Menu
Defensible Worldview
Credible Beliefs
Why should human individuals be determined to hold only credible beliefs concerning the nature of the world? The reason is that if our fundamental beliefs about the nature of the world do not reflect reality, there is little chance that our conclusions about how we should live in the world will serve us very well. The patterns of action we choose for our lives will at best be relatively unfruitful and at worst disastrous.
If religious worldviews are not credible, what views are credible? What can we human beings, with a good measure of confidence, know about ourselves and the fundamental circumstances of the world in which we live?
If religious worldviews are not credible, what views are credible? What can we human beings, with a good measure of confidence, know about ourselves and the fundamental circumstances of the world in which we live?
Cultural Beliefs
We grow up in a world where explanations of many phenomena (and imagined phenomena) are already given: relatives, airplanes, dragons, clouds, God, truth, "us and them", loyalty, etc. When we are young we accept these commonly approved explanations without much question. As we mature however, and learn to use our critical faculties, we find that some of the explanations are questionable or even unquestionably wrong. They are either ill supported by credible evidence or not supported at all. Shockingly, we find some of them, although taken seriously by many people, to be firmly established in the realm of myth, hangovers from an earlier age, primitive and entirely improbable. So we must then define our own attitude towards them.
We may begin to grasp the fact that if we are to lead effective, satisfying lives in this complex world, we must, in matters that can yield significant consequences, believe and build our lives only upon those understandings that result from rational analysis of credible evidence. We realize that the claimed experience of others, when it is not supported by additional evidence, is not an adequate foundation for belief that can have significant implications for our lives.
Another set of conventional meanings must be carefully assessed as well. These are the meanings associated with collectives such as nation, church, team and "my people". There is a danger that we will begin to think about, and talk about, and regard collectives as though they have a real existence and a life of their own, which they do not. Collectives are no more than generalized ideas that form in our minds. Collectives have no life of their own: no mind of their own to think, no will to choose, no body to act. They must rely on individual human beings to give birth to them, to judge and choose for them and to act on their behalf. Only individuals have a real existence; only individuals can think and choose and act; only individuals can feel the pleasures of success and the pains of failure. When an individual surrenders his will to the dogma of a collective, he is actually surrendering his very life to the thoughts and desires of some other fallible individual human being(s) like himself.
We may begin to grasp the fact that if we are to lead effective, satisfying lives in this complex world, we must, in matters that can yield significant consequences, believe and build our lives only upon those understandings that result from rational analysis of credible evidence. We realize that the claimed experience of others, when it is not supported by additional evidence, is not an adequate foundation for belief that can have significant implications for our lives.
Another set of conventional meanings must be carefully assessed as well. These are the meanings associated with collectives such as nation, church, team and "my people". There is a danger that we will begin to think about, and talk about, and regard collectives as though they have a real existence and a life of their own, which they do not. Collectives are no more than generalized ideas that form in our minds. Collectives have no life of their own: no mind of their own to think, no will to choose, no body to act. They must rely on individual human beings to give birth to them, to judge and choose for them and to act on their behalf. Only individuals have a real existence; only individuals can think and choose and act; only individuals can feel the pleasures of success and the pains of failure. When an individual surrenders his will to the dogma of a collective, he is actually surrendering his very life to the thoughts and desires of some other fallible individual human being(s) like himself.
Freedom
We discover that our evolved powers of memory, reason, foresight and imagination give us the capability of subduing and overcoming our natural "drives". We find ourselves in possession of what we call "free will". Exercising our free will enables us to pursue ends that will promote our security and enhancement most broadly and over the longer term. We can posit pleasing ends then nurture feelings in respect of them to the point that we reverse the natural direction of our motivating power. We manipulate our thoughts so that we are drawn towards our own enticing ends. Being "free", we then lead our lives from the fore rather than allowing ourselves to be driven by causal forces from behind. Thus we are drawn to a future of our own making rather than being driven haphazardly to a mindlessly determined future. All this is what we mean, and all we mean, when we describe ourselves as having free will. Although in fashioning human beings nature allocates characteristics and imposes limits on our powers, our situation is not entirely determined. Having free will, each of us takes what he has been given, then, in every choice and in every act, makes of himself what he will eventually become.
