The assertions that “there are no
Truths”/“there are no Facts”/“there is no Truth”/“There’s no such thing as Fact”
can be summed up as Radical Skepticism.
This is distinct from just ordinary
skepticism or Doubt. According to the Kantian framework for knowledge,
existence can be expressed in two modes: the phenomenal and the noumenal. The
phenomenal world accounts for what we call “subjective”; in the words of
Obi-wan Kenobi, it “depends upon one’s point of view”. Subjective knowledge is
not “wrong”, nor is it always “relative” in value, but it DOES depend on the
observer who reports it.
On the other hand, the Noumenal
concerns itself with Objectivity. This sort of knowledge is objective, True,
and Absolute. The Noumenal domain exists AS SUCH, and that which it contains is
True, though others may not recognize it. If this seems pretentious, rest
assured that Kant did not believe, in general, that we COULD reach the
Noumenal. Thus Kant reflects our modern common sense, informed by scientific
inquiry on one hand and subjective liberal politics upon the other: that there
IS a TRUTH, yet WE CAN’T REACH IT. This does not preclude the need to STRIVE
for it, however, since in striving towards it using REASONING and INQUIRY we
can avail ourselves of a phenomenal Experience which is as close to noumenal
Reality as possible.
Skepticism, in the Kantian sense,
does not deny the existence of a Real World; it simply precludes Objective
KNOWLEDGE about the NATURE of this Real World, and in this spirit it refuses to
accept absolute assertions on faith. Instead, Kantian skepticism, comprising
the bulk of modern scientific/social common sense, strives to arrive at the
BEST POSSIBLE ESTIMATION of Reality by USING LOGIC to DISCERN “good” opinions
from “bad” ones.
RADICAL Skepticism, on the other
hand, DENIES this Reality. Radical Skepticism suggests that the Noumenal World
does not exist at all, for in the absence of evidence with regards to its NATURE
we lack also evidence with regards to its EXISTENCE. In common sense terms, if
I cannot tell you WHAT is Real, how can I assert that ANYTHING is? Radical
Skepticism denies any Objective Ground whatsoever, and it prioritizes subjectivity
in a relative sense. All opinions are neither true nor false, but they are
conceived of as individual rights to which one is entitled. If one wishes to be
HEARD, one can EXPRESS one’s opinion, yet one must accept responsibility for
how this opinion REFLECTS UPON ONE’S SELF. No opinions are expressed with the
intent of reaching an Objective Reality nor a Collective Consensus ABOUT
Reality, so any claim towards Objectivity is considered DISRUPTIVE to the sharing
of ideas. As such, one is always entitled to one’s own opinion, just so long as
one accepts the consequences for it personally, and among those consequences is
the alienation one will experience either for expressing SUSPICIOUS opinions or
for taking an opinion “too far” by claiming it to be fact.
Since everyone is entitled to one’s
OWN opinion, then claims to factual authority are impersonal infringements upon
personal rights, since one who claims to know a Truth, or THE Truth at that,
tends often to IMPOSE this Truth UPON those whom one talks to, to the EXCLUSION
of those opinions which they may feel entitled to, which he or she may elect to
dismiss as inconsequential and “false”. Radical Skepticism denies the
possibility of ANY opinion being objectively proven false, so its policy is
that of punishing claims to objectivity by excommunicating those who
make those claims, as well as those whose opinions enable such claims, from
their being heard. If everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, no matter
how silly it is, then to assert anything as being True, implying corresponding
Falsehood on another’s part, is to infringe upon another’s Natural Rights, and
as such one surrenders the Social Privilege of sharing one’s opinions with
others, though those opinions may still be held by the transgressor.
The consequences of Radical
Skepticism on the political scale, the interpersonal scale, the psychological
scale, and the Epistemological Scale are practically innumerable, and those
consequences, though innumerable, are demonstrably damaging in most of their
conceivable manifestations, enough to raise concern. Yet rather than appealing
to the Laws of Logic and Moral Authority, I would like first to expose the
underlying fatal contradictions in this habit by employing several quotes which
summarize the matter quite succinctly.
Argument One: Self-Entitled versus “Informed”
Opinions.
“You are not entitled to your
opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled
to be ignorant.”
Harlan Ellison.
While it is ironic that this quote
is often in itself misattributed to Christopher Hitchens, casting doubt upon who
is “informed” even in citing it, its intrinsic code is fairly straightforward.
Ellison (if we are to presume he was the one who said it) could not be clearer
in the IMPLICATIONS of his thought, regardless of the context and what he
himself considered “information” as opposed to “ignorance”.
The distinction between “informed”
and “uninformed” opinions implies a primitive Hierarchy of Knowledge. It asserts
that there ARE objective standards by which to judge something to be True,
implying also, quite inevitably, the existence of a Truth. Ellison reflects the
point of view of Kant: there IS a Truth, and there are “good” and “bad” opinions
about it, and yes: we can KNOW what constitutes a bad opinion, and hopefully
that helps us recognize the good ones and develop even better ones.
