KNOW!NG: Against Radical Skepticism.

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.)}]