Tag: Truth

The Trilemma of the Truth and the Skepticism

Skepticism deals with the attitude of questioning our beliefs based on an idea that our perception of reality through our senses and personal experiences may totally different from “the actual reality”. The Münchhausen Trilemma and Agrippa’s Five Tropes from epistemology may guide us on how to suspend a judgement and how assign truth value to every belief in our lives.

Why the philosophical search for the ultimate universal truth is useless?

An Existential Meme Caption and Its Resolution

Since the invention of social media, some images (especially the certain classic meme templates) have stood the test of time. These images keep on circulating and there comes a moment when that image reinvents itself in new format, it brings some new argument with different type of humor. See the following image for example:

“Just because you are right, does not mean, I am wrong. You just haven’t seen life from my side”

Funnily enough, this image always comes with a thoughtful (supposedly) caption as follows:

“Just because you are right, does not mean, I am wrong. You just haven’t seen life from my side”

Given that the argument presented in this caption demonstrates the subjectivity of the everyone’s perspective, it is really futile to discuss what to exactly extract or understand from this caption.

For example, if this was the scenario where knowing the true value would save a person’s life then knowing the truth becomes the necessity and all of us know that this wouldn’t have saved that precious life which was dependent the true answer. There is no definite answer for this argument because it invokes subjectivity in the argument. People use this image and the said caption to express their inability to prove the truth value of their argument, especially their emotions.

Now, in recent time this image resurfaced with a new argument which blew my mind the moment I saw it. The reinvented image looks like this:

“How a mathematician/ an engineer solved the conflict”

You must appreciate wit and sense of humor of the person who modified the argument presented in the original image.

There Is No Final Truth.

This simple evolution of a very common internet template invites a question. What is the real truth? What is the truest truth? What is that one answer that can answer all the questions? If something exists in truth, then how would I verify that it is “the truth”?

At first one might think that these are such foolish questions. Truth can be established by experimentation, demonstration, repeatability/ reproducibility, comparison, consistency, contradiction/ counterexamples.

Take for example,

Q1: how would one calculate the time taken by the ball dropped from certain height on the Earth to reach the ground?

A1: The answer is by using Newton’s kinematic equations.

Q2: How the kinematic equations were developed?

A2: By using Newton’s law of gravitation and the law of motion

Q3: How these laws were developed?

A3: Newton studied the motion of moon and earth, developed some mathematics to explain that behavior. That math remains consistent to explain the scenario of the motion of the ball dropped from certain height.

Now from here the real fun begins,

Q4: If Newton’s law of gravitation and laws of motion are consistent and hence true then why did they fail to explain the different/anomalous motion of the planet Mercury around the Sun?

A4: The truth presented in Newton’s laws of gravitation and motions are a special case of the higher and more inclusive, exhaustive truth of Einstein’s relativity.

Q5: Why Newton’s truth is not the complete/ ultimate truth?

A5: Newton assumed Gravitational as a universal force of attraction, inertia of every object in the universe, concepts of the balanced force.

Q6: Did Newton made mistake in “assuming” certain things for the sake of establishing the proof and its mathematics? Because, Einstein certainly didn’t assume those things and still his theory of relativity can prove the arguments covered by Newton.

A6:  Yes, looks like Newton assumed gravity as a force of attraction where things will get “pulled” towards heavier objects or fall into them. Whereas Einstein established this as wrong and proved that Gravity is actually a “push” created due the curvature in space-time.

Now from hereon, if one remains careful enough then that person can land into the territory of quantum mechanics to prove that Einstein was wrong (in a way). The failure that connect the Theory of relativity and quantum mechanics is why we are still uncertain what is the ultimate truth that will answer all the questions there exist. (Trust me the answer is definitely not “42”!)

So, if we keep on asking the question to each and every truth, will we reach the ultimate truth? Will that be the ultimate knowledge? Will that help us define the absoluteness of the knowledge?

