Wisdom, sleeping..
  • Home
  • Four Pillars of Wisdom
    • Why Wisdom, a Provisional Foreword
    • Doubts
    • Ethos or How I Learned Some Wisdom
    • The "State of the Art" - an impression
    • A Nutshell History of Worldly Wisdom
    • What is Wisdom?
    • The first pillar of wisdom: wise knowledge
    • Good Judgment is the second pillar of wisdom
    • Wise Conduct is the third pillar of wisdom
  • Articles
    • Secret Life of the Obvious
    • Powerful inaction, conspicuous absence, bountiful void
    • The Power to Make Things Simple
    • Three kinds of Criticism
    • Critical thinking is disobedient, not correct
    • Strategy of Surprise
    • The Rectification of Meaning
    • The n plus minus one principle: higher, wider, different...
    • The Fascination of Paradox
    • A choice of choices
    • Des choix de la spiritualité
  • Blog
  • This reminds me of a story

Religion, a force of peace

1/12/2011

3 Comments

 
PictureOur sign of peace Left on the Moon
 
I am tired of hearing that faith is the war monger of humanity so that peace will flow at last, like mighty rivers, the day we get rid of religion.

Religions will stay with us, probably as long as humanity will survive and they may even help us survive with their lifebelt of hope.



Intolerance, rejection, hate and violence, are worldly, not divine; war has many causes other than religion; this is true even for the religious wars. To find the enemies of peace we must search here on earth, not in the heavens. 

                                                                     *

The ills of intolerance and unfreedom of thought were exemplified and proven by history, that case is made. Yes, those crimes were and are committed. And yes, religions went to war with each other. Each in turn, the great One-God, one-truth religions live their middle ages, we understood that. Indeed, the three brothers, descendants of Abraham, are still unable to see eye to eye.

The paradox strikes however: why faith, this pursuit of spiritual elevation, of something sacred and good, is perceived by so many as a war monger?

Look at them and observe; all religions were revealed - by noble Prophets - as ideals of peace and union. Each of them gives to peace the highest value, they all wish "Peace!" as a most important thing for the host and the guest; all religions agree on the golden rule – do not do to another what you hate to be done unto you.
 
All religions stand up as civilising forces meant to rise man above the beast, against violence and greed, towards spirit and to the unselfish values of the greatest human Good: compassion, fairness, forgiveness, love, sincerity, respect for life.
 
Isn't war the opposite of the aims defining any religion?

Religions were the vehicle and treasurer of civilisation from times immemorial, from the first respectful burials and meaningful heaps of stones in prehistoric dark caves, to the splitting of the universe between Good and Bad, between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, to the civilised man of Confucius, the compassionate Buddha, generous with all sentient beings, to the tables given to Moses, the Christ's "turning of the other cheek" and the spiritual struggle of Mohamed. War is the contrary of all that: hate, butchery, callousness, barbarianism .

Those - believers or unbelievers - who care to read holy writ - any holy writ -  with their own eyes, from beginning to end, see that they contain entire universes of parable, thought and example of wisdom and folly, in fact they contain everything human mind can understand, good or wicked. They are to learn from them not to imitate them. Selecting out from those chronicles of growing civilisation a few words of hate and an archaic call to kill - which you can always find - is perverse manipulation or beastly stupidity.

Saints, great mystics and grand theologians who live their faith deeply and entirely, understand the whole; they rise high with their faith instead of walling themselves into it, debate, commune and admire each other in their humility and love of God. Meanwhile, irritable goats clash on narrow bridges.

Intolerance, fanaticism and “fundamentalism” is not in the heart of the religions but in that of the bad people misusing religion and anything else - reason and science included - as an alibi to follow their predatory instinct, their insecurity, their interest or their proud hate. Murderous orthodoxy is not religious in nature - it merely dresses the beast in the noble garb which it abuses. Religion, like any idea grown dogmatic, nationalism, racism, business, even science or justice, any truth when it is unique and exclusive beget monsters.

The same, who killed yesterday for food, land, loot, women, power and aversion for difference, still kill today for God, ideologies or for money and will kill tomorrow to save the planet. It is because of such freaks that believers get to hate each other.