Although we human beings are capable of rational action, because we have free will, and because our conscious minds can be swayed by emotion, we are also capable of irrational action. It is a fact that many of us sometimes (often?) act irrationally. But we should not. Acting irrationally often leads us into difficulty. On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence to show that acting rationally greatly improves our chances for survival and enhancement, our most fundamental goal.
Although we human beings are capable of rational action, because we have free will, and because our conscious minds can be swayed by emotion, we are also capable of irrational action. It is a fact that many of us sometimes (often?) act irrationally. But we should not. Acting irrationally often leads us into difficulty. On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence to show that acting rationally greatly improves our chances for survival and enhancement, our most fundamental goal.
Fundamental Nature
In the course of time we discover that we have all along been an integral part of the natural world, necessarily constrained by its most fundamental limits. We are in continual and pressing need of air, food and water. We must rely on other of Earth's resources in order to implement our many projects. We are objects in the world, objects that can be impacted by events in both our physical and social environments. We may suffer injury or illness and we shall undoubtedly have to face the termination of our lives at some point in time.
In experiencing the world, we are very much in a state of solitude. Others may commiserate with us and try to help us deal with our misfortunes, but no one can stand in for us. We must live our lives alone and eventually die alone. Only we can feel the full measure of pleasure and pain that result from our good or ill fortune, from our successes and our failures.
We discover in time as well that nature has endowed us with some rather remarkable powers. We have physical strength and suppleness, mobility, senses, memory, imagination, foresight, the capabilities of reasoning and understanding, the ability to choose among alternatives and the ability to act. In our earlier years though, we are unable fully to access and manage these powers.
Fortunately, as David Hume perceptively noted, we are fashioned by nature to make judgments, just as we are to breathe and to feel. (A Treatise of Human Nature, p.234) Each of us is endowed with a naturally reasoning brain whose function is to enable us to interpret the world we live in and make decisions that allow us to satisfy our needs and wants. We reason from the time of our birth. From our earliest hours our senses process phenomena and our naturally reasoning brains interpret it. They draw conclusions and arrive at understandings without being consciously bidden by us to do so. Amongst other evidence, this is proved by the fact that within the span of two or three years we are able to decode and use a complex language without having had any conscious intention or plan to do so. [Note: Recent science confirms Hume's observation and my positing of a "naturally reasoning brain". For example, Gary Marcus has recently written "... our thinking can be divided into two streams, one that is fast, automatic, and largely unconscious, and another that is slow, deliberate and judicious. The former stream, which I will refer to as... the reflexive system, seems to do its thing rapidly and automatically, with or without our conscious awareness. The latter stream I will call the deliberative system..." (Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind, p.51). Also, he states "... a great deal of the reflexive system has little if anything to do with emotion... The reflexive system... is about making snap judgments based on experience, emotional or otherwise, rather than feeling per se" (p.52).]
Our naturally reasoning brains grasp our fundamental existential circumstances: that we are, like all other living things, material beings fully immersed in a material world and that our lives have no known external purpose. Very importantly, they recognize that beyond the endowments nature bestows on us at birth it takes no further interest in our wellbeing. They recognize that we are faced with a dispassionate natural world that visits privation, disability, illness, injury and death on children and adults alike and on the innocent and the guilty alike as well. They grasp the fact that if our personal wellbeing is to be safeguarded through the course of our lives, we must take whatever steps we can to safeguard it ourselves. And very importantly, they recognize that we have significant vulnerabilities in both our physical and social environments.
In our social environment our naturally reasoning brains recognize that we are among others like ourselves; human beings with the same fundamental needs, aspirations and powers as ourselves; beings who can both help us and harm us if they feel inclined to do so. They come to recognize which acts of our own, and of others, are likely to help us or to harm us. To put it another way, they come to recognize which acts of our own or of others are likely to bring us pleasure, broadly considered (physical, mental, emotional) and over the longer term, and which acts are likely to bring us pain. Pleasure, broadly considered, includes such things as good health, repletion, sexual stimulation, comfort, security, success, pride, satisfaction, happiness, etc. Pain, broadly considered, includes such things as injury, illness, anguish, loneliness, frustration, fear, sadness, confusion, etc.
