Acid Test

If we regularly judge that the great minds of the past were mistaken, often egregiously so, what are the prospects for lesser mortals?

Anyhow, every man is fallible and finite. Hence in all likelihood some of the opinions of which I’m strongly convinced are wrong. This is a strange reality to face, and especially to face constructively.

I believe these and other considerations point to a way in which a philosophical/reflective life could benefit from imitating the “hard sciences.” In considering the logic of scientific method, Karl Popper and others have emphasized that modern scientific theories persist, in part, owing to their resilience in the face of aggressive attempts to “falsify” them. (Another factor, not necessarily relevant here, is a theory’s ability to explain phenomena, parsimoniously [with few assumptions]). What about our own opinions?

I don’t at all mean to suggest any return to the reveries of the Vienna Circle, nor any simple isomorphism between scientific knowledge and properly philosophical knowledge. Rather, in the “spirit” of science, one would do well to determine what considerations, if true, would call one’s strongest convictions into question. One can then become something of an advocatus diabolus for those considerations, and (literally) put one’s views to the test. An as yet "un-falsified" view isn't by any stretch equivalent to a true one, but perhaps it's a credible one. A person with such views is ... creditable.

Of course such an approach (often) animates conversation and discussion, considered as “shared inquiry,” and goes to the heart of the truly philosophical life. But, perhaps there’s something a bit “new” in the emphasis on relentlessly "testing" one’s own views.

It’s difficult not to think of Nietzsche in this connection, with his powerful attack on “prejudices” – by which he meant something like “cherished views” or “heartfelt beliefs.” He was alive to the almost endless possibilities for deception to which we are exposed, and to which we expose ourselves, and by contrast saw the science of his day as in many ways the embodiment of the strict “intellectual conscience.” And since we cannot help but be very “un-disinterested” in questions which are at all interesting, relentless self-challenging unavoidably involves a great deal of nerve. (A somewhat recent treatment of these issues which deserves to be wrestled with is Walter Kaufmann’s “Without Guilt or Justice: From Decidiphobia to Autonomy” ).

It’s a real achievement to “follow the argument wherever it may lead,” and more difficult still when one is simultaneously leader and led – especially when one leads oneself where one would rather not go. “Living dangerously,” "experimenting," "attempting," indeed ...