Radical Skepticism undoubtedly owes
its non-foundations to this project and its failures. So many scientific
discoveries so supplant existing scientific common sense that Asimov’s claim
that we are always coming closer to the Truth begins to shake. So many social
revolutions act in such effective and blatant defiance of established norms
that progress in itself appears to move AWAY from objectivity, not towards it.
Yet does this mean Skepticism is the End? If the Earth were to explode beneath
our feet, we might save ourselves by using the energy to propel a satellite
into another solar system, at least in the realm of Science Fiction which the
likes of Elon Musk alone seem to consider feasible. Can the same be done with Thought?
Suppose that we began by seeking Truth, and this pursuit, however futile, acted
as the Ground beneath our feet. Yet what if it should prove our time was
limited? Sooner or later, our pursuit would fail, for there was no “Truth” to
be found, and then the Ground would rupture underneath us. One might say that two
good things came out from it: Ourselves and our abilities to Build a Better
Satellite. If Skepticism is our Satellite, is it not so that we can use it even
after Earth is Gone? Perhaps we built our Skepticism on the Lie that Truth existed,
but now that we’ve built it, can’t we live in it, just long enough to find new
Truths? And if no such new Truths exist, can we not live out our pathetic lives
regardless of that underlying fact?
No, since that fact cannot exist.
The contradiction is apparent to
the outside point of view rejecting Skepticism of this sort. Yet in claiming it
I seem to be agreeing TOWARDS it, am I not? Not so; I simply have to point out
that the contradiction lies right at the center of the Skepticism. If you
cannot know for certain, how can you preclude what others know?
You might contend we owe nothing to
Kant. His project failed, so we are now to salvage what he did and to prevent
failing once more. Yet WHY? If we’re not seeking Objectivity, if we have given
up on Noumenal Reality, then why should the Phenomenal persist? Why hold
opinions at all, and what entitles us?
As Harlan Ellison points out: there’s
nothing to entitle us. Entitlement comes only from being informed. We know on
good authority, and no one is entitled to opinions that don’t live up to SOME
sort of objective rubric, even if the rubrics too must be contested. At the
least, contesting them means that we can’t EXCLUDE those whose opinions upset
us just because we might be forced to face a harsh Reality. We can’t survive in
space for very long. We need the Ground beneath our Feet, at least until
another Ground is found, at least where Knowledge is concerned.
Argument Two: I Know Something You
Don’t Know.
“Rule #9: Assume That the Person
You Are Listening to Might Know Something You Don’t.”
Jordan Peterson.
12 Rules
for Life, an Antidote to Chaos.
Jordan Peterson may be a
controversial figure whose knowledge is at times cursory and incomplete, but he
sure knows how to make a simple statement. While perhaps the man does not take
his own advice as often as he dishes it out, and neither does he claim to, it is
certainly worth following, and he tries to do so.
The claims of Radical Skepticism
again owe a debt to their forefathers. To take one’s point of view for “fact”
is tantamount to sin, the greatest sin according to the Hindus and a minor but
effective sin according to the Christians: ignorance. Yet why is it a sin? Why
is it “arrogant” to think you’re right when you are not, and how is “arrogance”
a vice? If we intend to KNOW, then theoretically we have to Know we Know, and THINKING
that we Know is part of that. Yet Thinking that we Know when we DON’T Know
precludes us from considering that which we OUGHT TO Know, and while a man like
Blake insists that fools persisting in their folly will be wise, the stringent,
hard-nosed gurus of our modern thought insist we must NOT think we know, for
then we’ve doomed ourselves to ignorance, and there’s no guarantee of a return
from that dogmatic Hell, a Hell that, to the same extent as it affects those
who DO Know, or who know they do not, is far more evil than that Hell which
punishes the ignorant alone.
Yet here Radical Skepticism manages
at once to repeat the mistakes of its predecessors as to squander their entire
cause and their successes.
In the first place, the
denunciation of “arrogance” described above fails to account for several
logical inevitabilities: the possibility of knowing but not knowing that you
know, remaining ignorant of one’s own knowledge, as well as the possibility of
thinking that you do not know, as well as thinking that you know that you don’t
know, as well as thinking that you know that others do not know. Reflexive
thought requires us to look at knowledge as a sort of dialectical layer cake. We
often possess knowledge without being conscious of it, just as facts look us
straight in the face but we ignore them. Even if it’s arrogant to think you
know that which your intuition grants you, that does not mean it’s an error to
believe in it; in fact, one ought to make the case that such a faith in
intuition is essential to True Logic. Furthermore, what others know is probably
the greatest source of knowledge. While believing them is holding an opinion,
it does not mean there are no facts.
