Q&A: Stable Philosophical Ground
Stable Philosophical Ground
Question
Hello Rabbi,
For quite a long time I haven’t been able to land on stable philosophical ground. I’ll explain what I mean.
I can’t testify about myself that I’m some great expert in philosophy; I know the basic ideas of major thinkers.
The more I learn, the more I feel the futility of the study, like grinding water. Of course, the learning itself matures a person, and the learner himself ripens toward a more solid philosophical position, but in my case it simply doesn’t feel that way.
The further I move chronologically along the timeline of philosophy, the more I feel as though it has been decreed that we are not meant to know. I was especially deeply impressed by the ideas of thinkers like Nietzsche, Freud, and Schopenhauer, and afterward the post-structuralists (and of course similar ideas in the East as well).
I’ve reached a point where I feel that choosing a moral or ideological position is just a matter of convenience or aesthetics, nothing more. Any position we hold is ultimately just a comfortable illusion, one we hold onto simply because it helps preserve some degree of stability.
I’d be happy for some advice.
Thank you,
Harel.
Answer
I have no advice beyond what I wrote in my books. A person has nothing but his intuitions. If you don’t accept that, then you are a skeptic, and I have nothing to say to skeptics.
In my view, most of what philosophers say really is grinding empty water, devoid of content. Studying philosophy is going through the positions of various thinkers like a museum of positions, many of which don’t really say anything, aren’t distinguishable from other positions, and also aren’t based on arguments. So on issues that seem important to you, formulate your own position, and don’t pay attention to what this one or that one wrote. If there are arguments, then of course it is important to examine them. But the mere fact that people expressed different positions should not affect you.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t recall that I wrote about it. I hardly know Heidegger.
But how can one know what the truth is?
In mathematics you can know what the truth is (if I accept the axioms), but in philosophy my intuitions tell me there is logic on every side.
If, for example, we apply this to the matter of the Creator of the world—
all the discussions around the ontological argument or the anthropic principle, for example.
There is logic on the believing side, but also on the atheistic side.
So what am I supposed to do if the intuitions cannot decide?
In philosophy too you can know the truth if you accept the axioms.
If your intuitions don’t decide, then you are in doubt. What answer are you expecting?
Let’s take the anthropic principle. What are the axioms I need to assume in order to arrive at an answer either this way
(believer) or that way
(atheist)?
My starting assumption is that a person arrives as a tabula rasa, hears the anthropic argument (say), and then decides whether it is correct or not. What axiom is there here?
Look for stable philosophical ground on the basis of the fact that we are growing old and dying against our will. That is the only thing that is certain.
In other words, read Ecclesiastes a few times.
A person does not come to anything as a tabula rasa. The question is whether the baggage he comes with is valid or not, and whether it is an influence of environment or of genes, or of unconscious experience, and so on. All of that, from my perspective, is called intuition.
Now you raised a specific topic, and it can be discussed. That is always better than a general discussion. The anthropic principle as stated by believers says that if the environment is suited to us, that indicates a guiding hand that arranged it that way. Atheists say that if the environment were not like that, we would not be here. In my book God Plays Dice I analyzed this, and you should look there.
Hawking gives the example of a skilled firing squad standing before the condemned man and all of them miss. The condemned man is stunned by the “miracle” that happened to him, and Hawking says that if the miracle had not occurred he would not be here to marvel.
This is of course nonsense (like many other things Hawking said, a public-relations champion, and to some extent justifiably so in light of his limitations). That does not detract from the force of the miracle and the wonder. Of course, if you were to say that there are millions of executions, and there is a one-in-a-million chance that all the shooters in a skilled squad will miss, and I am the one who happened to remain in this case, that would be an argument that might hold water. But his argument in itself is nonsense.
From this you can understand that the atheists’ claim is based on another hidden assumption: that there are huge numbers of attempts at producing human beings, and in our case it succeeded because the environment made it possible.
But to that I say: there is no evidence whatsoever for those attempts. Where are they? Other planets with life? That too is no help, because I am talking about different laws of nature, not other planets with the same laws of nature. And even if there were such evidence for additional universes that perished, or that had life on them and it died out, I would shift the question to the generator of the universes. The mechanism that constantly creates universes and causes natural selection of life—who created it? How did it come into existence? Does it too have an accommodating environment that caused it to come into being? Then one must posit a generator of generators, and so on ad infinitum.
In my opinion this is an entirely reasonable conclusion, even if of course not a certain one.
Isn’t it uncertain in light of the theological horn and the second exposing argument?
Or do you think there are other ways to interpret the content of the term “coordinating entity” and an encounter with it?
^^ I saw that the second one was called “Another commenter,” so maybe it would’ve been better to call me “Third commenter.”
Dear Michi, you are giving me the theistic explanation (say, for the anthropic issue), and it is convincing.
But when you listen to atheist philosophers, that is convincing too (the puddle analogy, for example, is very convincing).
My problem is not the theistic or atheistic explanation, but how to decide between them.
Assuming that I really am a tabula rasa (believe it or not),
is there any point beyond reason that one can hold onto, and that will necessarily lead (justifiably) one way or the other?
Commenter,
Did you mean to ask me something? Please translate the riddle you wrote.
Another commenter,
We started with an example, and I was glad of that. That’s why I said it was an improvement over a discussion of general declarations. Now you’re going back to general declarations? There is no point in quoting someone or other who thinks differently. If you want, raise specific arguments that seem convincing and relevant to this topic, and then we can discuss them.
Michi, if there is something new, I’d be happy to read it.
But all the arguments in favor of God have already been written in your books, on the blog, and elsewhere.
The same goes for the arguments against God.
So again, you will argue why evolution proves God, and the atheist will not agree and will even explain why.
Or again, the believer will argue why God as the stopper of an infinite regress is a good argument, and the atheist will not agree, will explain why, and will even argue that God creates an even bigger problem.
You can find logic with everyone.
If philosophy were such a good tool for deciding, there wouldn’t be so many smart people (with good philosophical foundations) who are also agnostic.
Another commenter, if you keep running away like this, I guarantee you your problem will not be solved. Again and again you keep quoting to me what this one thinks and what that one thinks and how everyone is right. At long last you raised a concrete topic, so I answered you. Now explain to me where I am mistaken. Don’t tell me what that one thinks and that the other one is also right and that everyone is smart. That is neither interesting nor relevant. Begging the question is the surest way to remain in your current state (which is plainly unjustified).
Thank you very much for the quick reply.
By the way, what about Husserl and Heidegger—do you have a formed opinion about their phenomenology? If so, I’d be glad to read your thoughts on the subject.