No faiths clash, no gods fight with each other in the Heavens, but people who have the impudence to pretend that they personally represent and bring God on Earth; blasphemers who dare to think that a very high divinity can be reduced to their understanding or can be offended by the differing human quidam and that they are entitled to take up an imaginary gauntlet for that offence.  Such sad bigots, instead of rising up to their God, spend their life to oppose one faith to another. Hordes of blood-thirsty barbarians are goaded to wield flags of "purity" as pretext to enjoy themselves.

                                                                                    *

For religion to be a force of peace let us consider then – while we wait helplessly for a clash of civilisations – not the sacred truth that divides irremediably this doctrine from that – but the wisdom and the many values that make them alike here on Earth. Let us not be naive, but count on our ten fingers not what separates but what could bring together the scattered good will.

                                                                                     *

Maybe we can advance carefully, for the sake of life, from hypocritical tolerance serviced with the lips, towards honest, negotiated, respect. Not in theory but in practice. Not by giving in with wobbly relativism, but by facing plurality. With frank identities and sacred shelter affirmed as a right of man. Maybe we can find the elements to build sacred rules of respect and conduct, the shared covenant to sign by all the respectable creeds and convictions of Planet Earth:

Which concrete things must all religious communities do – and refrain from doing - to practice respect for other religions and for the non-religions so that they have the moral right to be respected in turn?

What explicit signs of respect does science and rationalism owe to religion and to what signs of respect does Science and Reason have right in return?

Which things are - by common agreement - flagrant abuse of legitimate respect among believers of different creeds, convictions and theories?

What must the present-day leaders of a religion do to prove and keep it respectable, to deserve respect, to gain respect instead of going to war?

How to practice real-life respect in the face to face encounter and coexistence of persons belonging to different religious rites and customs or not belonging to them?

                                                                                     *

It appears that there are minimal conditions to mutual recognition while preserving difference: 

Respect should be declared a sacred ground, safe, where conflict is at least suspended and judgment delayed with dignity. The wise will summon respect, with moderation, to suspend conflict and make negotiation possible. As long as we hold greeting hands, and pass the pipe of peace we may avoid hostility.

Second, believers must know each other, from childhood, school or by means of inter-religious events, to see the differences and feel if they are as great as the suspicion mystique around them. When we talk to each other, the ugly less than human faceless labels turn into persons with names and children, like us.

Third, when will the religious authorities legislate reciprocity? There is no such thing as demanding more respect or more freedom than what you give. Ask then not what respect you will be granted, but what respect you are able to offer, fairly; this is what you will get. Respect means entitlement, rights, but duties as well; no mutual duty no legitimate right.

Fourth, respect is clad in good manners, politeness and rules to follow – rites of peace. The work of peace will then be to draw up the golden-ruled savoir-faire book of etiquette among religions and also between religions and atheism for that matter.

Further, to allow space for respect, sacred spaces need frontiers and interspaces, not a hodgepodge melting pot.

Common sense shouts (in my ears) that humanity needs to check the hubris of this globalisation utopia and greed-driven Ponzi scheme that sweeps across the world, and crowds face-to-face, people who are not ready at all to talk and listen to each other. I know, it sounds sooo reactionary, so politically incorrect, so unliberal, but maybe we cannot but let some people live as they want, as long as they do not come with it, disrespectfuly, to our doorstep. Is peace worth that much compromise or must “the best” values and the most recent truth prevail universally, right now? Give time to time.

                                                                                      *

For the sake of world peace, instead of blaming divinity, we may find out who exactly, personally, are the war mongers today.

Religions being lived by people, it may be effective to detect and make visible the responsible individuals who are the opinion leaders of each faith at a given time, the ones who interpret the word of divinity and the actions that follow from that word here and now. Do not let them be anonyomous in their modesty. They are the ones accountable, partners to negotiate with or wrongdoers to lock up.

It seems to me that a small minority of the uncompromising is unavoidable, ever ready to put the world on fire; they should be held responsible in person for what they do, each depending on the importance of their office and their decisions. There are international tribunals for that, not only for fallen tyrants.

Another minority of saints, sages, mystics and devoted clerics work in each religion to extinguish the fire of evil with depth, compassion and love; they are forces of peace and they deserve the respect and the support, not the suspicion and the hostile critique.

