Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Truth is What Works - Trollface Socrates (H-01)

Lately (like as in all year), the group ones of Section 14, 16, and H-01 have had to deal with some of the most abstract philosophical topics the world could throw at us. We've discussed everything from the meaning of philosophy and the existence of a God to the notion of belief and existence to flying, transparent children (my group will get that last one)

And frankly, I can say that we're all pretty tired of abstract philosophy.

NOPE. WE'RE DONE WITH THIS.

Quite understandably, Peirce wasn't having all this abstract stuff when he came up with his theories in the late-19th century. He believed in a much more practical application of philosophy, the precursor of what would eventually lead to the founding ideas of pragmatism and inject philosophy with a new, strong way of thinking. 

Peirce, in particular, believed in the scientific truth. He believed that if you continue to work towards the truth about a question, you will eventually come to a conclusive answer. If the answer couldn't be deciphered or knowing the truth wouldn't have a practical impact on a person's life, he then felt that such knowledge would be pointless to believe in. In short, Peirce wouldn't care to debate on the existence of a God, or whether our minds are actually being controlled and we only exist in jars. To him, if the knowledge couldn't be applied to the reality we live in now, it was absolutely useless. 

To anyone frustrated over abstract philosophy: This is a gender-bent Peirce, laughing at your struggle, while enjoying a salad. He She ain't got time for that. 

Ultimately, where he differs from many pragmatists it that the truth in his mind was something not relative to the experience of the person stating in, but was something concrete that existed outside of our judgement. He would have rather held out for a more "ultimate" projection of the truth, rather than to conclude or doubt anything without conclusive evidence to. 

While Peirce has proven himself to be a man of practicality (which I can appreciate, along with the other pragmatists), his overt rejection of the things in life that can't be tested through science is something that didn't sit well with most the members of my group. We believe that while the empirical has gone a long way to define our world, the metaphysical aspect of our humanity is something that should not be neglected or ignored in favor of the less abstract. Yes, while something like the purpose of humanity or the existence of our souls may not be something we can ever nail down (and having to reconcile our beliefs with other may be frustrating), but being able to testify about what we believe in ultimately helps us form better and greater opinions not only on our lives but the collective human experience as well. We enhance ourselves by nurturing the abstract existence that lies within us, and where would be without a little self-relection, right?

(Just as long as you don't try to do it too much. I'm looking at you, all the old, dead guys in Little History.)

Freebies of the Day
(You can probably tell I'm going to enjoy Pragmatism, right)

Something to Chew On: Why do you think people choose to think about the abstract things in their lives that ultimately have no effect on the way we carry out our day? Why do you think these philosophers (and you, yourself) have put so much thought into our own existence and being?

From the Quiz Bowl: A turn towards the focus on the practical consequences of our beliefs instead of towards the abstract ides of them is illustrated in the doctrines of Pragmatism.

7 comments:

  1. Haha I liked the salad picture a lot. My thing with pragmatism is, I don't think it's actually more applicable than all the abstract stuff. In your "something to chew on" you said people think about abstractions that don't affect the way we carry out our day. I feel like I let my abstract beliefs dictate the way I carry out my day more than my scientific ones, though. We've found a way to test things through the scientific theory and nail down facts, by our definition, but science can get pretty flimsy. When you look back at what scientists thought they knew a couple hundred years ago, they mostly look like idiots. That'll be us in a couple hundred years as well. Everything we think we know through science has the potential to be debunked, and it's only relative to the extent of human thinking potential. I know that we'll never have a grasp on abstract theories, but we really don't have as much as a grasp on our "solid" theories as we seem to think we do. So, maybe philosophizing over the silly things holds the same applicability as our practical philosophizing.

    DQ: Just how practical is practical philosophy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Logan, I agree with you that our abstract beliefs have much to do with the way we live our everyday lives. It is the abstract that determines the difference between, for example, the way a Jewish person and an atheist live their lives. Their beliefs provide a unique outlook on life that the other would not adhere to.

      Also, I look at science as a mission to uncover and appreciate what is offered on the planet. As we uncover more of its hidden treasures, we get a better picture of what we have. We may make some pretty crazy conclusions based on what we see, but those conclusions help us uncover even more, which helps clarify our previous claims, leading us to greater understanding of the world in which we live.

