This one is interesting. I have quibbles, but I love the new terminology.
Oh this one is so much fun. Everybody gets to be mad! Libertarian fan of Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris? You’ll hate it. Liberal believer in social justice and structural power analysis? You will not walk away happy.
The real short version is that tribalism affects everyone whether we like it or not.
The slightly longer version is that there is an ongoing societal debate on the internet over… basic philosophy, I guess. Should we evaluate speech claims as isolated factual truths, to live and die on their own based on whether they map to reality? Or should we evaluate them as political acts, intrinsically bound to their context, to society, to power structures, and to the speaker?
Hint: the real answer is “both”.
- Knowledge is imperfect.
- Perspective is relative.
- Reality is absolute.
Following on from my ninth axiom, I wanted to make two brief points about what I mean by valuing truth:
- I value absolute truth, although it might be slightly more accurate to say that I value strong and weak knowledge of the truth.
- I implicitly value consistency, since reality (absolute truth) is consistent (axiom 3).
At the very beginning of this blog, I laid out a set of eight axioms with which I was to derive my philosophy. Since they were spread out across several posts, I will collect them here for convenience:
Axiom 1: Axioms are valid starting points.
Axiom 2: The fewer axioms you need, the better.
Axiom 3: There is some underlying consistent reality that is made up of things.
Axiom 4: I (or the thing that I think of as “me”) exist in some form in that reality.
Axiom 5: Things in reality interact, forming temporal and causal relationships.
Axiom 6: My senses provide me with information that is functionally determined by the underlying reality.
Axiom 7: My memory is usually a reliable and valid guide to my past experiences.
Axiom 8: Logic is a valid form of reasoning.
Although I would probably word them differently now, and there are certainly quibbles to be had, I still think the general intent of these eight form a solid foundation for truth-seeking and philosophy.
However, they are incomplete in terms of actually determining how to live your life. I sort of already came to this conclusion in my previous post based on the Charles Taylor essay, but I want to draw some more explicit conclusions from that:
- My core eight axioms provide sufficient grounding for determining reality and truth, but not for values or decisions.
- I currently live my life by a so-far-unexpressed set of values which includes truth, consistency, and something akin to secular-humanist values (though that needs much more elaboration).
- Arguing one set of value axioms over another is impossible as long as they are all reasonably simple and compatible with the core eight.
- Adhering rigidly to any single declarable value seems to be a recipe for disaster.
With all that said, I present my ninth axiom:
Axiom 9: I value truth and beauty, not necessarily in that order.
The wonderful thing about “beauty” is that it is deliberately vague. Music can be beautiful and I value that. Human life is beautiful, and I do value that. There is beauty in some efficiencies, and I value that. Truth, though sometimes harsh, is always beautiful. The right lie may also be considered beautiful.
The beauty of beauty is its pragmatism. Plus, who can resist the implicit quark-naming joke?
edit: several years later and this axiom has effectively evolved from “truth and beauty” to “truth, beauty, and service”
(Note: my roadmap originally had planned a post on Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, but that’s not going to happen. It’s a fascinating topic with some interesting applications, but it’s even more mathematically dense than a lot of my other stuff, and isn’t strictly necessary, so I’m skipping it, for now. Maybe I’ll come back to it later. Read the wiki page if you’re interested.)
This post marks the final cherry on top of this whole series on systems theory, and the part where we finally get to make practical philosophical use of the whole abstract structure we’ve been building up. I’ve telegraphed the whole thing in the roadmap, and the thesis is in the title, so let’s just dive right in: reality is a system. It’s layed out almost already right there in axioms #3 and #5.
We can also tie this in with our definitions of truth and knowledge. If the absolute underlying reality of what is (forming absolute truth) is a system, then the relative truth that we regularly refer to as “truth” is just a set of abstractions layered on top of the underlying reality.
Dogs and cats and chairs and tables are just abstractions on top of molecules. Molecules are just an abstraction on top of atoms. Atoms, on top of protons, electrons, and neutrons. Protons and neutrons on top of quarks and other fundamental particles I don’t understand. The absolute true underlying system is, in this view, not possible to know. In fact, since we as persons are inside the system (we can in fact be seen as subsystems of it), then we literally cannot model the entire thing with complete fidelity. It is fundamentally impossible. The best we can do is to model an abstraction within the bounds of the entropy of the system. This is in some distant sense a restatement of the circular trap.