These good people of the religions became, or always were, too shy, while the fanatics shout with loud voices easy to hear. They, the saintly, are the best ambassadors of peace. When they organise and speak with one voice they are powerful indeed. That joint power I dream of when I write about Religion as a force of peace.

I dream but I am not the only one...

The rest of each religious community follow the leaders. They are people like you and me, many of us trusting and quite easy to sway.

                                                                                    *

At the bottom-line, and deeper, to preserve peace, it is up to us, believers or not, to accept and proclaim – as civilised people - that it is normal to agree to disagree.

Since all true believers and unbelievers know certainly that the truth is theirs, to live in peace, instead of fighting to reduce other true beliefs to our own "the unique correct one" we will need to work out the human right and law that all people and all creeds have a right to error; as long as they do not force themselves upon other people. To act as forces of peace all the religions will have to learn how to agree to disagree respectfully.


3 Comments

Variations on a Golden Rule

26/10/2011

3 Comments

 
PictureA compass, not a measuring staff

“Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" [1]


If you want an example of maxim certain to be wise, this is it: life-saving, sensible, fair, virtuous but also condition of a happier, peaceful life;

because what goes around comes around and, time given, as you saw so shall you reap.

This, the Golden Rule, is the obvious core of Axial wisdom, on which all religions agree with good sense, from Confucius to Christ to Kant, in many tongues and formulations. As the famous rabbi Hillel observed, the rest of the sacred writ [2] is commentary. If urged to sum up today what a civilised human being is, on one leg, in positive terms, as the old rabbi did, I would say cautiously: “Respect other people as you need to be respected.”

The Golden Rule is a matchless, elegant piece of wisdom. Confucians, Hindus, Old Egyptians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Moslem, all granted that this is a good thing, easy to understand and fair to do. What is called today Democracy, Human Rights, Justice, ought to be based on the same to be sustainable. 

                                                                              *

In your own life, stick to this axiom in good faith and you will be of the civilised, with a chance to keep out of harm’s way. You are well advised to love your neighbour as you love yourself [3], because most probably, sooner or later, you will need him as he will need you. Treat you parents and your children as you wish your children to care for you later. Be nice to your neighbours and to aliens, in time your life will better. Do not calculate instead what they may actually do. Do not mistreat the stranger, you may become stranger among other people... If we all did this, our life would be that much less harsh, kinder and happier; if you respect the Golden Rule whenever you can, you are entitled to live as you let live and be helped as you help. If you do not, what honest right will you pretend to have?

The advent of the civilised human person, the one who understood  at least a minimum from human History, starts with this unnatural bet on the reciprocity of good will, thrown into the face of Nature’s survival of the strongest. (In fact, even animals seek peace and try their hoof at cooperation). Without this first step of a social contract, humans are condemned to mutual fear and hostility; an endless prisoner’s dilemma, that logical-mathematical abomination of the Golden Rule which is in fact nothing more than a Machiavellian opinion about the world disguised in the cloth of science. That view leads inevitably to the solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short life of Man wolf to man - engaged in the war of all against all described by Thomas Hobbes [4]

With or without the fear of God as an enforcer from above, to nourish our confidence that people will have for us the regard we have for them, speaks to our reason and to our common sense.

                                                                             *

So far so good. Nevertheless, the Golden Rule is not as neat to apply as it to understand in principle.
 

                                                                             *

The Golden Rule is a compass not a measuring staff. It shows direction and goal, up there in the skies of principle and attitude, not an itinerary, nor a plan.

Based on it, you have a friendly North Star to orient your course, wherever we are; but it is a guide not a chain. You will know by it the wise way of conduct. You must still decide with your own head and good sense what you do in a given situation and how far you go.

Your breach of the golden rule is not that you stray from it when you must; but rather that you do not follow it when you can.

                                                                             *

In practice, it appears that attention is fleeting while we encounter other people and nations; mysteriously, we forget that they may be very much like us beyond the differences; busy, we fail to consider their point of view and their probable feeling and we neglect to imagine what it would do to us if we were treated in the same way. And of course they do not seem to care much for us.

                                                                             *

Practised rigidly, as a Kantesque imperative, any variant of the golden rule is horse's blinkers, leading to unilateral weakness, utopia or to outright double-faced hypocrisy.

Remember that the Golden Rule becomes reality only as much as people practice it; it is not a law of nature.