Unlike the conscious mind, the naturally reasoning brain operates like a dispassionate computer: its reasoning is unimpeded by emotion. It objectively processes the sense-evidence yielded by various phenomena and draws conclusions concerning that evidence. It assesses the probable consequences of any act we might contemplate with respect to these phenomena, regardless of any feelings the conscious mind may be aware of pertaining to the situation. It concludes, for example, that this act would probably be beneficial, while that act might well place us in jeopardy. The generalized understandings our naturally reasoning brains arrive at over time are built upon a broad range of experience with the consequences of our own and others' acts. These understandings pre-equip us to deal with situations we are likely to encounter on future occasions. They form the basis of principles we can use to guide our contemplated acts: for example, never walk on thin ice; plant seeds at a time and in environmental conditions that experience shows they grow best; always have a reliable source of drinking water. Because these understandings are imageless and wordless, our naturally reasoning brains bring them to our awareness as feelings. We call these feelings "intuitions".
We human beings are beyond being only objects in the world like trees that are unavoidably and relentlessly vulnerable to the play of physical forces. While we continue to exist as objects in significant measure, we also become subjects with combinations of powers that enable us to act. So we are agents of action, albeit in the beginning, involuntary agents of action because we haven't yet chosen to exist. We are endowed with a growing capability of action and we need to act (or have someone else act for us) in order to survive in the world. It is necessary to do in order to be. Being demands doing. Beyond that, doing demands choosing. In fact, where choosing is concerned, we are actually compelled to choose time and again, for even if we decide not to choose where some alternative confronts us, we are actually choosing nonetheless (that is, choosing to let the matter be decided by other persons, or by events).
It has been noted above that being demands doing and doing demands choosing. We may now observe that choosing demands judging. Evaluative concepts are generated as human individuals experience life. When objects are beneficial they are termed "good". When they are detrimental they are "bad". If processes work to effect our intended purpose they are "right". If they fail to execute our purpose, or fulfill the purpose but drag harmful results along with them, they are "wrong".
In experiencing the world, we are very much in a state of solitude. Others may commiserate with us and try to help us deal with our misfortunes, but no one can stand in for us. We must live our lives alone and eventually die alone. Only we can feel the full measure of pleasure and pain that result from our good or ill fortune, from our successes and our failures.
We discover in time as well that nature has endowed us with some rather remarkable powers. We have physical strength and suppleness, mobility, senses, memory, imagination, foresight, the capabilities of reasoning and understanding, the ability to choose among alternatives and the ability to act. In our earlier years though, we are unable fully to access and manage these powers.
Fortunately, as David Hume perceptively noted, we are fashioned by nature to make judgments, just as we are to breathe and to feel. (A Treatise of Human Nature, p.234) Each of us is endowed with a naturally reasoning brain whose function is to enable us to interpret the world we live in and make decisions that allow us to satisfy our needs and wants. We reason from the time of our birth. From our earliest hours our senses process phenomena and our naturally reasoning brains interpret it. They draw conclusions and arrive at understandings without being consciously bidden by us to do so. Amongst other evidence, this is proved by the fact that within the span of two or three years we are able to decode and use a complex language without having had any conscious intention or plan to do so. [Note: Recent science confirms Hume's observation and my positing of a "naturally reasoning brain". For example, Gary Marcus has recently written "... our thinking can be divided into two streams, one that is fast, automatic, and largely unconscious, and another that is slow, deliberate and judicious. The former stream, which I will refer to as... the reflexive system, seems to do its thing rapidly and automatically, with or without our conscious awareness. The latter stream I will call the deliberative system..." (Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind, p.51). Also, he states "... a great deal of the reflexive system has little if anything to do with emotion... The reflexive system... is about making snap judgments based on experience, emotional or otherwise, rather than feeling per se" (p.52).]
Our naturally reasoning brains grasp our fundamental existential circumstances: that we are, like all other living things, material beings fully immersed in a material world and that our lives have no known external purpose. Very importantly, they recognize that beyond the endowments nature bestows on us at birth it takes no further interest in our wellbeing. They recognize that we are faced with a dispassionate natural world that visits privation, disability, illness, injury and death on children and adults alike and on the innocent and the guilty alike as well. They grasp the fact that if our personal wellbeing is to be safeguarded through the course of our lives, we must take whatever steps we can to safeguard it ourselves. And very importantly, they recognize that we have significant vulnerabilities in both our physical and social environments.
