Q&A: Is Wisdom Objective?
Is Wisdom Objective?
Question
Hello Michael, I wanted to ask: what gives validity to something wise as opposed to something unwise?
You’ve mentioned many times regarding faith that it’s simply a matter of explanation and arguments—whether there are good arguments for something or not.
By what is it determined whether an argument is good or not, and is that a subjective matter?
Answer
The question is not whether there are wise arguments, but whether there are correct arguments.
I can’t answer this question, beyond the fact that it is far too general. That is because for any answer I give, you could come back and ask how we know that it is correct.
Discussion on Answer
You didn’t really sharpen it. The one who decides is you. The one that seems more convincing to you is the one who is right (from your perspective).
If so, then right and wrong are not objective things.
In order to make a factual claim about the existence of God, it must have universal objective validity, and necessarily whoever does not align with these findings or with this fact is wrong.
In other words, what gives your argument objective validity if, in your view, anyone can dispute it?
(Even if you don’t agree with him.)
If so, you should have said that someone who disagrees with you is mistaken—not: “mistaken in your view.”
This isn’t going anywhere, so I’ll repeat myself one last time and end with that. Right and wrong are always from the speaker’s point of view. And this is not a relativist position, but simply a fact. Even if I think something is correct, I may still be mistaken. What is correct is not necessarily certain. When I say that he is mistaken in my view, I mean to say that I think he is mistaken.
I’d be glad if you could tell me whether I understood you correctly, if that’s okay with you.
I’ll add that I really appreciate the time you give to answering my questions.
There is one truth for factual claims. Each person determines for himself what is right and wrong according to his own rationale—in a subjective way—but there is one truth.
In debates, for example, we try to attack the other person’s rationale and show him that he is mistaken by means of our own rationale, hoping that our rationale will speak to his rationale and he will be persuaded by it.
Maybe I’ll also add that with a priori claims, persuasion is more controversial than with attempts at empirical proof—because in a priori matters there is more variation in people’s rationales, whereas empirical evidence is usually more plausible—so there is much broader agreement.
Indeed.
I’ll try to sharpen my question:
If I make an argument about the existence of God,
what gives validity to the objectivity of my argument, and is it even correct to say that such a thing exists at all?
One person can tell me: I believe in God for reasons A, B, and C, and those are the right ones; another can say the opposite.
Who decides who is right?