Justification by Empiricism Alone, or: The Skeptic's Manifesto, Part I

(STILL the most important entry I have written....)

The skeptic's position has priority over the theistic position.

(Notice that careful wording...)

Why?

That is what I will here attempt to answer.

("What do you mean by 'priority', Jackie?") (Quiet, you!)

***

I would be most gracious if you, whomever you may be, will allow me to partie the human mind into two modes of life: understanding and belief.

It is, in fact, a false dichotomy, but unlike so many others who take their dichotomies rather seriously, I admit that it is false and employ it only to illustrate a philosophical point. (Perhaps this seriousness shown by others comes about because they are under the impression that they do philosophy to discover truth?)

Beliefs:

1) Our beliefs are only foundational in the very strict sense of that word: they ground our unconscious mode of apprehension. What we believe about the world allows us to function in it based on those beliefs - believing that the earth we walk on is solid and that gravity will cause things to fall from our hands when we let them go. These sorts of things are discovered through our empirical experience of the world.

1.2) Science is the method of describing the reasons for these empirical experiences. So far as we have solidity, we know it is not only Newtonian force pushing back upon us with equal force as that with which we are pushing upon it, but also something molecular that makes an object cohere. We then move into chemistry to describe why things can be manipulated and why not every object is of the same substance and therefore of the same pliancy.

1.2.2) Thales, the first "natural scientist" (I deliberately say that he was not the first philosopher because I think either Heraclitus or Socrates was truly the first philosopher) wanted to describe water as the essential substance of all things, changing its "form" according to the object. We now know that the different elements and they way they bond at the molecular level is the reason why different objects have different consistencies.

1.3) However intricate and abstract science may become, its only true function is to give reasons for the variations we discover in our empirical experiences and to make sure these reasons agree with reasons found in other branches of science. (A law of biology should not violate a law of physics).

2.1) Science is hardly useful to live a flourishing life (science in its goals does not make anyone become a better person). Any benefit to humankind is merely accidental, and generally life-sustaining, rather than life-promoting.

3.1) We trust science with giving reasons for what is foundational to our everyday functioning, but it is our empirical experience that truly causes us to believe these things.

Understanding:

1.1) Understanding is an active function of the mind, but it is not consciously active. The active aspect was once called "will" in ancient times, but this is an error of causation. The active element is caused by the unconscious understanding, so actions (kissing a loved one, repenting for "sin", promoting awareness about homelessness) generally reflect some unconscious state of an individual. This is much more apparent in animalia than in humania (simply because our actions are more complex does not mean they require a more complex conceptual entity).

1.1.2) The understanding serves as a model for the self, because actions pertaining to it generally follow a pattern. This pattern is an evidently stronger predictor than any single instance of an isolated decision being made as to the actions of an individual when presented with a new situation. Thus the understanding should be given priority over the "will" as a moral indicator (or indicator of activity).

1.1.3) Even if the name "will" is given to this semi-permanent self, it is an inefficient word because it is the relational aspect of living that most effects decisions (not affects, or else we'd be giving the decision priority, right?). The self does not have priority in this reasoning. This is an almost fatalistic idea, or at least posits only a very weak "self/will".

1.2) While understanding, like belief, is an unconscious phenomenon, it is much more easily subject to change. The physical environment which affects our belief generally remains static, while that which affects our understanding does not.

1.3) Our understanding appears progressive, but it is impossible to tell for sure. The seeming reality of "bad days" implies that our understanding has modality such as we see in a finances chart, rather than always moving up and forward, like a positive linear equation.

1.3.2) I am rather unsure of what I mean by "moving up and forward", but it is obviously qualitative and dangerously vague. Pain, at least, must be interpreted as a benign force for this to even be feasible.

2.1) Understanding is relational and conceptual. Facts do not affect it as they affect beliefs. Physical empirical experience only affects beliefs. Additionally, as I've already said, only physical empirical experience affects beliefs, not facts or science.