Thus we have established the
failures, again, of the predecessor culture with regards to its skepticism. Yet
Radical Skepticism takes those failures, once more, to an extreme that manages
to even overshadow the SUCCESSES of that culture. While the predecessor culture
HUMBLED people to entertain the possibility of BEING PROVEN WRONG, the culture
of Radical Skepticism PRECLUDES being proven wrong, since it precludes being
proven Right. Peterson’s competitive approach to knowledge redeems us in our
humility by allowing us to LEARN FROM ONE ANOTHER, and by so doing we redeem
Humility Itself, which neither exists nor must under Radical Skepticism.
In the words of another
controversial figure: “If You Don’t Know, Now You Know.”
Argument Three: How Do You Know I
Don’t?
“Zhuangzi and Huizi were enjoying
themselves on the bridge over the Hao River. Zhuangzi said, "The minnows
are darting about free and easy! This is how fish are happy."
Huizi replied, "You are not a
fish. How do you know that the fish are happy?"
Zhuangzi said, "You are not I.
How do you know that I do not know that the fish are happy?"”
The Chuang
Tzu.
Sartre wrote, at least once, (and
probably far more) that a man can fool himself. At the time, fooling others was
a notorious crime, but fooling one’s self was a radical concept reserved for
the intellectual elite. Life had been taken for granted on the authority of
tradition for so long that the concept of using a conscious conviction to
counteract an underlying fact, one nestled deep in the Unconscious Mind, was
radical and new, even subversive. Surely, however, if one can deny that which
one knows subconsciously, then one must OWN UP to what’s going on down there. Subconscious
facts are facts, as Jung explains, and, as Sartre’s colleague Weil professed:
knowing that one DOES know is crucially important knowledge.
In the parable above, Chuang-tzu
KNOWS what it is like to be a fish, or, at least, he knows that his friend Hui
Shi does NOT know that the former does NOT know. He later comments that, by
asking “how”, Hui Shi IMPLIES that Chuang-Tzu DID know, and that Hui Shi KNEW
that Chuang-Tzu knew, but Chuang-Tzu’s methods were Unknown, perhaps even to
his own self. Yet knowing HOW you know and knowing THAT you know are different,
both in nature and importance, and even in knowing HOW one knows there is no guarantee
that Others will avail themselves of that same Knowledge. Sometimes, it’s important
to accept what Others say. One might not know it for a fact, but knowledge
sometimes comes from places of which knowledge we don’t have. Taoist thought instructs
us gently to “avail [ourselves] of the unknown [in order] to reach knowledge”
(Alan Watts). Knowing what we know is what’s important, knowing HOW we know is
not so much, and PROVING what we know is not nearly as crucial as ATTENDING to
what others know out of respect. If you can fool yourself, then you can miss an
opportunity for fear of being fooled by others, and there’s nothing valid for a
Skeptic in such folly.
If you can know Nothing, then you
cannot know that others too know Nothing, and if you begin to universalize about
Human Ignorance you claim to know a Universal Truth. The psychological impact
is that you retain a worthless opinion that is sheltered by a collective
ignorance, the exact epitome of what Socrates, the very father of denying one’s
own knowledge, was crusading against. Without any authority by which to weigh
an informed opinion against an uninformed opinions, societies merely turn into
conformist cesspools wherein individuals possessing arbitrary opinions modify
their preferential biases according to popular trends, for fear of being caught
and judged for an opinion deemed to be dangerously objective. Radical
Skepticism only feigns interest in Others, since it denies that any Others have
experienced the Noumenal Domain. It also uses the strictures of classical
skepticism as an unattainable standard by which to filter out bold claims and
imaginative opinions, at the same time refusing to hold itself to those same
strictures, for that would mean to confess to the possibility of Others Knowing
Better. Radical Skepticism is NOT the logical conclusion of Rationality but
rather of Dogma. Dismissing all Truths as Dogmas is the Ultimate pseudointellectual
Dogma. Conversely, if we at least begin to ask, “is that opinion informed?” we
can begin to address the question of “what constitutes an informed opinion?”
Yet this will only amount to a sensible dialogue if we all do our due
diligence. Simply contenting one’s self in privileged skepticism, leaving
others to try to perform for one’s own unattainable standards for proof,
standards which one knows are impossible to meet, is hardly credible. You have
as much to prove me wrong as I have to prove myself right, and I need not prove
myself right in order to speak my Truth.
Can it be Done? If Reality Exists
in Reality, then yes, and I don’t think that it must be contained in something
greater for that end to be attained. So long as we can at least agree to the
EXISTENCE of a Truth or Truths, our opinions hold actual value. So long
as we can go into the World and LEARN THINGS FOR OURSELVES, we need NOT pander
to mere popularity and to manipulation, talking only to hear ourselves talk,
listening only with the intent of being heard. We can actually DISCOVER
something, and we can SHARE what we’ve Learned.
[({R.G.)}]