Philosophers have argued (literally and figuratively) for centuries about the acceptability of any truth as “the truth”. Epistemology deals with the theory of knowledge, how a belief and opinion differ from the truth, if given argument is true then how it becomes the truth- what is its validity, justification?

So, when one starts to question things continuously there will be three possible cases explaining how the things will end into. This condition is famously known as Agrippa’s Trilemma or the Münchhausen trilemma in philosophy.

In really simple words, the trilemma says that it is impossible to prove whether certain truth is really true because at the last end of this truth there will always be some unjustified, non-contradictory fact which cannot be proved by using other proofs in existence.

Let see in detail what is this trilemma and the its legacy in epistemology.

The Münchhausen Trilemma

Baron Münchhausen is a fictional character created by German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in his book “Baron Munchausen’s Narrative of his Marvelous Travels and Campaigns in Russia”. Münchhausen is a person who has done many impossible things like fighting a forty-foot crocodile, and traveling to the Moon. The book is a satire. (Baron Münchhausen is German Don Quixote per say!)

So, there is a story where Baron Münchhausen is drowning in the water while riding on his horse but soon he realizes that he can lift himself from the water just by pulling his hair. Hence, he pulls his hair and comes out of that mire/ quicksand with his horse.

Münchhausen saves himself along with the horse from drowning by pulling himself by his hair!

Do you understand how it worked? How could one pull himself out of an unsupported marshy land without any support? Where did Münchhausen pivot to rest himself? The story is foolish!

So, how did Münchhausen come out of mire without any support? If he was successful in his rescue, he would have definitely used some pivot, some support!

In the similar emotion, any argument to be proven true will need another supporting true argument. This “primary supporting true argument” will also need another “secondary supporting true argument”. You might have understood where we are going with this. If this keeps on progressing further and we keep questioning the complementary true arguments which are supporting the main truth then we will end up in three possible scenarios, which are “the trilemmas” as follows:

If we keep on questioning anything, the proofs will:

  1. Given proof will be followed by other distinct proofs which further will be proved by other more distinct proofs leading to infinite chain of proofs – The regressive argument
  2. A proof will be proved by another proof based on the prejudice that it is consistent in many cases so, as it is consistent then it must be true hence the main proof is true – The circular argument
  3. The proof will be accepted as the truth as there is no proven counterargument or any contradicting observation to falsify it – The dogmatic argument

Resolving the Trilemma

Explaining these trilemmas, we can say that these three trilemmas can be solved by following ways:

  • Infinitism: there will be an infinite chain of justifications for every truth. It will never end.

Remember that child who annoys their parents with a new question to every answer they give. That child indirectly knows infinite reasoning! (somehow!) A “patient” parent can go on answering that child’s each and every question!

  • Coherentism: there will be recurring loop of beliefs based on some other beliefs. These beliefs will prove each other.

You know your friend is telling you the truth because you have always seen him/her telling you the truth. It is consistent with his behavior. As you “believe” that he/ she tells the truth, whatever is told by them would also be true. (But who knows!)

  • Foundationalism: the chain of justifications will end at an argument which is accepted as the truth without any other proof and/or because there is no contraction available to this argument. It becomes accepted as an axiom which lies at the foundation of everything.

The matter was accepted to be made up of smallest invisible particle called atom and based on that many good theories explaining reaction stoichiometry, formation of molecules and thereby compounds was explained. We now know that atom can constitute further divisible particles thereby upgrading the theory further on to cover more generalized cases till quantum systems.

Similarly, Newton’s ideas which we discussed in the start rested on some foundation which proved many truths based on that foundation. It was the failure of that foundation which could not explain the motion of mercury. Einstein’s new foundation embraced wider foundation where Newton’s math becomes a special case. We will keep on upgrading our foundations.