To keep the score of reciprocity, people have four guardians of lesser nobleness who would take an eye for an eye: memory, reputation, gratitude and revenge. And laws. If we do not spit in the well, it is for fear that we may have to draw water from it again.

                                                                             *

To prevail by its’ obvious benefit, the Golden Rule needs time, a perspective of living together, of meeting again... sharing some minimal understanding, unquestioned values and laws. Sharing that may be called a moral sphere. It pre-supposes that ultimately, we all share the same values because there is only one hierarchy of the values leading to the human Good.

In short encounters, various hit-and-run scoundrels and idiots - when they see the golden compass at our wrist - profit of it to abuse us. Worse yet, the corrupt and the fanatic, do it to us “before we do it to them” [5] just because they lost hope in good-will and reciprocity or never had it. For those, be good but carry a stick.

                                                                             *

The real dangers arise when other people do not care at all to respect the rule with you. Occasionally, bad foes and maddened crowds go as far as to deny us the quality of being human equally with them and the right of mutual respect.

Would you keep golden anyway, leap for faith for goodness’s sake, sacrifice, turn your other cheek, resign with stoicism and masochism, or will you do something against the transgressor, to stop that which is evil for your civilisation? Will you fight for the golden rule to prevail? Would you find ways to educate the other party? Let me believe in my weakness that there is a justified common sense mix of hope and limit to one-way goodness, as non-violence should tolerate everything except its negation, violence.

                                                                               *

How to count with people who detest the basic things that are good for you and who value things you hate? People do have different needs, like the stork from Aesop`s fable who could not eat from a shallow plate while the fox could not eat from a high jar. As people are not uniform exchangeable clones, not all the same, their moral choices may differ, because their view of the world is from some angle radically different from yours. Reciprocity must be then, wisely, asymmetric; generously but with mutually respected particulars. The Golden Rule is understood and works only when translated into local language and personal meaning. Otherwise it sounds like an arrogant: “Come and live in my world, by my rule and values!" or worse "Let me tell you how things are and how you must live!"

What to do on the other hand with the spineless thinkers and hypocrites who concede that everything is relative, cultural, evolving and national, so that everything goes? Trust your judgement, I would say and be in good faith “you only understand the golden rule by living it" [5a]. You have a right to live in a coherent moral sphere even when you know and acknowledge that other, incompatible moral spheres exist. Recent discussions of "plurality" investigate the practical modus vivendi for this.

And what about those paragons who come to force-feed you virtues, rules and fair treatments which you do not want and in exchange blackmail you to reciprocate? Knock on their gift with your finger, as Nietzsche advises, they will sound empty. And tell them that today you do not buy their merchandise.

Consider also whether you and "the other" who appear to believe otherwise live in the same moral sphere; by which I understand sharing a coherent and compatible understanding of main values and obligations of being human, not split worlds of beast and prey nor master and slave.

If the moral spheres are radically incompatible, the golden rule may still have a chance be enforced by honest negotiation - sometimes from a distance acknowledging irreducible plurality. Those have a right to your Golden Rule, to any rule, who obey it but alien lands do have incommensurable laws. Reluctantly, without giving in, you may share the planet with incompatible moral spheres by means of some lesser or higher, abstracted rule of mutual benefit and peace.
 
Even with irreducibly different values, in a world of plurality, the golden rule of reciprocity may apply to mutual respect.  You deserve respect as much as you respect.

This is unfortunately a kind of apartheid, like the opportunist politeness when we say hello and smile to disreputable people we loath: you suffer to let the other - unacceptable to you - live by his rule and in exchange, you require them to let you live by yours, unacceptable to them. Live and let live on a knife's edge! This arguable, fragile solution may work, provided the respectful distance and ritual of regard is mutually preserved in a kind of armistice of powers present. Sad consequences for "human rights"! Here open the gates of Hell... The government of such a world which is ceaseless arbitration may founder sooner or later in war.

Today’s unfettered mercantile world unfortunately abolished the prudent distances and cowardly borders needed for irreconcilable differences to live in convenient mutual ignorance. Intelligent fools resolved that there is only one world which must grow all the same finally into one homogeneous nation called humanity. As a visible reaction of the global short-circuit in communications and travel,  gives the lie to this monist creed. It appears at this beginning of century that there is a cultural limit to instant globalisation. Forces not planned or measured, and which money cannot buy, clash with no holds barred and no shared reason to regulate them.

