Quizzes & Puzzles46 mins ago
Private Truths
46 Answers
In an essay, only recently published, entitled 'The Validity of Artificial Distinctions' written in 1915 at Oxford, the young T.S.Eliot wrote;
"... any philosophic explanation which involves the taking over of a term or terms from daily use and disposing the rest of reality according to them - and this is a procedure which enters inevitably into every philosophic progress - is an explanation which is lamentably deficient.
You not only cannot prove your result: you cannot within the rights of your own conscience impose it upon your neighbour. It can only be maintained by faith, a faith which like all faith, should be seasoned with a sauce of scepticism. And scepticism too is a faith, a high and difficult one."
Would it not be beneficial to discussion if all R&S, ABers of whatever leaning and conviction, considered these words before posting?
"... any philosophic explanation which involves the taking over of a term or terms from daily use and disposing the rest of reality according to them - and this is a procedure which enters inevitably into every philosophic progress - is an explanation which is lamentably deficient.
You not only cannot prove your result: you cannot within the rights of your own conscience impose it upon your neighbour. It can only be maintained by faith, a faith which like all faith, should be seasoned with a sauce of scepticism. And scepticism too is a faith, a high and difficult one."
Would it not be beneficial to discussion if all R&S, ABers of whatever leaning and conviction, considered these words before posting?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't understand the first paragraph of your Eliot citation, Khandro. In particular the impenetrable phrase "the taking over of a term or terms from daily use and disposing the rest of reality according to them" eludes my best efforts to distil it into an intelligible statement.
I suppose I understand the second paragraph after a fashion. Are you exhorting some of us to be more humble and less dogmatic? What I take issue with (if I understand him rightly - and I might not) is the implied relativism in the assertion that all beliefs are personal and unprovable. It is obvious to this self-effacing and tolerant correspondent that some creeds, religious or otherwise, are demonstrably more absurd than others. Or have a cruder morality. Or are less conducive to human happiness. Of course, I would need to justify my criticism in any particular case by appeal to the moral axioms I believe in.
I suppose I understand the second paragraph after a fashion. Are you exhorting some of us to be more humble and less dogmatic? What I take issue with (if I understand him rightly - and I might not) is the implied relativism in the assertion that all beliefs are personal and unprovable. It is obvious to this self-effacing and tolerant correspondent that some creeds, religious or otherwise, are demonstrably more absurd than others. Or have a cruder morality. Or are less conducive to human happiness. Of course, I would need to justify my criticism in any particular case by appeal to the moral axioms I believe in.
-- answer removed --
v_e; I think, before entering Merton College, Oxford, in 1914, with a year at the Sorbonne and three years of graduate work in philosophy at Harvard behind him, Eliot's idea of "daily use" would differ slightly from ours, but I imagine that he was implying that the use of say the term 'truth', and any constructions from it, need to be tempered with caution and a realization whatever beliefs we individually hang on that hook are of necessity deficient of proof and are dependant on an act of faith.
Your assertion that; "some creeds, religious or otherwise, are demonstrably more absurd than others." requires qualification, how are you to demonstrate this without reliance on your 'private truth' ?
Eliot in the same essay though, concedes later " I think that the soundest philosophies are those which appear to spring from the genius of race, rather than from the mind of an isolated individual (though I do not contest the individual's right, once he has begun his philosophising, to pull down the curtain and close his eyes). ................. in a sense, all significant truths are private truths; they must be made mine before they can be can be true for me.".
Your assertion that; "some creeds, religious or otherwise, are demonstrably more absurd than others." requires qualification, how are you to demonstrate this without reliance on your 'private truth' ?
Eliot in the same essay though, concedes later " I think that the soundest philosophies are those which appear to spring from the genius of race, rather than from the mind of an isolated individual (though I do not contest the individual's right, once he has begun his philosophising, to pull down the curtain and close his eyes). ................. in a sense, all significant truths are private truths; they must be made mine before they can be can be true for me.".
@khandro
re: 09:01 Fri
These days, I think that goes without saying. Maybe, in Eliot's day, no-one appreciated that situation, or had thought that. Someone had to be first to say it. Eliot evidently went one stage better and got it in print.