Skepticism, Agrippa and the Suspension of the Judgement

There was a school of Greek philosophers who questioned the very existence of the knowledge. They were “skeptical”, “doubtful” about everything thereby forming the school of Skepticism in philosophy. The reason to question everything available around us was due to the ways through which we understand these things. There is a gap between how we experience things around us through our senses and what these things really are. (What we see in desert looking like a lake is actually a mirage) There will always be some gap between appearance and reality. So, what we are believing to be true does not necessarily requires to remain true. The reality might be totally different. Not only different but reality can be subjective meaning that what a person has experienced from a thing can be totally different from what another person has experienced, and both stand true because of the individuality of their ways of experiencing the reality. Both sides will be true due to distinct and unprovable subjectivity. Bertrand Russel in his book the Problems of Philosophy has clearly discussed this as the limitations of our senses and the nature of reality. these limitations of our senses bring in that subjectivity in our truths hence they are our versions of truths which may be the truths for others. So, the early idea was to question everything to suspend both beliefs, experiences or the versions of the truth.

The problem which is created here is that if people become doubtful about everything around them, then they will end up in questioning their own existence. This question of existence will further lead to infinite chain thereby rendering useless, worthless, and futile venture. That is exactly why Socrates pursued ethics where “Why to live?” is not that much important and where “How to live?” is much more important.

One of the important philosophers called Pyrrho ((360-270 BCE) traveled with the army of Alexander to India where he met some “naked philosophers” (gymnosophists) who explained to him the reality of life. That there is no such thing as true or false, nothing is just or unjust, neither is honorable or dishonorable. No belief or experience is true or false. From these naked philosophers (I think these were the ancient groups of “Naga Sadhus” which exist even in our time today). These learnings focus on not having any judgement thereby rejecting any judgement, suspending any judgement.

This gave rise to the formation of five tropes for suspension of judgement which were developed by Agrippa who came later and expanded the understandings of Pyrrho.

These five tropes go like this:

  1. When the views are conflicting between common people and the philosophers then we must suspend that judgement – unacceptable due to inconsistency – Dissent
  2. When one is justifying a claim then that claim must be appealed by a prior claim which will end in infinite regress, so we must suspend that judgement – Progress ad infinitum
  3. Everything is relative, things appear right or wrong based on the condition in which they were observed and the environments in which they were judged, so we must suspend that judgement – Relation
  4. When a judgment is proved to be true based on an assumption and if that assumption itself is unsupported then we must suspend that judgement – Assumption
  5. When a truth invokes another proof which creates the circularity of justifications then we must suspend that judgement – Circularity

The beauty of the Agrippa’s five tropes is that it brings in the relativity in our process of understanding the truths of our lives. I would say that Agrippa solved the problem of establishing the truth by the process of elimination. In a very smart way, instead of proving something directly to be true, we can work around the facts surrounding given argument. Eliminating the arguments in the proof by implementing these five tropes can at least reduce the size of the problem thereby keeping all the possibilities of proving it to be true always open. The beauty is in the opportunities to upgrade the foundations!

This philosophy of skepticism created the foundation of modern philosophy and thereby modern science and mathematics. Some ideas explained in this trilemma remain consistent with the Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem which explains why mathematics rather the reality itself is inconsistent. There will always be something unprovable in given domain of system which will demand to expand that system to a totally new system of knowledge thereby upgrading the existing foundations of our understanding of the nature and the reality and thereby our fields knowledge. That is exactly why Newton’s ideas even though were limited to some special cases are important because Einstein wouldn’t have had the foundation to build upon something. We will always be creating some general understanding of the universe which later will surely become a special case in our understanding. That is also why questioning everything is important in the process of developing fundamental understanding. It is the philosophy of skepticism which empowers us to stay humble and rediscover the reality in which we already exist.

