Agnosticism (Part Three)

Values/Conclusion

Fredrich Nietzsche

This is the third and final part of my discussion of agnosticism. It is much shorter than the version used in the book because I think it is better suited to my readers. Sorry it has taken so long. I would recommend that before reading this, you read the ‘Preface to Philosophising in a Phoney World’ and the previous two discussions on Agnosticism. I hope to continue the philosophical shorts with a discussion of language - next. But life may get in the way.

So far, I have dealt with agnosticism in connection with events and facts but it is also important to employ a healthy scepticism and/or agnosticism to the sorts of things with which Socrates was concerned – i.e. values, such as ‘the holy’. Socrates, as I have said, highlighted the absence of clear definitions of values in his time; he pointed out that although people sometimes thought they knew what certain values meant; they in fact did not. I think this also applies to the present.

We must also appreciate that values may not be set in stone and out there for us to find, as Plato believed - though many people with religious convictions will hold this view. 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, believed in the transitory and arbitrary nature of values and, following the ‘death of God’ - what he saw as the declining influence of Christianity - he promoted a re-examination of values and encouraged his own class to create its own value systems. He took the view that moral principles could be life affirming or amount to a denial of life. Some have interpreted this as a criticism of morality itself but I understand him to be promoting certain life affirming moral principles while criticising others (such as some principles associated with Christianity).

I understand Nietzsche to be asserting that values are not fixed, nor should they be since they are meant to promote things that are valuable to human existence. If they do not do this, they would not be valued. Veganism, for example, though valued by some in modern societies, could not exist in a world where it was impossible to survive without animal products. It would not be valued under such circumstances because it would not have been life enhancing.

I am not suggesting for a moment that all values that enhance human existence are celebrated and promoted: neither am I suggesting that many values that do not enhance human existence are, nevertheless, celebrated and promoted. Life is never that simple. But I am saying that, generally, this is appears to be the case.

But can we establish values through reason, some may ask. Are there are any moral absolutes that will be true regardless of the period in which we live? At one time I considered this possibility. It may appear, for example, that not doing unnecessary harm to another creature is a moral absolute. This may appear to be a clear cut case of a moral position that everyone has to accept - but it is not. I can’t argue for this logically because it is always open to a devil’s advocate to ask ‘why is it wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to another creature?’. I could argue that we should accept this as a moral principle because the vast majority of people would agree – but some would argue that this is not a justifiable reason to accept a moral principle. So, in my view, we can’t escape the conclusion that morality is invented rather than found and that humanity - and maybe other species, invent it.¹

Unless we turn to a God or gods, there is no independent arbitrator out there with whom we can confidently consult in order to establish the ‘truth’ of moral claims. Human beings create this ‘truth’.² This is my view as an Agnostic - others will have different views which I respect.

But if this is so, we cannot say that the values we hold now are immutable and must be used as a yardstick with which to judge (and condemn) people in the past. There is a degree of relativity associated with our values and to refuse to accept this leads us down a very dogmatic and possibly authoritarian path. To take values out of their historical context is equivalent to a similar mistake made by some when they take words out of their context (Political Correctness/Wokeness does this).

Neither words nor values have any intrinsic meaning outside of the world that provides them with the ‘oxygen’ needed to survive; they cannot exist in isolation and they mean nothing in isolation. But some people frequently try to persuade us that words and values have a power within themselves, regardless of who is using them and in what time period they are being used. In my view, however, words and values, in themselves, do not determine anything, but the people who employ/manipulate them do.

Finally, to conclude my exploration of agnosticism, I believe that we should apply this to our claims to have knowledge about ourselves. This would provide us with the motivation to try to know ourselves better. Maybe we think we know ourselves already, but this is very unlikely given the complexity of human beings. We will never know ourselves completely, but there is much value in introspection. Learning about what drives us, what inhibits us, why we are afraid of certain things and so on, could help us to enjoy our lives more, to pursue ambitions that will suit us and to be better human beings generally.

The truth, as I have characterised it in this discussion of agnosticism, is not a simple black and white issue; rather, I am suggesting that our claims to know can be represented by a continuous axis between certainty, on one end (e.g. the sun is shining) and uncertainty on the other (e.g. that the earth is flat) – with intermediary levels of certainty in between. I can live with the degree of uncertainty that this involves, but maybe not everyone can do so. Furthermore, my uncertainty in no way induces a paralysis of thought or action. But if I thought I had knowledge when I did not, then I would not be motivated to engage in the reflection and investigation that would take me closer to the truth. Agnosticism encourages me to do this; it encourages me to remain vigilant but not to be paralysed with fear. This is my experience of being agnostic.

In the light of this, my view of reality can be represented by a huge jigsaw puzzle. Some pieces are in place that represent things I am fairly certain of, but there are also lots of gaps between the pieces that represent my agnosticism. I can see just part of one house, but can be fairly certain that the rest of the house exists. But I don’t know whether there are other houses or not. I can see part of a snow covered mountain, but can’t tell whether or not this is a single mountain or part of a mountain range. But I can be fairly sure (though not certain) that where there is one mountain, there will also be others.

So even though there are gaps in my jigsaw, I can sometimes guess what lies within these gaps. But because there are gaps, I am encouraged to fill them so that I can see more of the picture – and I have the desire to see more of the picture because I don’t like being able to see only part of a scene: I don’t like being ignorant. The world represented by the jigsaw is the phoney world, outside of my reassuring ‘local’ world of which I am sure I know so much. I know that I will need to do much more research to fill the gaps in the jigsaw and even then I will never be able to see the whole picture; nobody can. But I hope that I will be able to apprehend enough of the whole picture to inform good and effective judgments about how I should think and act. In the long run; it is better, perhaps, that our agnosticism decreases while our knowledge increases.

But for many people out there, the jigsaw is complete; there are no gaps and there is nothing more to be done with the jigsaw except admire it. They have assumed that every piece they have placed in the jigsaw represents knowledge. But the problem is that the jigsaw they are looking at depicts an imaginary scene; a phoney scene; it is beautiful but it is not real. Yet its beauty pleases most people, who do not feel the need for authenticity. For me, the reality of the scene matters much more than its beauty. If I complete my jigsaw and find an alpine village ravaged by war and disease with dead livestock and people littered about, I will be disappointed at not finding something beautiful – or of finding a mixture of beautiful and ugly things – but this will be more than compensated for by the fact that I have found a truth of sorts; and as a philosopher (and a human being) I must be content with that. I cannot determine what a jigsaw scene depicts, but I can decide whether I want to see it all or not. But it would be a serious philosophical error to claim to see things that are not actually there: i.e. to believe things to be true that are actually false. An agnostic approach helps me to avoid this. Whether it will help others or not is uncertain.

Best wishes

Rob

1. Morality is created in any place that humans interact. Our rulers will try to impose their morality on us and we working classes will develop our own resistance morality - just as youth develops its own counter culture to defy the adults.

2. When Nietzsche realised that the influence of Christianity was declining he became concerned that the values that came out of this religion would be lost and that it would be difficult to replace them. His solution was for humanity (i.e. the Western ruling class) to create its own values.