Everything in the brain is a "construct". Our senses feed us a stream of information and the brain has to construct a narrative to make sense of the world. "Action X has consequence Y" is both a narrative and a "theory", as you put it.
It doesn't have to be correct ("truth"), it just has to satisfy the brain's sense of what is around it, as an aid to rapid decision making, at a later date, such as when circumstances resemble those from the past; responses to danger, for example.
So, it is a rationalisation machine. Theories must be constructed, tested and disposed of when found to be unhelpful. Also, it helps to think about things once and carry that rationalisation for life rather than thinking about things afresh, every day, especially when there is work to do.
Philosophy is the luxury of the idle rich. They didn't exist until we had farming. No amount of thinking will gather in the crops. ;0)
By "private truths", maybe he is touching on the impossibility of truly knowing what is going on in the mind of someone else:-
An object could be a certain colour (an objective truth, amenable to mechanical measurement, if need be), two people might both describe it with the same word, even down to what shade it is but neither they or any external observers can 'read' their internal mental experience of that colour. Given paints (or a computerised pallete), they could find what matches for -them- but the external observer's perception filter will still be applying its own interpretation and isn't necessarily triggering an identical experience for that observer.
There is an ojective truth (spectrophotometer shows peaks at various wavelengths) but it is "incommunicable" between people except by clumsy word tokens or artistic depiction.
Even when experiences are identical, it would be interesting to know whether this is because some neural pathways are connected up the same way for everyone (activity mapping will evidence this) or despite any subtle differences (we were all taught what colour was what, in infancy, whether we remember that or not).
I chose an over-simplistic example there, trying to get across that we can agree on subjective experiences of a colour, without having to have neural connections as similar as clones. Brains arrive at similar sensations in multifold ways. (Speculation alert).
When it comes to more sophisticated matters, it becomes clear that having individuals all building their own theories of how the world works, how society works, is not conducive to good teamwork. Good teamwork is what got one tribe to win out over its neighbours. Getting all members to think alike aids organisation but at the cost of abdicating some personal control and handing it to a leadership.
Sacrificing freedom for security: there's a Ben Johnson quote about that.
re: 09:01 Fri
These days, I think that goes without saying. Maybe, in Eliot's day, no-one appreciated that situation, or had thought that. Someone had to be first to say it. Eliot evidently went one stage better and got it in print.
Everything in the brain is a "construct". Our senses feed us a stream of information and the brain has to construct a narrative to make sense of the world. "Action X has consequence Y" is both a narrative and a "theory", as you put it.
It doesn't have to be correct ("truth"), it just has to satisfy the brain's sense of what is around it, as an aid to rapid decision making, at a later date, such as when circumstances resemble those from the past; responses to danger, for example.
So, it is a rationalisation machine. Theories must be constructed, tested and disposed of when found to be unhelpful. Also, it helps to think about things once and carry that rationalisation for life rather than thinking about things afresh, every day, especially when there is work to do.
Philosophy is the luxury of the idle rich. They didn't exist until we had farming. No amount of thinking will gather in the crops. ;0)
By "private truths", maybe he is touching on the impossibility of truly knowing what is going on in the mind of someone else:-
An object could be a certain colour (an objective truth, amenable to mechanical measurement, if need be), two people might both describe it with the same word, even down to what shade it is but neither they or any external observers can 'read' their internal mental experience of that colour. Given paints (or a computerised pallete), they could find what matches for -them- but the external observer's perception filter will still be applying its own interpretation and isn't necessarily triggering an identical experience for that observer.
There is an ojective truth (spectrophotometer shows peaks at various wavelengths) but it is "incommunicable" between people except by clumsy word tokens or artistic depiction.
Even when experiences are identical, it would be interesting to know whether this is because some neural pathways are connected up the same way for everyone (activity mapping will evidence this) or despite any subtle differences (we were all taught what colour was what, in infancy, whether we remember that or not).