Maybe there is more than one History, parallel histories of hesitant, slow growing Civilisation, each civilisation needing their time given to time. Maybe before becoming equal, people need food and safeness and pride to their fill. If you listen to Gandhi, even God must appear to the hungry in the form of bread. Maybe bread is not enough...

Maybe tolerance without humanist education is Utopia. 
​
                                                                                 *

Consider also some practical layers of the golden rule applicable in spite of different tastes and beliefs.

Spend some time and care to find out what other people want and detest; try to feel being them, so that you are not blinded by your point of view. That may curb your own righteousness.

Beg others, for a start, not to do to you at least what they would not have done unto them, and to their own, within their own values; that much should be easy to understand for everyone, without excuse of not being informed.

Negotiate with them, point by point, not to do to you that which you promise that you would not do to them. Draw the list of unacceptable transgressions, when they visit you or you visit them. Clarify the notion of being a guest, all nations have a tradition of this. If you are unable to conceive such a list of obligations, you may be a colonialist without knowing.
 
Affirm explicitly and request those things which, amazingly for a different country, nation, culture or community, you do not want to be done to you to be considered too. Affirm your right to be different in your own house. Those who ignore your difference should expect you to reject theirs (and this is the way of banishment and war).

Do not let others do to you what you rightly do not suffer under the false excuse that they have different beliefs, better ones. Your own absolute beliefs, good, right, beyond discussion, are not justified to be imposed on differing people in their own house. Actions are answerable but beliefs are free, at least in the part of the world where I live.  We all have the freedom of thought and of faith, in truth or in error. If you accept other people’s right to be wrong they must too. Are you able to think like this? If not, how to apply the Golden Rule?

Without a right to be wrong there is no golden rule.


                                                                            *

It may be needed, as I mentioned, to establish separated private sanctuary - freedom of thought, faith and speech - for the individual and, on the other hand, public, secular territory of neutral, rule based, lawful, democratic coexistence. Such secular territory has some right to follow a land's traditions. At least this is how fairness appears to our Western civilisation. We earned with much blood and revolution a right to our sphere of justice.

It may soon become wise for the dreamers and powerful leaders of humanity to reinstate national borders as long as building one World does not work. Unfortunately, if nothing works, we must also consider that force will be the arbiter, Pandora's box is now wide open: si vis pacem para bellum. [6]

                                                                             *

There may be some wisdom even in a tit-for-tat way to punish those who break the Golden Rule:

First of all, as a person or as a group react proportionally, not by all-out conflict. Try justice first. Then frank negotiation. Then borders, open but with visiting rules. It that is impossible, I dread that we may revisit History.

Those who do to you knowingly that which you would not do to them should expect to be visited an eye for an eye, not a life for an insult; an eye for an eye is the contrary of the cruel revenge some believe it to be. From Hammurabi on [7], it was great progress, calling for proportional compensation instead of killing each other in revenge as it was the habit of old times.

                                                                             *

My choice looking at this mountain of real-life inconsistency is modest; to reserve my uncompromising, free-will obligation of the Golden rule to people who share reasonably my foundational values or who do not share them at all but respect them. For the rest, I do my best to navigate on track, on stormy seas.
 
This is my golden rule: respect all people in their difference as you request them to respect you; agree to differ!

I learned that history has successive ups and downs; I believe that all civilisations decay and fall; that barbarianism will be born ceaselessly, with each newborn, with each new generation, whereas it takes long years to grow civilised. This appeared to be true for all past civilisations.

I will still fight beastly nature and barbarianism whenever I can and apply the golden rule, whenever I can, whatever I start, for the sake of my own dignity and well-being and for beauty in my life; and my life includes the world around me, wherever I live and wherever I go. I found it true that to have friends you better be a friend; be sincere and you will encourage honesty; be polite and you build a greenhouse of politeness; respect to be respectable, smile to be smiled to and of course, give to receive.


Do not adapt to the reality of "Let the stronger win!" Live and let live!

