doubt can appear to be rational, and even sometimes perfectly logical. Descartes was demanding mathematical precision and clarity in his favourite brand of certainty, but it is complexity that greets the philosopher (first, last, and always), not certainty. It is complexity that reigns supreme throughout the cosmos. And complexity, because it is the very opposite of simplicity, makes the noble quest for perfect certainty a very problematic proposition at best.

I am. I am aware that because the cosmos is complex, simple and certain knowledge is necessarily limited in both scope and content. I am thus aware that doubt has plenty of room in which to manoeuvre about the place, but I am also aware that Reason is our best and strongest tool for pushing back the encroachments of illogical, emotional, and unreasonable doubts. Thus while it seemed reasonable to Descartes to doubt the reliability of the senses (because of the nonsensical quality of the data received during the wax experiment), we can clearly see that his doubt was actually irrational simply because he failed to take complexity into account. Wax is neither illogical nor irrational, it is simply what it is, namely, yet another complex entity in a very complex Reality.

Is Philosophy Even Possible Anymore?

Now that we have established that the satisfaction of perfect certainty sought by Descartes and Russell (and so many other philosophers before and after them) is practically impossible (except to a very limited extent), we must ask what this particular certainty means. Does it mean that philosophy itself is impossible? I am not certain, of course, but it seems to me somewhat unreasonable to just arbitrarily conclude that it must be so. That at least is something we can build some solid foundations upon. First Principles: always start where the confidence is at! And we can add to this another conclusion derived from all these philosophical meditations, and that is the inadequacy of Logic & Science alone to generate ALL true knowledge. Most of what we know about ourselves and the world around us comes from our own unique and personal observations *and* intuitions (of our own unique and personal worlds) based upon these perceptions generated by our 'will-powered' senses, and then filtered through our minds, and *then* packaged into words and concepts (when, if, and as necessary) so that they can then be transmitted to other minds through language by way of philosophical literature (which transcends time and space in ways that men themselves can't).

Of course, every element of this complex process needs to be carefully scrutinized and analysed and thoroughly understood before we can properly address our more philosophical and abstract questions and doubts. At the very least it must be understood that perception itself is not a simple thing, but rather a complex and intentional and dynamic activity generated by a living mind such that any adequate awareness of reality as a whole requires both forms of perception (i.e. the mind's eye = intuition and intellect) working together, both individually and in harmony. And if cosmos, mind, personality, the social construction of reality, etc, are all complex entities-in-process, why cannot philosophy be likewise? And if indeed we find that Sophia is still truly the rich and noble Lady that She always was, then clearly there is still plenty of room within Philosophy (and even without it too) for Reason and Wisdom. Indeed, no philosophy can claim to be complete without them. So if the working philosopher cannot meet the challenge of Cosmic-Complexity, then perhaps he ought to pack it up and consider a new line of work.

Article Source: http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com

Part One
Part Two

Please Rate this Article

 

Not yet Rated

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive General Articles Via RSS!
Additional Articles From - Home | Philosophy | General
Sign Up as an Author.
Submit Articles
Member Login
Top Authors
Most Popular Articles
Submission Guidelines
Ezine Notifications
Article RSS Feeds
New Stuff
Forum
Link to Us
Contact Us

Powered by Article Dashboard