I chose an over-simplistic example there, trying to get across that we can agree on subjective experiences of a colour, without having to have neural connections as similar as clones. Brains arrive at similar sensations in multifold ways. (Speculation alert).
When it comes to more sophisticated matters, it becomes clear that having individuals all building their own theories of how the world works, how society works, is not conducive to good teamwork. Good teamwork is what got one tribe to win out over its neighbours. Getting all members to think alike aids organisation but at the cost of abdicating some personal control and handing it to a leadership.
Sacrificing freedom for security: there's a Ben Johnson quote about that.
Apologies for a rambling post. I was working towards a conclusion but sidetracked myself and forgot what I was going to say.
//Eliot in the same essay though, concedes later " I think that the soundest philosophies are those which appear to spring from the genius of race, rather than from the mind of an isolated individual //
Rightly or wrongly, I take this to mean that he thinks the philosophy of the masses is best. He has not taken herd mentality into account and also speaks to the status quo of his own era. Theism was the norm, back then and he merely endorses it by saying that.
Follow-the-leader philosophy *is* stemming from the mind of an isolated individual (or an oligarchy).
A tribe which lives by a volcano might have a mountain god. The forest tribe might have a tree god. Merge many tribes and you might end up with polytheism. If this leads to disharmony, then switch to monotheism.
Mass support: ergo, "soundest philosophy".
Or a load of dingo's kidneys.
//Eliot in the same essay though, concedes later " I think that the soundest philosophies are those which appear to spring from the genius of race, rather than from the mind of an isolated individual //
Rightly or wrongly, I take this to mean that he thinks the philosophy of the masses is best. He has not taken herd mentality into account and also speaks to the status quo of his own era. Theism was the norm, back then and he merely endorses it by saying that.
Follow-the-leader philosophy *is* stemming from the mind of an isolated individual (or an oligarchy).
A tribe which lives by a volcano might have a mountain god. The forest tribe might have a tree god. Merge many tribes and you might end up with polytheism. If this leads to disharmony, then switch to monotheism.
Mass support: ergo, "soundest philosophy".
Or a load of dingo's kidneys.
Really hypo..... I am losing the will to live here.
There is scientific proof that Evolution is a Natural phenomenon which clearly proves that any religion is represented by falsehoods.
Until there is valid evidence that the existence of any of the worshiped mythical theological deities is possible, I shall continue to reject any of the hazy ecclesiastical prattle that is spouted here.
If that is not acceptable..... bite me.
There is scientific proof that Evolution is a Natural phenomenon which clearly proves that any religion is represented by falsehoods.
Until there is valid evidence that the existence of any of the worshiped mythical theological deities is possible, I shall continue to reject any of the hazy ecclesiastical prattle that is spouted here.
If that is not acceptable..... bite me.
@wildwood
You obviously don't follow my posts on AB, or you'd know that I'm an atheist. That paragraph was disparaging Eliot's conclusion that the masses arrive at the "soundest" philosophies. I'm saying that they've been programmed, in bulk and numbers do not make 'their' philosophy right. It's not theirs anyway, it is a top-down thing. (Terrestrial top-down, I mean, not from "on high").
I trust that removes all ambiguity.
You obviously don't follow my posts on AB, or you'd know that I'm an atheist. That paragraph was disparaging Eliot's conclusion that the masses arrive at the "soundest" philosophies. I'm saying that they've been programmed, in bulk and numbers do not make 'their' philosophy right. It's not theirs anyway, it is a top-down thing. (Terrestrial top-down, I mean, not from "on high").
I trust that removes all ambiguity.
How is evidence of evolution proof of religion being false ?
(I wish they'd taught me philosophy at school.)
I'm understanding more from the posts here than the initial quotation. I may give this more thought later, but off the top of my head: I think there is a concern here that we may rush down to the thought that all we know is the "picture" we "draw" in our mind to explain the experience that our senses feed us, and so nothing is for sure but simply private beliefs and musings. But that seems to be a dead end explanation.
I'd tend to agree that debate has use and thus if a belief is reasonable it should stand up better to questioning than one that isn't; regardless what internal beliefs and understanding one might hold.