      I think abstract and scientific thought are both important. The scientific deals more with the physical aspects of earth while the other focuses on the intangible characteristics of earth and beyond. Both determine the way we look at the world and how we want to use our limited time.

      Delete
  2. I agree with the statement about Peirce saying that if we continue to work toward the truth of a question, then we will find an answer (to most things anyway). However, I do not think that all things can be answered by just working hard toward. Some things will never be answered that we have always been wondering about. Although, I do not agree with Peirce how he says that if you can not answer the question, it is pointless in one's life. I think things that are not answered with an exact answer is very important. It shows us things that are amazing that have been created. We should not regard it as pointless, but regard it as something to ask ourselves how it came to be. Good post Morgan!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think much of Peirce's philosophy is also quite abstract—just from what I've read, of course. He may not also be a man of practicality. One look at the words "abduction, deduction, and induction" in his body of work is enough to prove that. I think we like to believe, on way or another, that pragmatism developed from a single philosophy—we like to rationalize that passing of time in terms of cause and effect. But I don't think pragmatism, as a concept, began so simply. If it did, Peirce would not have separated his original thoughts from the interpretation that followed. Perhaps he refused to have his system of thought reduced to a single word—"practicality." And in a way they are very different—in theory. But in practice? Since there is no other way to observe the consequences of certain theories other than by application, the content of Peirce's philosophy is rendered almost meaningless by his own words. James took what surfaced from the depth of this work and left it at that.

    That aside, I don't agree that truth—especially not universal truth—should be determined by consequences alone. Effects don't eclipse causes, and vice versa. Our lives are not defined in degrees. I think that the continuum of humanity is what constitutes truth. Never mind that we can understand the nature of that truth. If we had not sensed it around us, there would have been no Socrates or Aristotle. Maybe philosophy would have been suppressed because we would not have had the right words to call it. But to think that whatever meaning we have in our lives will be determined by future consequences? That's like saying our lives have no meaning at all. I don't want to think that the truth exists somewhere in the future. If we follow that line of reasoning at all, I'd rather think that the truth exists completely outside of us. Truth shouldn't be something that some people can know and others can't. It's not objective in that way; it's not a place at which to arrive or a thing to be built. Truth isn't separated by time. It's transcends it—but at the same time, it is rooted in it, the same way it is rooted in us. And in this way, humanity, too, can transcend time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Morgan, the woman eating salad cracked me up, ha ha. But I loved your summary! It's so true that reading one abstract thought to the next is tiring at best, so it's good that we're starting to see more pragmatists and their ideas. I also agree with you on not entirely leaving out metaphysical philosophy because of its "uselessness"; metaphysics helps us understand what we can understand. It helps to define morals and ethics, and metaphysics gives us a chance for much needed self-reflection.
    I don't think we will ever find an ultimate truth scientifically simply because the job of a scientist is never done. If someone discovers the "ultimate truth" about something, they then have to re-test and re-test for the same results. Then there's always more questions you can hypothesize about, even when you think you've found all the answers. I do think that scientific discoveries are progressive, but as to whether or not they are progressing towards a conclusive ultimate truth is questionable.
    -Jake
    Here's a link I thought was funny: http://inscitus.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/todays-memes/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Personally, I like the abstract topics but we have definitely had a lot of them. In Morgan's "Something to Chew On" he asked why one might look at the abstract questions if it had no impact on their lives. Well, isn't our curiosity what spurs our discovers? Yes, many of the philosophers believe in a world that can't be proved by science but don't their beliefs spurs others to prove them wrong? Also, isn't curiosity and discovery what life is, more or less, about? Aren't we all striving to discover something? For example, we all want to know who we are, what we are supposed to do with our lives, etc. I think that many of the philosophers we have discussed pushed that envelope a little bit, yes, but their questioning minds are what continues the human race. Just because something has no impact on your life doesn't mean it shouldn't matter. It's still important. The more unknowns we question the more open our minds become to change and discovery.

    DQ: Is the questioning of the abstract world more or less important than the "real" world?

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I do think that scientific discoveries are progressive, but as to whether or not they are progressing towards a conclusive ultimate truth is questionable." I like this a lot Jake. Maybe science is working towards an ultimate truth, but it is something that we can never actually achieve. Kind of like infinity.. you can approach infinity but you can't actually get there.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.