In our social environment our naturally reasoning brains recognize that we are among others like ourselves; human beings with the same fundamental needs, aspirations and powers as ourselves; beings who can both help us and harm us if they feel inclined to do so. They come to recognize which acts of our own, and of others, are likely to help us or to harm us. To put it another way, they come to recognize which acts of our own or of others are likely to bring us pleasure, broadly considered (physical, mental, emotional) and over the longer term, and which acts are likely to bring us pain. Pleasure, broadly considered, includes such things as good health, repletion, sexual stimulation, comfort, security, success, pride, satisfaction, happiness, etc. Pain, broadly considered, includes such things as injury, illness, anguish, loneliness, frustration, fear, sadness, confusion, etc.
Unlike the conscious mind, the naturally reasoning brain operates like a dispassionate computer: its reasoning is unimpeded by emotion. It objectively processes the sense-evidence yielded by various phenomena and draws conclusions concerning that evidence. It assesses the probable consequences of any act we might contemplate with respect to these phenomena, regardless of any feelings the conscious mind may be aware of pertaining to the situation. It concludes, for example, that this act would probably be beneficial, while that act might well place us in jeopardy. The generalized understandings our naturally reasoning brains arrive at over time are built upon a broad range of experience with the consequences of our own and others' acts. These understandings pre-equip us to deal with situations we are likely to encounter on future occasions. They form the basis of principles we can use to guide our contemplated acts: for example, never walk on thin ice; plant seeds at a time and in environmental conditions that experience shows they grow best; always have a reliable source of drinking water. Because these understandings are imageless and wordless, our naturally reasoning brains bring them to our awareness as feelings. We call these feelings "intuitions".
We human beings are beyond being only objects in the world like trees that are unavoidably and relentlessly vulnerable to the play of physical forces. While we continue to exist as objects in significant measure, we also become subjects with combinations of powers that enable us to act. So we are agents of action, albeit in the beginning, involuntary agents of action because we haven't yet chosen to exist. We are endowed with a growing capability of action and we need to act (or have someone else act for us) in order to survive in the world. It is necessary to do in order to be. Being demands doing. Beyond that, doing demands choosing. In fact, where choosing is concerned, we are actually compelled to choose time and again, for even if we decide not to choose where some alternative confronts us, we are actually choosing nonetheless (that is, choosing to let the matter be decided by other persons, or by events).
It has been noted above that being demands doing and doing demands choosing. We may now observe that choosing demands judging. Evaluative concepts are generated as human individuals experience life. When objects are beneficial they are termed "good". When they are detrimental they are "bad". If processes work to effect our intended purpose they are "right". If they fail to execute our purpose, or fulfill the purpose but drag harmful results along with them, they are "wrong".
Individual Origins
We human beings are brought into the world by natural forces that are outside the realm of our control. We have no choice in the matter. To speak improbably, yet nonetheless with understandable meaning, we neither ask to be born nor are we asked by anyone whether we wish to be born. We arrive in the world without our consent.
Initially we don't know who or what we are, or why we're here. Although we have a point of view on the world (the only point of view we can ever truly have, our own), we have no concept of our own distinct being. We have no control over ourselves. We have no knowledge or understanding of the world, yet we are vulnerable to its powerful forces. We are also vulnerable to impacts generated by the choices and acts of other people.
Initially we don't know who or what we are, or why we're here. Although we have a point of view on the world (the only point of view we can ever truly have, our own), we have no concept of our own distinct being. We have no control over ourselves. We have no knowledge or understanding of the world, yet we are vulnerable to its powerful forces. We are also vulnerable to impacts generated by the choices and acts of other people.
Personal Beliefs
Good reasoning based on a rational analysis of credible evidence is an essential key to understanding the world and our place in it. Yet the evidence that seems to be credible when we examine and analyze it carefully can, with further discoveries, turn out to be incomplete or illusory. We can still be deceived. How much more likely are those to be deceived who accept the flimsiest explanations as “evidence” and do not personally examine and assess it at all!