The American Scholar – Man as a University

Part-3 Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Ideas of a True Scholar for the Modern World

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s famous speech called “The American Scholar” was delivered in 1837 in front of the American youth. Emerson wanted the youth of that time to understand what it takes to create new knowledge and breakthroughs. The origin and legacy of knowledge, importance of past knowledge through books, importance of bringing and testing ideas into the reality to find the absolute truth, the greatness and vastness of we as a human-beings and the life we live are some important aspects of Emerson’s speech. His sheer vocabulary rather choice of words is more than enough create an impression which will last for thousands of years. Emerson’s ideas in this speech are based on very fundamental ideas of knowledge, biases in human thought processes, loopholes in human psychology which are still relevant with 21st century.
There are Part 1 and Part 2 which have dived deeper into these important parts of The American Scholar.
We will see in this Part 3 what were the closing thoughts and advice, instructions Ralph Waldo Emerson gave in his The American Scholar speech. The closing parts of this speech covered the idea of Man as a University. It is the beauty of Emerson’s thoughts which attributed the vast sources of infinite knowledge to each every person’s life. This not only gave importance to every person as a human being whose soul, mind themselves are the nature but this also brought a sense of responsibility as an original and objective thinker in every person of the nation. The speech truly transcended the eras and generations. The revolution in the field of knowledge by considering Man as a University itself is one of the core idea of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s thoughts in his speech The American Scholar.

Objectivity – The Job of A True Scholar

“The office of the scholar is to cheer, to raise, and to guide men by showing them facts amidst appearances”

The American Scholar, Ralph Waldo Emerson


Emerson has simplified the jobs of a true scholar in the last sections of his speech. The only job of a true scholar is to guide the humanity through his observations. Emerson pointed out that during the process of becoming overly attached to their own vocation, people have forgotten, have lost the awareness and greatness of the nature thereby their own souls. A scholar’s job is to observe the nature, put those observations before the humanity and inspire people to continue this pursuit for the absolute truth.
Emerson has attributed this task as “the highest functions of human nature”. But, this task, this journey has its challenges, it demands some sacrifices. One of them is the influence of popular opinion and the expectation of materialistic benefits. For explaining this Emerson gives example of John Flamsteed and William Herschel who incessantly observed the sky for star cataloguing. Their observations proved important for the discovery of planet Uranus. While observing the goal was not to become famous and get rewards and recognition for the discovery; rather the job they were doing was one of the most boring and mundane tasks of humanity. Flamsteed and Herschel were observing the sky and noting down their observations with only goal of understanding what is happening in the universe where they exist. The times of Herschel were the times of debates on the center of the universe. Popular opinion was that the Earth was the center of the universe (Geocentric Model of Universe); another popular opinion was that the sun was at center of the universe with earth revolving around it (Heliocentric Model of Universe). Today we know that we are not even at the center of our own galaxy milky way and it is near to impossible to ever find the center of the universe! The jobs of Flamsteed and Herschel if would have been influenced by the popular opinions surely, they would have received those accolades, prizes, fame from either of the groups promoting their own versions of truth. Instead of having that influence of opinions/ having those biases, they honestly presented themselves to the task of objectively observing the universe. And these objective observations took humanity to completely new understanding of the universe that even they wouldn’t have thought about. (See P.S. for more)


The point is that that most of the times a true scholar will be heavily influenced by biases, popular opinions, expectation of “immediate fame”, money, company of famous and influential people, hero worship; but he has to move away from these pleasures and only commit himself to this highest function which is to objectively observe and interpret the nature. Sometimes poverty and solitude will be his only companions.


“…He is to find consolation in exercising the highest functions of human nature. He is one who raises himself from private considerations and breathes and lives on public and illustrious thoughts. He is the world’s eye. He is the world’s heart.”

The American Scholar, Ralph Waldo Emerson

There is one episode (S01E09) in Rick and Morty where Rick’s Dad is getting honored by the high class aliens of Pluto to name Pluto as a Planet so that they can continue their self benefiting activities thereby degrading the Pluto. For the good of Science Rick’s Dad comes out of the bias and the false praise, prizes, popularity from high class and renounces Pluto as a Planet.

