Q&A: The Paradox of Certainty
The Paradox of Certainty
Question
Seemingly, certainty about something is the innermost point of one’s grasp of truth. That is, thought, logic, and arguments regarding a certain matter are the “validation” of certainty about it, and once there is certainty, we say that something is true. When we are certain that something is not true, we say that it is not true, and if we do not have certainty, then we are in doubt (I hope my description is correct…).
This description creates a problem, and I would be glad if the Rabbi could help me deal with it. The problem is this:
Seemingly, it is quite clear to everyone that there is additional information or ideas that he has not yet encountered or understood, or tools of analysis and thought that he has not yet acquired, and so on. And it is possible (and even likely, perhaps certain) that something in all this “unknown” could undermine any of the things he is certain about. Consequently, this certainty—since the “unknown” undermines, in a certain sense, all the certainties I have—is itself undermined. In addition, I know that there are many people who are certain about various things that are not true (and I too have, once or twice in the past, been certain about something that later turned out to be false). The problem is that these two considerations (or challenges) create a situation of uncertainty about certainty. So in the end, we have not really managed to get out of the system of certainty.
Isn’t all of this internally fake? (And that too is being said within the system of certainties…)
I would be glad if the Rabbi could help me with the paradox.
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. Are you claiming that there is never certainty because something else could always be discovered that I hadn’t thought of? That is very true. There is no certainty about anything. So what is the paradox here?
Discussion on Answer
If you are talking about probability instead of certainty, I do not see the problem. You are only saying that we cannot be sure because maybe we missed something. So? That is exactly why we are talking about probability and not certainty.
Certainty about something usually means that you are mistaken. It is the innermost point of falsehood. Truth does not need feelings of certainty.
Maybe the word certainty is not precise; it really is too strong. One could instead say “highly probable” or “reasonable.” And then, if one accepts the criterion of “reasonable,” it will always end up contradicting itself, as I wrote.
Is it clearer now?