In the absence of certain knowledge about the world, which condition is our lot, it is necessary on innumerable occasions to “believe” rather than to “know”. Yet we learn from experience that it is demonstrably unwise to believe in certain circumstances. It is especially unwise to believe where there is no, or only very flimsy, evidence to support belief. It is also unwise to believe where we are faced with second-hand and hearsay accounts which we cannot personally check and verify. Additionally, it is unwise to believe where there is a likelihood that significant negative consequences will befall us if the belief turns out to be in error. Moreover, it is especially unwise to believe in a case where there is no need to believe - that is, where we can live secure, effective, happy lives in the absence of such a belief.
It is also unwise to carry inherited cultural beliefs (i.e. religious doctrines, ethnic mores, political dogma, etc.) into adulthood without rigorous examination and critical reflection. These are not really our personal beliefs at all. They are concepts that have been insinuated into our minds over many years which we then mistakenly come to think of as our own beliefs. Any justification we offer for them is merely rationalization. They can only become our own beliefs if, at some point, we critically examine these beliefs and then find justifications for them that are persuasive to us in our own skeptical minds.
Personal beliefs about significant matters that could have major impacts on our lives must be examined carefully. They are acceptable only when they are supported by an abundance of credible evidence that is available to everyone, when a sizeable majority of informed persons are persuaded by that evidence, and when there is a need to hold one belief or another concerning the matter in question.
To avoid being duped into accepting unwarranted and unacceptable beliefs that could damage our lives, we must take concrete, rational steps to try to understand and unravel the mysteries we encounter. Most importantly, while we are doing that, we must resist any temptation to convert our honest search for the solution of mystery into a promotion of mysticism. We should not formulate beliefs concerning the object of our search (unless they are hypotheses for the purpose of scientific investigation) until analysis of credible evidence indicates a high level of probability that our speculations have yielded a true reflection of reality. Where this level cannot be attained, we should suspend any inclination to believe. On the other hand, where we think that a high level of probability exists and belief is warranted, we should nonetheless hold our belief only tentatively, ever ready to alter it as new evidence warrants alteration.
We are undoubtedly faced with mystery when it comes to considering the farther reaches of time and space. We are left wondering about the ultimate nature of the universe - about its whys and wherefores. Faced with this huge mystery, we humans are greatly tempted to speculate about the matter and, unfortunately, lacking further evidence, to then believe and act upon some of our speculations (or the speculations of others). This is a very bad practice. Here is a case where credible evidence is sorely lacking, where there is no pressing need to believe since unbelief is the original condition of human beings and, very importantly, where unwarranted belief, if erroneous, can have very substantial negative impacts on our lives.
To illustrate this situation, we may observe that there are in general two major beliefs about the ultimate nature of the universe. The first is religious belief, a substantive belief about the nature of the world. Religious belief in various forms is held by a vast majority of people around the world. There are substantial differences in the beliefs of various religions and sects of religions, great enough to make these differences significant. Yet there are some common elements in many of them too: a “God” or “Gods”, an “afterlife”, “salvation”, and various principles and practices to observe. There is a common problem among them as well however. There is little credible evidence to support them, while at the same time there is an abundance of credible evidence that contradicts religious beliefs and casts very serious doubt upon them. Combine this fact with the fact that most religions seek to have a pervasive influence in adherent’s lives and generally do have an enormous impact on them. If a religion is wrong (and given their significant differences they obviously can’t all be right), the impact will clearly be a negative impact. Finally, once again it must be said that there is no need to believe. Thus there are many signs that indicate to us that we should avoid making commitments to belief in religious doctrines.
The second major belief is atheism. It denies the existence of God and all things associated with that concept. A commitment to atheistic belief is much less likely to yield serious negative consequences than a commitment to religion does since it does not carry a lot of baggage with it. An adherent is not burdened with all sorts of obligations and prohibitions. In addition, atheism is supported by more credible evidence than is religious belief. Yet, like religious belief, atheistic belief is a belief about the nature of the universe. It is also a substantive belief and no substantive belief is absolutely certain. Once again, moreover, there is no need to believe anything about the ultimate nature of the universe. We can live effective, enjoyable lives without such belief. So withholding belief is the best course of action here as well. A credible alternative to both beliefs will be discussed later.