Aside: You may ask here about some scientific idea such as the world being round that is plainly a belief held by some people who have not studied the evidence, and have no means to grasp why the world is round when it appears to be flat beneath their feet. We do not blame someone for accepting these ideas, but they are only effective within discourse - they do not change our unconscious, interactive function that I have called belief. Only when the issue about the world is brought up in dialogue (with someone who does not believe that it is round) does it become important to give reasoning and evidence as to why it is round. But belief is not conscious, in a sense, what I have called belief is an assent unspoken in the mind. In this sense, belief can directly contradict science because this unspoken belief says that "the earth is flat, you can walk upon it, walk outside and have no fear". No one walks upon the ground with their unconscious mind under the impression always that it is round.

Here is my really key point in all this: Scientific discourse is beneficial and necessary when it is accounting for unknowns or things that are not explained generally by empirical experience.

One last point...

3.1) Understanding is involved in all matters of variance. It is everything that makes a being aware of other beings. The whole of Heidegger's Being and Time is dedicated to describing the understanding. To survive is a mode of which belief plays a part: that I shall eat. To question whether one should survive is a question of understanding.

***

Now, what is the purpose of this idea? If you have followed closely, you will see that understanding cannot be affected by anything but a very complex mode of obtaining experiences. This understanding has nothing to do with logic, science, or mathematics because the contextual self - that person who we are day to day, with a specific history and disposition - is almost fatalistic in the manner in which it approaches life. This has been well tested - even someone who assents to Kant's categorical imperative wholeheartedly will not be able to carry out this rule in her life unless she was already well disposed to do it.

There has always been a fine line between philosophy and literature. It is difficult to comprehend to what extent and in what manner reading a dialogue of Plato's or reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason will affect our understanding. But in the contemporary era a more serious problem has arisen. How do we distinguish between philosophy and science, rather than between philosophy and literature?

If we take the first "category" of the mind that I have tried to establish and examine its counterpart in the world, we find something very interesting. That which gives scientific reasons for beliefs actually has nothing to do with whether we hold those beliefs or not - science is powerless, in this sense.

Is it the same with the understanding? I don't even know! What I am writing is, I believe, philosophy. I cannot imagine myself reading such a piece and being unaffected by it, but does it affect my interaction with life and the decisions I make? Perhaps it is a discourse only. At the very least, however, it offers reasons for why I believe what I do, reasons that run deeper than scientific reasons, which really are not reasons but explanations.

Does philosophy, then, provide reasons for understanding rather than merely explaining them conceptually? What about literature and art in general? How does it affect us? Is there a missing category of the mind that I have not been able to represent through the ideas "belief" and "understanding"? This issue is surprisingly complex, and I don't intend to contend with all aspects here...

What I see out of all this is:

Theology is not philosophy, and not only that, it is not a legitmate science. It is not legitimate at all except to satisfy personal needs.

Religion is literature, or more accurately, science fiction.

Theology is the attempt to provide scientific explanations for a book of science fiction called 'the bible'.

The only issue is that religious texts are generally not scientific, but rather mystic.

Theology appears to be the legitimate study of concepts, but it really deals with no concepts. It deals with mystic, unsubstantiated ideas that can only be discussed after they have been accepted a posteriori.

What is the philosopher's job? To trace the origin of these mystic ideas that are being treated scientifically.

Skepticism both a scientific and a philosophic stance.

Theology is the science of invented ideas, it is not philosophic.

Therefore, skepticism is undoubtedly the more legitimate stance. What is implied by skepticism? The belief in things which we experience empirically, but really, a belief that we cannot help but have.

I am happy with where I am going, because I realize it is a truly philosophic stance because it has no ready answer and can hardly be contained by this blog. I don't understand "rapid-fire" philosophy.

In any case, I will probably throughout the next week continue to revise and add to this idea that I see is insufficient for the point I am trying to establish, but my main concern is with clarity and consistency. If I have said anything that is unclear or does not make sense, please let me know so that I can continue to work with these ideas and establish what I hope to be a very important distinction between what is called science, philosophy, and theology.