____________________________________________________

[1] Confucius, Analects 15:23

[2] of the Tanach, the Jewish Old Testament    

[3] “You shall love your neighbour like yourself.” (Leviticus 19:18)
    
[4] “...a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain : and consequently no Culture of the Earth ; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea ; no commodious Building ; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force ; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society ; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Reprinted from the edition of 1651, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1929, Part I. Chap. 13. p 99.

[5] “You'd better do it to them before they do it to you!” Donna Hightower, This world is a mess, MetroLyrics.com

[5a] Wattles, Jeffrey, THE GOLDEN RULE, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996, vi

[6] “qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum” FLAVI VEGETI RENATI, EPITOMA REI MILITARIS, recensuit CAROLVS LANG, Lipsiae : in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1841  p. 65    

[7] The code of Hammurabi writes, precursor to the Law of the Talion: "196. If a man destroy the eye of a man (gentleman), they shall destroy his eye." THE CODE OF HAMMURABI, P. Handcock (ed), The MACMILLAN Company, New York,
1920, p 33






3 Comments

One truth is the enemy of all truth...

16/5/2011

0 Comments

 
PictureThe Mouth of Truth, Rome [1]
There are many truths because there are many honest persons with many different beliefs held in good faith.

"Truth" for us common people is not in the "real world reflected as it is", but only in the felicitous encounter of  our common sense with the World.

Truth is for persons the representation they more or less suitably understand as obvious, reliable and reasonable and thus believe to be the actual state of things.

Like it or not but this is a commonsense definition of truth and it will not go away in spite of tomes of erudite precision and perfect standards.


Truthfulness indicates when people represent to other people what they actually believe and feel and intend. When we judge whether or not people "speak truth", sincerity opposed to lying is a fairer moral scale than "objective" knowledge. Moral if not scientific. They may be scientifically or philosophically false because of being misinformed or cheated, by ignorance or error, more usually they are imprecise or superficial; but they speak in truth, to their best. Shouldn't we account sincerity -  how one's words and deeds fit that which he genuinely believes - in the scales of truth?

The truth-of-sincerity is precious and unavoidable because it validates the reliability of most things we ever learn and know; simply because the bulk of our knowledge comes to us by means of witnessing. We trust the sincere and mistrust the dishonest.

Scientific authorities explain with good argument - and we trust them too - that beliefs expressed are true exclusively when they are objectively verified by an infallible third party, by something independent of us all. My, I could never have opened my mouth in my whole life, waiting for such perfection!

In common everyday talk there is often confusion between the two meanings of the word truth; as knowledge consisting in beliefs technically and rationally justified and truth understood as the sincere communication of whatever one believes. I find this confusion harmful and sometimes ill intended. Offending too. Knowing that someone is in error should not be represented as them being guilty against truthfulness.


Among us, naive common thinkers* living on limited planes of land where the World looks mainly flat, truth requires first of all our sincerity – that which is not concealed; something uttered for others to understand, feel and accept as credible, as it is for us; presenting things as we are convinced of them to be. Such is the meaning of expressing your truth, the certainty for which you would risk your hand to get cut by Divinity in the Mouth of Truth at Santa Maria.

Your experience, your modest beliefs more or less scientifically, philosophically and religiously attested, are your truth which you own and disclose;

To be called truth, your truth longs to be made known to other people. This "making known" which is mere freedom of expression deserves respect provided it is in good faith and open-minded enough to suffer the expression of different truth which appears erroneous to you. You are not obliged to give in or accept that which you do not believe, this is not an invitation to relativism, only to mutually respectful plurality. For the sake of peace and diversity.

Except though from due respect those fundamentalist worshippers of the cult of truth without doubt who would sacrifice everything else, and especially other people, to exclusive beliefs. Their truth grows quickly from received or personal to unique and universal - the  one Faith, the One Reality, the only one. These close-minded people make me count  the wonderful urge of truth among the great sources of man-made evil.

Seen as the supreme value of Humanity truth becomes a feral idea, an idea of prey.

Monothetic, one eyed truth irresistibly devours humaneness, good life, freedom, compassion, everything which keeps us human. The truth of absolute unshakeable reason or faith let loose  to bully communities and nations engulfs everything, even itself. It weeds off whatever thinking which moves. Paradoxically, when only one such truth rules among people in flesh and bones, it fathers unavoidable falsity, as a condition to survive. Sooner or later it urges to burn books and people. Or to replace people with machines.