In the absence of certain knowledge about the world, which condition is our lot, it is necessary on innumerable occasions to “believe” rather than to “know”. Yet we learn from experience that it is demonstrably unwise to believe in certain circumstances. It is especially unwise to believe where there is no, or only very flimsy, evidence to support belief. It is also unwise to believe where we are faced with second-hand and hearsay accounts which we cannot personally check and verify. Additionally, it is unwise to believe where there is a likelihood that significant negative consequences will befall us if the belief turns out to be in error. Moreover, it is especially unwise to believe in a case where there is no need to believe - that is, where we can live secure, effective, happy lives in the absence of such a belief.
It is also unwise to carry inherited cultural beliefs (i.e. religious doctrines, ethnic mores, political dogma, etc.) into adulthood without rigorous examination and critical reflection. These are not really our personal beliefs at all. They are concepts that have been insinuated into our minds over many years which we then mistakenly come to think of as our own beliefs. Any justification we offer for them is merely rationalization. They can only become our own beliefs if, at some point, we critically examine these beliefs and then find justifications for them that are persuasive to us in our own skeptical minds.
Personal beliefs about significant matters that could have major impacts on our lives must be examined carefully. They are acceptable only when they are supported by an abundance of credible evidence that is available to everyone, when a sizeable majority of informed persons are persuaded by that evidence, and when there is a need to hold one belief or another concerning the matter in question.
To avoid being duped into accepting unwarranted and unacceptable beliefs that could damage our lives, we must take concrete, rational steps to try to understand and unravel the mysteries we encounter. Most importantly, while we are doing that, we must resist any temptation to convert our honest search for the solution of mystery into a promotion of mysticism. We should not formulate beliefs concerning the object of our search (unless they are hypotheses for the purpose of scientific investigation) until analysis of credible evidence indicates a high level of probability that our speculations have yielded a true reflection of reality. Where this level cannot be attained, we should suspend any inclination to believe. On the other hand, where we think that a high level of probability exists and belief is warranted, we should nonetheless hold our belief only tentatively, ever ready to alter it as new evidence warrants alteration.
We are undoubtedly faced with mystery when it comes to considering the farther reaches of time and space. We are left wondering about the ultimate nature of the universe - about its whys and wherefores. Faced with this huge mystery, we humans are greatly tempted to speculate about the matter and, unfortunately, lacking further evidence, to then believe and act upon some of our speculations (or the speculations of others). This is a very bad practice. Here is a case where credible evidence is sorely lacking, where there is no pressing need to believe since unbelief is the original condition of human beings and, very importantly, where unwarranted belief, if erroneous, can have very substantial negative impacts on our lives.
To illustrate this situation, we may observe that there are in general two major beliefs about the ultimate nature of the universe. The first is religious belief, a substantive belief about the nature of the world. Religious belief in various forms is held by a vast majority of people around the world. There are substantial differences in the beliefs of various religions and sects of religions, great enough to make these differences significant. Yet there are some common elements in many of them too: a “God” or “Gods”, an “afterlife”, “salvation”, and various principles and practices to observe. There is a common problem among them as well however. There is little credible evidence to support them, while at the same time there is an abundance of credible evidence that contradicts religious beliefs and casts very serious doubt upon them. Combine this fact with the fact that most religions seek to have a pervasive influence in adherent’s lives and generally do have an enormous impact on them. If a religion is wrong (and given their significant differences they obviously can’t all be right), the impact will clearly be a negative impact. Finally, once again it must be said that there is no need to believe. Thus there are many signs that indicate to us that we should avoid making commitments to belief in religious doctrines.
The second major belief is atheism. It denies the existence of God and all things associated with that concept. A commitment to atheistic belief is much less likely to yield serious negative consequences than a commitment to religion does since it does not carry a lot of baggage with it. An adherent is not burdened with all sorts of obligations and prohibitions. In addition, atheism is supported by more credible evidence than is religious belief. Yet, like religious belief, atheistic belief is a belief about the nature of the universe. It is also a substantive belief and no substantive belief is absolutely certain. Once again, moreover, there is no need to believe anything about the ultimate nature of the universe. We can live effective, enjoyable lives without such belief. So withholding belief is the best course of action here as well. A credible alternative to both beliefs will be discussed later.
