In the Name of Consistency

I’m due for another little philosophical rant today.  This came up in my history of philosophy class the other night, and I just can’t stop thinking about it.  So, here it comes, in somewhat digestible form.

If you go to the average Westernized human being today (including nearly any American you can name) it is likely that they have a set of ideas that is largely defined by the following:

1.)  The Faith/Values Split.  (Or Secularlism) This is where people believe that all faith questions are personal, not public, values, and that anytime a faith attempts to speak a value in the public sphere, it is automatically wrong.  You might have heard this when people say things like, “That might work for you, but it won’t work for me,” or “You have no right to talk about your beliefs in public.”  Very common, and utterly ridiculous.

2.)  Postmodernism.  Postmodernism is the philosophical equivalency of an intellectual give up in the name of relationships.   The doctrine of postmodernism might best be stated, “Be an individual…just like everybody else.”  Postmodernism holds that language has no meaning, that all metanarratives (anything that claims to hold absolute truth) are ridiculous and that there is no such things as truth on any scale larger than the individual.  They often maintain that the only thing that matters is what groups of people do in community, and that is what sets truth standards.  If you’re willing to make everything subjective, this is how you get there.  Again, to my way of thinking, ridiculous.

3.) Existentialism.  Though it is hard to put a finger on what exactly this term means today, the original formulation is that people have the power to recreate themselves at any given moment.  Most modern self-help books are built on the premises of existentialism.  Basically, the idea is that the universe has no meaning, and that there is no meaning inherent to life.  Therefore, it is the jobs of humans to create meaning where there is none, as a way of convincing themselves that life isn’t meaningless and utterly futile.  This sounds appealing if you read an account of it, but ultimately, to affirm this, you have to also affirm that everything has no mean, that emotions are figments of the imagination, and that not only is the universe unintelligible, but the human impulse to infuse meaning is equally meaningless.

4.) Utilitarianism/Pragmatism.  These two are related, though nuanced slightly differently.  The principle of utility, roughly stated, is that people should act in the ways that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number.  Pragmatism is the philosophy that basically states that one should do whatever the simplest solution to a problem is.  These often work together when people think ethically, as people will try to base ethics in a larger, societal view of what is good for society, and then instruct people to do that.  Again, subjectivity plays in here, as well as incredible presumption on the part of the person who holds it.  The person who is a utilitarian assumes that they know the consequences of all actions, and furthermore, that they can judge what the results will be on everyone else.  The pragmatist, likewise assumes that they know the answers or solutions that will work best.

5.) Naturalism/Empiricism.  These two are also slightly different, but often end up as allies.  Naturalism is the notion that everything in the world that is intelligible (in other words, everything) has some natural explanation that is available only through scientific explanation.  Empiricism is closely related, but deals with accepting information only available through sensory perception.  In order to prove this ridiculous, all a person need do is be able to prove something which sensory information cannot prove (like justice or the atom) or which natural explanations are insufficient (the beginning of the universe or the development of sentience in the universe are good examples.)

So, why this grinding axe, and why today?  Very simple.

The 5 philosophies listed above, as held by many people, are wildly incompatible with the way people live.  Very rarely will you find an “existentialist” who will actually affirm that the universe is meaningless.  In the name of consistency, a person who claims existentialism MUST make that affirmation, or the entire rest of the philosophy is valueless.  It is not sufficient to go to the marketplace of ideas and treat it like a buffet.

Every idea, EVERY idea, has logical consequence and presuppositions upon which it is based.  To divorce an idea from it’s presuppositions about the nature of reality is ludicrous.  I have great respect for existentialist who can actually affirm that the universe is meaningless.  I think they’re wrong, but I can respect their consistency.  In the same way, I can respect someone who believes that only sensory information or scientific explanations are admissable as evidence.  Again, I think they’re wrong, but as long as they’re willing to disallow anything that cannot be proven by empirical evidence (time, the mind, etc), I have no problem.  But every one of these philosophies has consequences.  The theories do not mix together, and they assume fundamentally different things about the universe. 

So, in conclusion, examine yourselves, and the way you think!  There is at least a slight chance that you’re not consistent.  If you discover that you’re not, you have a choice.  You can be a walking contradiction, who can affirm nothing and everything at the same time (which is really just mindless drivel) or you can think it through, do the hard work, and attempt to be consistent.  There are great many ideological systems that allow for consistency, but they take work to understand.  It is, however, work worth doing.