Justin Roiland and Dan Harmon’s Rick and Morty (S01E09)
Justin Roiland and Dan Harmon’s Rick and Morty (S01E09)


Emerson beautifully told what has to be done but he also told how it is possible.

Confidence and Bravery of Self Expression

For understanding the things ahead, one must not forget that Emerson established an observation that our soul is the impression, the reflection of nature around us. The limitations, boundaries of our soul are the limits of the nature around us – our understanding of it. (Emerson already established that “Know Thyself” and “Study Nature” mean nothing but the same- See in Part 1)
Emerson talks about confidence of a scholar in his job, in himself. When a person will truly engross himself in his own objective studies free from all the influences, then only he will discover that absolute knowledge. Emerson attributed all such influences as mere appearance and tells everyone to look underneath them. When a true scholar will approach this job of observation and study of himself with confidence the nature will reveal itself. When this scholar will discover this truth about himself, he will literally find the truth of all for all nature resides in him.


“He then learns that in going down into the secrets of his own mind he has descended into the secrets of all minds. He learns that he who has mastered any law in his private thoughts is master to that extent of all men whose language he speaks, and of all into whose language his own can be translated.”

The American Scholar, Ralph Waldo Emerson


Emerson again highlights that the journey of understanding the universe, the nature is not outwards rather it is inwards. One only has to be confident and honest about his intentions. After conquering this self-doubt, a true scholar will have to dare to present his objective observations to the biased crowd.
The following lines by Emerson are uncountably powerful and very motivational for every person (not only artists) of every generation who has embarked on such journeys in their lives.


“The poet, in utter solitude remembering his spontaneous thoughts and recording them, is found to have recorded that which men in cities vast find true for them also. The orator distrusts at first the fitness of his frank confessions, his want of knowledge of the persons he addresses, until he finds that he is the complement of his hearers; – that they drink his words because he fulfills for them their own nature; the deeper he dives into his privatest, secretest presentiment, to his wonder he finds this is the most acceptable, most public and universally true. The people delight in it; the better part of every man feels—This is my music; this is myself.”

The American Scholar, Ralph Waldo Emerson


Emerson informs that the scholar is not inherently protected like women and children. Once he gathers this bravery to challenge the conventions, the people who were resisting him at first will also accept his ideas, the falsehoods they were carrying as their truths will shed down as his ideas are originated from the pure and absolute knowledge; people will find the connect to his communications from his ideas of his soul thereby ultimately the great nature itself.

Fluidity of thoughts

Even though we are unable to understand the whole picture of nature in single glance that should not stop us from updating that picture. Emerson understood that the knowledge which humanity has gained till date is not complete, there will be always something missing hence it cannot be trusted completely but that also should not restrict us from challenging hat has been established already. Emerson is expecting fluidity of thoughts, ideas here as is the nature.


“Not he is great who can alter matter, but he who can alter my state of mind.”

The American Scholar, Ralph Waldo Emerson


In the momentum of figuring out our individual lives, everyone has intentionally ignored this imperfection of knowledge and has forgotten to challenge the conventions. There is no one to blame for this ignorance but a true scholar’s great job becomes important in this situation.
Emerson has also established his worry for conversion of humanity into a herd, a group of blind followers, blind worshipers. In order to simplify our lives, we have chosen to follow the paths created by our ancestors instead of challenging them to refine the knowledge further. This simplification of life is closely related to the search for money and power for they are the most influential means to ease the lives. Emerson here suggests for the revolution through “the Culture”.


“The main enterprise of the world for splendor, for extent, is the up-building of a man.”

The American Scholar, Ralph Waldo Emerson


Through culture Emerson actually expected the richness of individual lives. The lives where materialistic means lie to the bottom and the search for knowledge, up-gradation of knowledge, philosophical up-gradation of humanity is at the top. Humanity should not limit its limitless mind, soul to some materialistic thing or a person to worship – history has many examples that we have already done that many times.