Self Awareness
Although we begin our lives as objects in the world, we soon experience growing control over our power to act. We develop subjectivity. We begin to see ourselves as subjects who can impact the world with our acts, and shape our own lives. We develop concepts in our minds of various persons, things and processes we encounter: mother, dog, danger, team, co-operation, etc. We gradually become aware of our own existence as beings separate from the rest of the world. We eventually develop a concept of our own being in our own minds. The conscious mind fastens on this idea of our "self" and identifies with it. The objective designation "me" in the child's vocabulary is gradually changed to the subjective designation "I". But there is no-thing that is an "I". The word refers only to a mental concept that is in no fundamental way different from other concepts we hold in our minds. As all credible evidence suggests with regard to all our other mental concepts, it is highly probable that our "I"s will also dissolve with the dissolution of our functioning brains at the onset of our deaths or even earlier in the case of certain types of illness or injury.
Our conscious minds (our "I"s) develop the ability to focus and direct our reasoning powers. Nonetheless, our naturally reasoning brains continue to perform their natural function as well, spontaneously and objectively generating useful intuitions. However, their objective judgments can and may be ignored and overridden by our conscious minds.
Our conscious minds (our "I"s) develop the ability to focus and direct our reasoning powers. Nonetheless, our naturally reasoning brains continue to perform their natural function as well, spontaneously and objectively generating useful intuitions. However, their objective judgments can and may be ignored and overridden by our conscious minds.
The Fundamental Circumstances In Which We Act
As the years go by we grow and change. We learn to manage our powers to our beneficial use. We develop our capabilities of observing, gathering evidence, examining, analyzing and reasoning to arrive at useful conclusions. However, what we conclude can sometimes (often?) be problematic. With our limited point of view and our limited abilities compared with the size and complexity of the world we live in, we are in possession of little certain knowledge. We must often settle for varying degrees of probability and improbability. However, by relying on first-hand evidence and sound analysis we can approach ever more closely to understanding the world as it is and to understanding the fundamental circumstances in which we must live and act.
We live in a physical environment and can learn about its nature. We learn that it is governed by what we call natural laws. If we study these laws, the forces of nature and nature's reactions to our acts become ever more predictable. We can use our growing knowledge to act upon and shape our physical world and channel its forces to suit our needs. We learn to use its forces and its resources to benefit our lives. Yet, in spite of our efforts, there are always many mysteries that confront us, many questions that we just can't answer at the present time and many forces that are beyond our power to control.
We live in a social environment as well and can learn about it too. We live among others like ourselves who have the same fundamental nature and live in the same fundamental circumstances as ourselves, who have the same fundamental needs and the same fundamental aspirations. We face many of the same problems and challenges. These others have the capability of helping us, or of harming us, or of doing both. Because other human beings are influenced by motivations that are veiled from us, because they have free will and because they may act irrationally, our social environment is less predictable than our physical environment, but not wholly unpredictable. We can often foresee certain self-motivated actions on the part of other persons and certain probable responses to our actions that impact them. The fundamental nature, needs and aspirations we have in common with other human beings, and the common physical and social environments we inhabit, enable us to understand the motivations of others. We can therefore predict to some significant degree the way they will act in any given situation and the way they will respond to our acts. This knowledge, although less certain than our knowledge of our physical environment, enables us, again to some significant degree, to shape our social world in order to protect and enhance our own lives and the lives of our loved ones.
We can use acquired knowledge concerning both our physical and social environments to improve our lives: to make them more secure and healthy, more comfortable and more enjoyable. If we neglect to acquire such knowledge and make productive use of it, we needlessly limit our own lives. If we acquire the knowledge but ignore it, or use it incorrectly, we can damage our lives. Sooner or later, as Nietzsche observed, we learn concerning our own acts – too late for some people - that "consequences take us by the scruff of the neck regardless of the fact that we may have reformed in the meantime." (Beyond Good and Evil, p.88)
As we learn about the nature of our physical and social environments, we also learn about ourselves. We learn that we as well as others can be mistaken. We make mistakes when we allow our emotions to cloud our judgment, when we rely on illusory and incomplete evidence in forming our judgments, when we rush to judgment, and so on. We learn that every act we perform will have consequences for ourselves. These consequences may be positive or negative, minor and insignificant, or momentous and enduring. They may result from reactions to our acts in our physical environment or responses to our acts in our social environment. We learn that by our actions we determine to a large degree what will become of our bodies, our minds and our emotions. We do much more than many people realize to shape what we will become.