(I wish they'd taught me philosophy at school.)
I'm understanding more from the posts here than the initial quotation. I may give this more thought later, but off the top of my head: I think there is a concern here that we may rush down to the thought that all we know is the "picture" we "draw" in our mind to explain the experience that our senses feed us, and so nothing is for sure but simply private beliefs and musings. But that seems to be a dead end explanation.
I'd tend to agree that debate has use and thus if a belief is reasonable it should stand up better to questioning than one that isn't; regardless what internal beliefs and understanding one might hold.
I think, Hypo. that is a fair summary, and Eliot was of course a Christian, though I don't believe that he thought that because one theory had many adherents it necessarily contained more truth.
None of this is 'cut and paste', I'm typing it out from the text - without permission of his estate (though I might be forgiven because I'm working on a portrait of him from photographs at the moment :0) - but he goes on to say that the great theories and philosophies have a greater "density and richness" and that, "... a very different attitude is necessary for the appreciation of Hegel or Aristotle than for the understanding of the *Grazer Untersuchungen zur Gegenstandstheorie to take a work which I understand not at all. Not that the latter sort are without value..........In a sense I think all significant truths are private truths, they must be made mine before they can be made true to me. As they become common, they become either inarticulate (in gaining in density) or become insignificant,
2+2=4. But is this 'truth' at all?
*A work from the now obscure Grazer School Psychological Laboratory based in Graz, Austria.
None of this is 'cut and paste', I'm typing it out from the text - without permission of his estate (though I might be forgiven because I'm working on a portrait of him from photographs at the moment :0) - but he goes on to say that the great theories and philosophies have a greater "density and richness" and that, "... a very different attitude is necessary for the appreciation of Hegel or Aristotle than for the understanding of the *Grazer Untersuchungen zur Gegenstandstheorie to take a work which I understand not at all. Not that the latter sort are without value..........In a sense I think all significant truths are private truths, they must be made mine before they can be made true to me. As they become common, they become either inarticulate (in gaining in density) or become insignificant,
2+2=4. But is this 'truth' at all?
*A work from the now obscure Grazer School Psychological Laboratory based in Graz, Austria.
"Your assertion that; "some creeds, religious or otherwise, are demonstrably more absurd than others." requires qualification, how are you to demonstrate this without reliance on your 'private truth'".
If you'd read my last sentence, Khandro, you would have noticed that I'd anticipated this question. I cannot prove my moral axioms, but I am quite happy to explain and defend them.
Pedant' Corner: dependent.
If you'd read my last sentence, Khandro, you would have noticed that I'd anticipated this question. I cannot prove my moral axioms, but I am quite happy to explain and defend them.
Pedant' Corner: dependent.
Re the "genius of race" - "Rightly or wrongly, I take this to mean that he thinks the philosophy of the masses is best. He has not taken herd mentality into account and also speaks to the status quo of his own era. Theism was the norm, back then and he merely endorses it by saying that.
Wrongly, I think, Hypognosis. I've already said that I don't understand Eliot, but I'm pretty damn sure he's not talking about "herd mentality", which is a fairly modern phrase invented by people with a handicap of 10 who despise people with a handicap of 12 (oh, and loved by shysters selling share "tips"). Neither do I think he's arguing for the status quo in the pejorative sense in which I take you to mean it.
What I guess he's talking about is the accumulated "wisdom" of a continuous, but evolving culture. This will include traditions and customs like religion, marriage rites, concepts of law and justice, attitudes to individual liberty, habits of industry and so on. This "wisdom" is neither the aggregation of ignorant prejudices, nor the intellectual product of a few intellectuals; it is the unplanned result of complicated human interactions over history and the accommodations and compromises which have occurred over the course of that history. IF Eliot's "genius of race" means the accumulated experience of a nation then he's arguing as a conservative, that the unarticulated "philosophy" which underlies the habits and customs of a given culture are more likely to be wise in a practical sense than the private ideas of individuals however smart. Karl Marx, anyone?