“The human mind cannot be enshrined in a person who shall set a barrier on any one side to this unbounded, unboundable empire.”

The American Scholar, Ralph Waldo Emerson


Age of Revolution – Inner Development, Relevance of Knowledge and Man as a University

Emerson is expecting amalgamation of all types of ideas in the current age through the scholars. For that he gives references of the different ages in history like early Classical Greek Era known for developing foundations of knowledge, Romantic ages and Philosophical ages. Here he establishes that even though these ages are independent of each other ad existed in different timelines; according to Emerson they are always getting reflected in different phases of every person. All these eras actually exist in every person. Thus, Emerson wants to bring all the streams of knowledge, all the poles/ the extremes of different streams of knowledge in front of each other.
The aim of bringing everything and everything contradicting on a common table is to create relevance of knowledge for humanity. Through this, the knowledge will serve at its highest capacity for the betterment of humanity. Emerson wants to bring all so called “Hi-Fi” knowledge stream to a simple test of “relevance” because if it is not relevant then what purpose can knowledge serve for the people, for the humanity?


“Give me insight into to-day, and you may have the antique and future worlds.”

The American Scholar, Ralph Waldo Emerson


These ideas were revolutionary for the times when the pursuit of knowledge was limited to high class people and not to the people working for the soil.
Emerson closes his speech with one important thought of development from inside. He expects every person to play a part in the development of humanity as a whole. All the ideas presented by Emerson represent decentralization of power and involvement of people from grass-root level; it is the only reason for which every life gets uniqueness and importance. Emerson’s important idea of a man as a society and a society as a man gets concluded in the closing sentences of his speech. Emerson expects every person to contribute to the new revolution of the society by starting the inner journey. Patience is the final virtue which he instructs everyone to have to start this journey.


“The world is nothing, the man is all”

The American Scholar, Ralph Waldo Emerson


One has to understand how all the ideas given by Emerson are still relevant today. The ideas to highlight are confidence in self, search for real freedom, bravery to present and interpret the objective observations against the conventions, remaining free from popular and materialistic influences, fluidity of thoughts, importance of inner development, creating knowledge of relevance, and patience.

-The End-


(P.S. – The observations made by William Herschel were majorly intended for mapping the Universe so that its center can be located. Later on, the objective observations led to discovery of Universe. After a century the observations became important when scientists found an irregularity in the orbit of Uranus around the Sun. This irregularity of meant that either Newton’s Law of Gravitation is wrong or there is one more planet whose mass is affecting the orbit of Uranus. After additional observations, a new planet ‘Neptune’ was discovered by scientists thereby proving the indirect and valuable legacy of knowledge created by Herschel and Flamsteed.)

Read Part 1 Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Ideas of a True Scholar for the Modern World from here.

Read Part 2 Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Ideas of a True Scholar for the Modern World from here.

Read Part 3 Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Ideas of a True Scholar for the Modern World from here.

  1. The American Scholar by Ralph Waldo Emerson

The Practicality of Philosophy

What is the purpose of Philosophy?
one of my favorite memes (Source: starecat.com)

We live in a competitive and fast-moving world where everything’s success depends on the outcomes and their value delivery. Take any example, if any movie release fails to entertain the major audiences, consider it flopped; if any project is not delivering the expected profits to the company consider it stopped; if any equipment is not working properly for the performance it promised, consider it a market failure; if any start-up is not built upon the actual market requirements, consider it a flop business; an employee fails to reach his targets, consider no promotion or even a pink slip. Whenever you are working on achieving anything and if your actions and thought process behind them are not directing you to the Goal, people will suggest you to change your strategy. In nutshell, everything you do, every thought you have is expected to have a fruitful outcome, value creation, profit, gain, benefit thereby there must be some utility. We now call these things, these thoughts “practical”. General thought process always suggests to have the practical way of life in order to succeed in a way.

