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
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.
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.
Thanks Rob. It was very pleasing to receive the notification of Part 3.
I'd been thinking about the previous articles and had some thoughts but couldn't remember the specifics. Fortunately you mentioned Socrates early on and that was the memory trigger I needed.
The second article got me thinking along the lines of Agnosticism as a personal process of refining our ability to regain a trust in our Gnostic abilities. I agree with Richard in as much as all 'cultures' tend toward conservatism in terms of a process that can be labelled 'brainwashing'. Gnosis in such circumstances - in that values remain unexamined - probably produces 'variations on a theme' because established cultural memes have successfully replaced the empty jigsaw pieces in the overall picture presented. Those empty spaces seem to be, either culturally under valued, or socially proscribed. Someone I knew once expressed it as 'the truth is hidden or forbidden', which is what the band he was the vocalist for became known as for its short lifetime.
Anyway, part 3 provided me with more food for thought. Socrates and the concept of 'those that know', heretical Gnosticism versus imperial Scriptural Imperatives, Martin Luther's 'through faith alone' and many others encourage us all to look more closely at all of those things we are 'encouraged' to take-for-granted as immutable realites. Thanks again.
Here's George's take https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1SSXhIM2Xw which might appeal.
I had to re-edit this since the Substack editor botched the first version...
I agree with a lot of what you've said.
One problem I have is the use of the term "morality". The Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this in an article:
Quote:
There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either
descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.
End Quote
In my view, what matters is an objective fact: survival. As you say "they are meant to promote things that are valuable to human existence. If they do not do this, they would not be valued."
Ayn Rand argued that all values stem from life; if you're dead, you don't have any values. She then ran off and made all sorts of claims that didn't directly follow from that fact.
In other words, it's not a "value" that one is alive or dead. It's an objective fact - absent the concept of "zombies", of course. :-) It's also the ONLY "value" of interest. Everything else derives from that. So why bother talking about values? Talk about facts.
So I prefer not to discuss "values" since that''s another amorphous term that could refer to almost anything real or imagined. I prefer to discuss actions and consequences on the individual level and, scaled up - as analyzed by objective human behavior patterns - which Ludwig von Mises called "economics" - on a social and civilization level.
I never use the terms "right" or "wrong". I use the terms "correct" and "incorrect." A behavior pattern is "correct" if it can be estimated to improve the survival probability of the individual both in the short term and the long term, or, scaled up, the survival of the species (which by definition improves the survival probability of the individual.) In other words, if it "works" to improve survival, it is correct behavior. If it doesn't, it isn't.
The Marquis de Sade blew "morality" out of the water centuries ago with his "Philosophy in the Bedroom" which IIRC went over all the variant social codes of conduct from various societies, all of which were considered "moral" and imposed by those societies on their members and all of which would have horrified the society he lived in.
Move to today and the same situation exists. Everyone believes in rules of behavior that have nothing whatever to do objectively whether they actually survive or not.
Timothy Leary once said that the best way to determine whether someone was intelligent was to ask them how much of their behavior was robotic. Anyone who answered that less than 98% of their behavior was robotic was too stupid to talk to.
So one could say that in my view, most people are acting 98% incorrectly and only 2% correctly since most human behavior is not conducive to either the individual's or civilization's survival.
So the question is: why are humans still surviving? Well, William S. Burroughs had an answer for that:
Quote:
The history of the planet is a history of idiocy highlighted by a few morons who stand out as comparative geniuses. Considering the human organism as the artifact of an intentional Creator, we can then see more or less where we are. To date, no super-genius has managed to achieve what might be called normal intelligence in terms of potential functioning of the human artifact.
“Look at this artifact.” The instructor holds up a flintlock rifle. “What’s wrong with it? Quite a bit. It still has a long way to go.” He holds up a modern automatic rifle. “Now we are getting close to the limit of efficiency for small arms on the principle of a projectile propelled by an exploding charge. Now look at this artifact.” He holds up a cage in which a weasel snarls. “What’s wrong with this artifact? Nothing. It’s limited, but in terms of its structure and goals it functions well enough . . .” Take a look at the human artifact. What is wrong with it? Just about everything.
And how wrong can you be? DEAD.
No species that isn’t fundamentally flawed could be this stupid this consistently.
At a time when the hope of the human race lies in space exploration and above all in biological mutation, we are threatened by a Moron Majority committed to enforcing their stupid, bestial, bigoted opinions on everybody else. To such people the very thought of mutation is the ultimate sacrifice. These are the guard dogs that will keep the human race in arrested evolution until this
experiment is quietly buried . . . until it disappears. That is what we are facing here: an extermination program.
End Quote
He also explained, similarly to Max Stirner, the problem with words:
Quote:
Look at abstract words that have no definite referent words like communism, materialism, civilization, fascism, reductivism, mysticism. There are as many definitions as there are users of these words. According to Korzybski, a word that has no referent is a word that should be dropped from the language...What do these words mean? Virtually nothing. And because they mean nothing you can argue about them for all eternity. Any words that have referents cannot be argued about; there it is—call it a desk, a table, call it whatever you like, but no argument is possible. All arguments stem from confusion, and all arguments are a waste of time unless your purpose is to cause confusion and waste time.
End Quote
As an aside, I wish these comments had the ability to make quotes stand out like other comment systems like Disqus do without having to use words (since quote marks are almost invisible.) Substack needs to implement a full editing capability, and I've mentioned that to them before.