Wrongly, I think, Hypognosis. I've already said that I don't understand Eliot, but I'm pretty damn sure he's not talking about "herd mentality", which is a fairly modern phrase invented by people with a handicap of 10 who despise people with a handicap of 12 (oh, and loved by shysters selling share "tips"). Neither do I think he's arguing for the status quo in the pejorative sense in which I take you to mean it.
What I guess he's talking about is the accumulated "wisdom" of a continuous, but evolving culture. This will include traditions and customs like religion, marriage rites, concepts of law and justice, attitudes to individual liberty, habits of industry and so on. This "wisdom" is neither the aggregation of ignorant prejudices, nor the intellectual product of a few intellectuals; it is the unplanned result of complicated human interactions over history and the accommodations and compromises which have occurred over the course of that history. IF Eliot's "genius of race" means the accumulated experience of a nation then he's arguing as a conservative, that the unarticulated "philosophy" which underlies the habits and customs of a given culture are more likely to be wise in a practical sense than the private ideas of individuals however smart. Karl Marx, anyone?
@Vetuste_ennemi
Pedants' Corner Heh heh!
When I said "rightly or wrongly", I meant me, as I was second-guessing TE.
Never having read Marx, I have little clue as to where he plucked his ideas from, other than it being a response to the sheet misery of life, as a peasant, under the Tsar and his cronies.
Other than hippie communes and the Israeli kibbutz system, I don't think collectivism has *ever* been implemented successfully. If a community is small enough, everybody knows who is pulling their weight and who is not. If you are the dairy farmer, they can come to your door and you give them milk in much the same way that you can go to theirs and get what they produce.
However, as soon as the community is too large to keep track of everybody's input (mutual trust), you have to switch to a system of exchange of goods for work and portable tokens, aka money. At that stage, you've returned to capitalism, so any growth of the community will be the end of it.
As you pointed out, society has established wise and equitable behaviour over generations and sudden or wide deviations from this pattern will more often be like stepping off the path and into the mud than a genuine fork onto another sound path.
I would like to say modern society is conservative (small 'c') but it is not. It is becoming increasingly inequitable with a very comfortable elite, at one end and the hard working masses, feeling very oppressed and undervalued but servicing the elite, nevertheless. No choice, when you're shackled to a mortgage, or kids to raise.
Pedants' Corner Heh heh!
When I said "rightly or wrongly", I meant me, as I was second-guessing TE.
Never having read Marx, I have little clue as to where he plucked his ideas from, other than it being a response to the sheet misery of life, as a peasant, under the Tsar and his cronies.
Other than hippie communes and the Israeli kibbutz system, I don't think collectivism has *ever* been implemented successfully. If a community is small enough, everybody knows who is pulling their weight and who is not. If you are the dairy farmer, they can come to your door and you give them milk in much the same way that you can go to theirs and get what they produce.
However, as soon as the community is too large to keep track of everybody's input (mutual trust), you have to switch to a system of exchange of goods for work and portable tokens, aka money. At that stage, you've returned to capitalism, so any growth of the community will be the end of it.
As you pointed out, society has established wise and equitable behaviour over generations and sudden or wide deviations from this pattern will more often be like stepping off the path and into the mud than a genuine fork onto another sound path.
I would like to say modern society is conservative (small 'c') but it is not. It is becoming increasingly inequitable with a very comfortable elite, at one end and the hard working masses, feeling very oppressed and undervalued but servicing the elite, nevertheless. No choice, when you're shackled to a mortgage, or kids to raise.
v_e; // I cannot prove my moral axioms, but I am quite happy to explain and defend them.// - and long may you continue to do so.
I think your summary of society's accumulated wisdom regarding traditions and customs etc. is spot-on, however if it is extended to 'tribal' culture, which I think he does, we must understand that individual interpretation (or 'private truth') kicks in. Our tribe may have come to embrace Shakespeare, but assessments of each character's motivation in Hamlet, will be varied, and none of them can really pretend to be ultimate.
I am interested in this so much because not only am I working on a portrait of Eliot (how I discovered the text) but because I am also writing something on an the similar subject of 'meaning' in art. An artwork; a painting, sculpture, poem or whatever, is as interpretable in as many ways as it has observers, and even individual views may change over time, not only of it's audience, but even of it's author.