We live in a physical environment and can learn about its nature. We learn that it is governed by what we call natural laws. If we study these laws, the forces of nature and nature's reactions to our acts become ever more predictable. We can use our growing knowledge to act upon and shape our physical world and channel its forces to suit our needs. We learn to use its forces and its resources to benefit our lives. Yet, in spite of our efforts, there are always many mysteries that confront us, many questions that we just can't answer at the present time and many forces that are beyond our power to control.
We live in a social environment as well and can learn about it too. We live among others like ourselves who have the same fundamental nature and live in the same fundamental circumstances as ourselves, who have the same fundamental needs and the same fundamental aspirations. We face many of the same problems and challenges. These others have the capability of helping us, or of harming us, or of doing both. Because other human beings are influenced by motivations that are veiled from us, because they have free will and because they may act irrationally, our social environment is less predictable than our physical environment, but not wholly unpredictable. We can often foresee certain self-motivated actions on the part of other persons and certain probable responses to our actions that impact them. The fundamental nature, needs and aspirations we have in common with other human beings, and the common physical and social environments we inhabit, enable us to understand the motivations of others. We can therefore predict to some significant degree the way they will act in any given situation and the way they will respond to our acts. This knowledge, although less certain than our knowledge of our physical environment, enables us, again to some significant degree, to shape our social world in order to protect and enhance our own lives and the lives of our loved ones.
We can use acquired knowledge concerning both our physical and social environments to improve our lives: to make them more secure and healthy, more comfortable and more enjoyable. If we neglect to acquire such knowledge and make productive use of it, we needlessly limit our own lives. If we acquire the knowledge but ignore it, or use it incorrectly, we can damage our lives. Sooner or later, as Nietzsche observed, we learn concerning our own acts – too late for some people - that "consequences take us by the scruff of the neck regardless of the fact that we may have reformed in the meantime." (Beyond Good and Evil, p.88)
As we learn about the nature of our physical and social environments, we also learn about ourselves. We learn that we as well as others can be mistaken. We make mistakes when we allow our emotions to cloud our judgment, when we rely on illusory and incomplete evidence in forming our judgments, when we rush to judgment, and so on. We learn that every act we perform will have consequences for ourselves. These consequences may be positive or negative, minor and insignificant, or momentous and enduring. They may result from reactions to our acts in our physical environment or responses to our acts in our social environment. We learn that by our actions we determine to a large degree what will become of our bodies, our minds and our emotions. We do much more than many people realize to shape what we will become.
Universal Human Condition
The worldview outlined above describes a significant part of what Sartre called "the universal human condition". It is the condition in which nature has set "the a priori limits which outline man's fundamental situation in the universe". (Existentialism, p.45) It is the only permissible worldview for one who grasps the significance of his choosing to continue existing in these circumstances and has thus committed himself to proceeding through life only by a rational analysis of credible evidence where life-shaping decisions are concerned. It is the only permissible worldview for one who, like Camus, wants "to know whether I can live with what I know [my emphasis] and with that alone." (The Myth of Sisyphus, p.42) That is, it is living with no embellishment, distortion or ignoring of the facts, no belief in fantasy or idle speculation.
With the universal human condition being the fundamental situation in which we human beings find ourselves, can there possibly be an ethical system produced by it or in it? Can there be values and principles arising out of this worldview to which we human individuals ought to subscribe in order to guide our lives in the personal decisions we make from day to day? Unequivocally, the answer is "Yes". We'll deal with what they are and how they arise in the following sections of this web-site.
With the universal human condition being the fundamental situation in which we human beings find ourselves, can there possibly be an ethical system produced by it or in it? Can there be values and principles arising out of this worldview to which we human individuals ought to subscribe in order to guide our lives in the personal decisions we make from day to day? Unequivocally, the answer is "Yes". We'll deal with what they are and how they arise in the following sections of this web-site.
© 2009 - 2016 Robert MacQuarrie, ExistentialEthics.com