Deadly contagion charges ahead astride absolute Truth, like the four horsemen of Apocalypse, whenever there is only one allowed. Other people’s sincere beliefs become - from mere inevitable imprecisions, misunderstandings, points of view or errors -  madness, inferior ignorance that must be redressed by force, or worse, wicked lies to punish, crimes of thought. As Will Durant wrote in his synthesis of the History of Civilisation "certainty is murderous" [1a]

                                                                              *


Sometimes, and quite often, one’s most important truthful belief is undecidable, beyond possible proof for or against it. Who has a moral right to judge such conviction, in lack of evidence, for somebody else?

Personal certainty, if reduced forcefully to the realm of observable evidence would make the human mind sadly poor and slavish.

                                                                              *

Sincerity of personal belief and communication has, of course, little to do with truth among the philosophers, the logicians and the scientists – which truth means, or does its honest best to mean, representing things as they are, independent of people, extracted from controllable experience and following strict rules of judgement; but sincerity and objective knowledge need not be enemies if they recognize and keep explicit their difference in nature and the border that separates their different realms.

Scientific truth about the world as it is – is an effort of detached, coherent reason applied to the exploration of fact. You are justified to believe something after you verify it objectively and formulate it logically. Even that solid truth keeps being proven false from time to time, as it is still obtained by categories reflecting our nature of human beings, not by the stars.

Huge progress as it proves to be, the scientific view of the world shows today some disquieting signs of  unquestioned faith in unique vulgar-materialistic truth; when it disqualifies any truthful conviction unfit to its Method. Reason obtained its own much deserved public freedom a few centuries ago but now it cannot tolerate without mocking that which is not true for science and reason. This is strange; psychology understood long ago that the living person is a mixture of reason and irrationality but it is not able to take that into account. Instead, during the whole Twentieth Century "the science of psychology" served, coldly, as the unique value, a truth purified as much as possible from any human colour. What it could not measure, experiment materially and account for, independent of people, it belittled and even declared non-existent. What it did not understand yet, it declared irrelevant. In many "disciplines" when meeting ignorance and error, the average scientist still shows today arrogance and paternalism. Luckily, the non-scientific are not burnt at the stake but I believe that human knowledge is crippled and progress slowed down in many scientifically incorrect fields.

                                                                                *

Sincerity has much to do with revealed religious truth, or with political convictions which are largely based on norm, authority, trust and unquestioned belief accepted from  authority and witnessing of credible leaders, parents and from tradition. One feels true or not against those convictions. Political and religious faiths, respectable as they are, proved already how bloody they can be when they reign or when they collide. When religions (and ideologies) coexist civilization flourishes. If one alone prevails it suffers only silent slaves. Should not the truth of reason learn toleration as all creeds must do?

                                                                                  *

TRUTH, be it personal, revealed or scientific is in all its forms, beyond all doubts, our fine, vital value and affirming, what we believe or not is the emblem of human freedom. However, what about other people’s freedom, when they deem as truth what we know for certain and see as error? Do we allow them a right to be wrong?

The paradox is that, intuitively, my best, unquestionable, justified, truth, the one made sacred because it is proved by Science, Faith, Political creed, or - closer - by my life experience, my eyes and ears, by my life, by my hard earned Business, leaves no place for another. Whatever differs from it is error. Be it, but then, we need a tolerant rule of conduct concerning error. We may need special education to suffer absurdity, irrationality, the incomprehensible, without growing insecure and mad and aggressive.

As Tibor Machan found the tendency, [3] “We have no choice but to think that everyone with whom we seriously disagree is wrong.” He found that others, the wrong ones, are usually considered “not favoured with the truth by God,.. mislead by the devil,.. too stupid of feeble minded to grasp the truth... brain-damaged... victims of various obsessions, in desperate need to be different or rebellious.”  In the best case they must be improperly or incompletely informed or too lazy and wishful to think things over. Some of these explanations may be right sometimes but the whole seems to me terribly suspect: rational but unreasonable.

                                                                                *

I do not feel able of certainty about the cause of such different and irreconcilable beliefs of what constitutes truth in important matters; maybe some free, undecidable choices are involved or some unaccounted differences in logical level, values, culture and point of view. When I look at truth as a person, I see first of all a moral value. This value should have an obligation to coexist, reasonably if not rationally, with other moral values like respect, freedom and peace.