I have used a splendid quote to this end from Browning; when he was asked what one of his more obscure poems meant he said 'When I wrote this poem, God and Robert Browning knew what it meant. Now God knows.'
I think your summary of society's accumulated wisdom regarding traditions and customs etc. is spot-on, however if it is extended to 'tribal' culture, which I think he does, we must understand that individual interpretation (or 'private truth') kicks in. Our tribe may have come to embrace Shakespeare, but assessments of each character's motivation in Hamlet, will be varied, and none of them can really pretend to be ultimate.
I am interested in this so much because not only am I working on a portrait of Eliot (how I discovered the text) but because I am also writing something on an the similar subject of 'meaning' in art. An artwork; a painting, sculpture, poem or whatever, is as interpretable in as many ways as it has observers, and even individual views may change over time, not only of it's audience, but even of it's author.
I have used a splendid quote to this end from Browning; when he was asked what one of his more obscure poems meant he said 'When I wrote this poem, God and Robert Browning knew what it meant. Now God knows.'
@v_e
Thanks.
@Old_Geezer
//How is evidence of evolution proof of religion being false ? //
At most, it can only go as far as proving one chapter as false. Maybe not even as much as that, if it is only the first few paragraphs which make up the preamble to Adam and Eve starting to do things relevant to the plot.
Historical parts of the bible are far harder to challenge, given the absence (or purge) of corroborating contemporary writings. Archaeological finds are feasible but linking a given ruin to settlement named in the Bible is a major challenge. Premature leaps, in a bid for fame, book sales or whatever have surely been made, in the past. You can be wildly wrong and still make a packet. Make a movie, spawn tourism and so on.
I'm convinced much of the fascination with Egyptology was the hope that their writings, once understood, would provide that independent corroboration of biblical events, as well as a general chronology for their sphere of influence, in those times (to cross-reference with Persia, Sumer etc.) Last I recall, there was controversy over their entire historical timeline because experts could not agree whether the list of kings represented reigns running in series or whether lower, middle and upper Egypt had a king each, reigning in parallel. The convention of recording dates in regnal form, eg "the 5th year of X, the Nth", instead of a number, gives ample scope for confusion, with the potential to telescope a 5000 year timeline down to 3000. Enough of a discrepancy to mess with how archaeologists assign a date range to a style of pottery.
I reiterate "last I heard". Hopefully, the debate was resolved and more recent archaeology is busily reinforcing the prevailing paradigm.
Thanks.
@Old_Geezer
//How is evidence of evolution proof of religion being false ? //
At most, it can only go as far as proving one chapter as false. Maybe not even as much as that, if it is only the first few paragraphs which make up the preamble to Adam and Eve starting to do things relevant to the plot.
Historical parts of the bible are far harder to challenge, given the absence (or purge) of corroborating contemporary writings. Archaeological finds are feasible but linking a given ruin to settlement named in the Bible is a major challenge. Premature leaps, in a bid for fame, book sales or whatever have surely been made, in the past. You can be wildly wrong and still make a packet. Make a movie, spawn tourism and so on.
I'm convinced much of the fascination with Egyptology was the hope that their writings, once understood, would provide that independent corroboration of biblical events, as well as a general chronology for their sphere of influence, in those times (to cross-reference with Persia, Sumer etc.) Last I recall, there was controversy over their entire historical timeline because experts could not agree whether the list of kings represented reigns running in series or whether lower, middle and upper Egypt had a king each, reigning in parallel. The convention of recording dates in regnal form, eg "the 5th year of X, the Nth", instead of a number, gives ample scope for confusion, with the potential to telescope a 5000 year timeline down to 3000. Enough of a discrepancy to mess with how archaeologists assign a date range to a style of pottery.
I reiterate "last I heard". Hopefully, the debate was resolved and more recent archaeology is busily reinforcing the prevailing paradigm.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles47 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles48 mins ago
ChatterBank78 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles81 mins ago