I am of the same opinion, that doing certain things, acts, thinking (actually overthinking) about everything you stumble upon is expected to deliver some “practical” benefit in my life. If you studied enough and can’t get the job of specific salary then what good is your education? There must always be some definite value delivery from our actions otherwise we are just wasting time and getting nothing.

The situation worsens when you implement the same logic to the ways you think about anything and everything you stumble upon. It is like day dreaming as you are only thinking about some random things, are engrossed completely in the world of your own and there is no real-life benefit from it. Then, it becomes imperative to “Get Real” in life, sort your things and be practical and use your common sense.          

Now, here comes a short story-

In a fight, the flight attendant finds an elder person going through severe chest pain, she immediately asks for the expert help.
Flight Attendant- Attention all, we have an emergency. Is there any Doctor onboard?
(One person raises his hands)
The person- Yes, I am a doctor.
Flight Attendant- We need medical help.
The person- But, I am a doctor of Philosophy.
Flight Attendant- He is going to die
The person- Aren’t we all anyways?

One can only imagine the awkwardness and impractical response of philosopher to the situation in the flight.

I used to think that the philosophy and it’s ideas yet interesting and intriguing cannot handle the reality of life and solve practical problems.

And, (as usual) I was wrong.

Here it goes…

The question is-

Will thinking about every possible thing you are exposed to (and even about the things you may never get exposed to) and asking “unnecessary questions” about it add value to our life? Will thinking about things irrelevant to your job is going to increase your performance at your workplace? Is thinking about any random thing is going to put food on your table?

In short, what is the worth of the philosophical ideas, questions if they are not going to solve our practical problems? What is the practicality of philosophy?

This was the question I was stuck at; even though philosophical ideas have always intrigued me.

Then I found my answer in Bertrand Russel’s book called “The Problems of Philosophy” with the last essay called “the Value of Philosophy”. The ideas explained by Bertrand Russel in this writings answer the very basic question about the utility of philosophy.

Ends of life

Russel explains the idea of ends of life by distinguishing between the nature of Physical Sciences and the philosophy. The idea is that all the physical sciences that we as a human have established have contributed to the society in some ways. The developments in physics led to inventions of uncountable things like lasers, semiconductors, telescopes, machines and what not hence landing mankind into the modern world. The developments in virology, bio-technology, modern medicines helped us to come out of the global pandemic. The developments in geography helped us to explore the globe, share our trades, cultures, profits, save us from natural calamities. The psychology helped in maintaining the mental well-being, the social well being of the society there by controlling the sanity in the people. The economics helped to efficiently utilize and manage our resources in order strive as a species on a space floating rock. These physical sciences have mastered various ends of life and are continuously contributing ahead

What about philosophy? If we are going to discuss how certain philosophy has solved the world hunger or how a philosophy has cured the incurable diseases in history or how a philosophy has saved people from famine or how a philosophy landed us on another celestial body, then the answer is surely no. There are no practical ends of life which philosophy helps us to achieve.

Uncertainty of philosophy

Bertrand Russel has very beautifully established the difference between the nature of Physical Sciences and philosophy. The Physical Sciences have postulates, theories, formulae, a definite structure which builds the all knowledge they represent. There is a systematic path to be followed in order to answer the posed question. If you ask a physicist why the sky is blue? he will approach the problem from the branch of optics then thereby refraction and scattering and the spectrum of light. If you ask how the eclipses occur? to an astronomer, he will take you through solar system, to planets, their satellites and their rotations, orbits. It can go on and on.

In short, in all the physical sciences the truths established are definitive. There are definite answers to the questions posed. Such is not the case with philosophy. If you pose a philosophical question as in “What is the purpose of life?” every philosopher will have his own versions and there is no surety of definite answer. If you ask questions like, why was the world created?  Why was the universe created? Are we really body with a soul or a soul with a body?