If you have a birth right to exist you also have the right to draw a line anytime and to believe here and now what seems certain and justified to you and to express your truth; and also to say that you do not believe that which you don’t. Provided that you listen truly when other people come with their truth or claim to prove that you are not right; that you respect the same rights of other people when you do not believe their beliefs.

What counts for me more than why contradictory "truths" are professed, is to choose what to wisely do when we face such diversity.

My life solution is practical, moral and emotional, fit for everyday life: to attest that I listen and hear the difference, to agree respectfully that we disagree and to affirm the right to be wrong, as long as one does not force ones unquestioned belief on other people and while requesting the respect to be mutual; to live calmly in the presence of dissonance, contradiction and error without an urge to kill. This requires a belief that diversity and otherness are good. It also requires self-control and much practice.

                                                                             *

_____________________________________________________

* You will imagine that I do not tackle this great subject of the philosophers with a pretense that I know better. What I seek is common sense leading to practical wisdom that would make our life better.

[1] La Bocca della Verità (Photo cc Roughneck) at the portico of the church of Santa Maria in Rome, Italy. The legend of the Mouth is its role as a lie detector; in the Middle Ages, folklore has asserted that if one told a lie with his hand in the mouth of the sculpture, it would be bitten off.

[1a] "Intolerance is the natural concomitant of strong faith; tolerance grows only when faith loses certainty; certainty is murderous." Durant, W The Story of Civilisation, Vol IV - The Age of Faith, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1950, p. 784

[2] Künne, Wolfgang, Conceptions of Truth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2003

[3] Machan Tibor, Why is Everybody Else Wrong? - Explorations in Truth and Reason, Springer, New York, 2011


0 Comments

    Categories

    All
    Absence
    Advice
    Aging Parents
    Agree To Disagree
    Akrasia
    Animal Rights
    A Time For Everything
    Axioms
    Bad Silence
    Beast
    Being Wise
    Books
    Carpe Diem
    Choice Of Choices
    Choices
    Communication
    Compassion
    Complexity
    Consulting Difference
    Counsel
    Credibility
    Critical Spirit
    Critical Thinking
    Criticism
    Critique
    Death
    Disenchanters
    Dying For Ideas
    Emptiness
    Error
    Evil
    Expression
    Extremes
    Facts Are Friendly
    Fast Thinking
    Foolishness
    Freedom
    Free Thinking
    Free Will
    Friendly Criticism
    Future
    Gatherer Attitude
    Given And Made
    Golden Rule
    Good Judgement
    Goodness
    Hostile Criticism
    Human Needs
    Humility
    Impossible
    Intangibles
    Intelligent Stupidity
    Intuition
    Justice
    Kindness
    Knowing People
    Learning From History
    Leaving The Table
    Life
    Listening
    Locus Of Control
    Losing With Grace
    Making Things Simple
    Measure Of All Things
    Moderation
    Montaigne
    Motivation
    N±1
    Nasreddin Hodja
    Need To Know Everything
    Not Doing
    Not Knowing
    Objective Criticism
    Obvious
    One Truth
    Out Of The Box
    Owning Your Words
    Paradox
    Parting
    Peace
    Point Of View
    Power
    Preparing Against Surprise
    Preparing For Surprise
    Preparing The Surprise
    Pride
    Progress
    Promise Of Science
    Protagoras Of Abdera
    Readers
    Reciprocity
    Rectification Of Meaning
    Religion
    Representation
    Resilience
    Respect
    Right To Be Wrong
    Right To Error
    Rite Of Separation
    Science
    Seekers And Finders
    Shapes
    Signs Of The Beast
    Silence
    Simple People
    Sincerity
    Sleeping Wisdom
    Small Wheel
    Socratic Method
    Spontaneous Thinking
    Strategy
    Stupidity
    Subtlety
    Surprise
    The King Is Naked
    Theodicy
    Three Kinds Of Criticism
    Too Big Too Small
    Truth
    Uncertainty
    Use Of Error
    Values
    Void
    What Happens To Me
    Why Memories
    Wisdom
    Wisdom Of Ends
    Wisdom Of Means
    Wrong Thing Right

    RSS Feed

© 2011 - 2020 Ioan Tenner & Daniel Tenner