See the pattern we can observe from the philosophical questions is that the truths they are giving are not certain. On contrary, the truths revealed in physical sciences are definite, their truth value is certain based on the truths they are derived from due to structured-ness. Bertrand Russel establishes that all the physical sciences are originated from philosophy. When the definitive-ness, certainties of truth extraction system, knowledge building system of these philosophies became strong, they separated from the philosophy and get independence.

Thus, the only thing certain in philosophy is that there are no certain answers to the questions posed. If the answers are getting definitive, certain then a new physical science gets established thereby separating from philosophy. Philosophy of mind became psychology; philosophy of heavenly bodies became astronomy.

What I found interesting in this idea of “genesis of physical sciences from philosophy” is that though upon certainty of truth/ knowledge physical sciences become free from philosophy, the next unanswered questions in physical sciences immediately start to redirect themselves to philosophy again until the certainty of answers are obtained thereby proving the presence of philosophical inheritance.  Our quest for understanding “the nature of reality” in the world of modern physics is one such strong example.

Richard Feynman in one of his famous lectures discussed about questioning the nature of reality as we understand:

“it’s a very strong tendency of people to say against some idea, if someone comes up with an idea, and says let’s suppose the world is this way.

And you say to him, well, what would you get for the answer for such and such a problem? And he says, I haven’t developed it far enough. And you say, well, we have already developed it much further. We can get the answers very accurately. So, it is a problem, as to whether or not to worry about philosophies behind ideas.”

Richard Feynman

Meaning is it not always compulsory to have structured-ness and definitive nature to any idea. There may be always some indefinitve-ness to the answers in philosophy.

Truth of the answers to the questions of philosophy

Now that it is clear that the answers to the questions in the philosophy are not definite, not certain; it is also important to understand that the answers don’t lose their value due to their indefinite or uncertain nature. Rather they bring us closer to the unrealizable, un-experienceable truth.

According to Russel, the confinement of knowledge is the major point which poses the question on “the practicality” of philosophy in our life.

I think what Russel is trying to say here is that as soon as the nature of the truth of knowledge starts following a pattern/ a trend, it gets confined in the structured-ness of certainty thereby getting its independence, self-reliance. The philosophy hence will always remain as a field (even the word “field” is so confined) rather expanse of uncertainty where there will always be some room for speculation.

In order to ask for value of philosophy, one has to confine it to some ideas and then compare these ideas to other ideas. But the game philosophy plays here is that the you lose the identity of philosophy once you confine it to some set of ideas in knowledge/ physical sciences. Thus, remains incomparable.

Funny thing is that the solution of such problem will start with – What is comparison? How to measure the worth of anything? (Which themselves are good philosophical questions!)

Philosophic Contemplation: the idea of Self and not-Self

Russel suggests that the value of philosophy will be only realized when the ends of the life are not limited to ‘Self’. I think what Russel is trying to convey is that the realization of something greater above ourselves itself is humbling. Understanding that the knowledge will still exist irrespective of our existence is one important part of we becoming free from our own identity.

When there will be search for knowledge for Self, the answers gained will be confined, they will always reflect the nature of the self or the seeker.

But, once one understands that the knowledge, philosophy is above himself i.e., once a person starts seeking questions to the answers not for the betterment of himself only but for the knowledge itself then the knowledge reveals itself. This knowledge will not be definitive, certain. This knowledge will not have concepts of good or bad, pure or impure, left or right, profit or loss, worthy or unworthy. It will be only the knowledge itself where truth is still uncertain, indefinite an innocent. Russel calls the philosophy as the union of Self with not-Self. That is in order to understand something greater than ourselves, we have to lose the idea of ourselves, our being.

The curse on humanity

The question of finding the worth of philosophy itself has its own limitations. The concept of being worthy brings in the ideas of comparison, tradable value, what one gets in return, replacement value, a sense of transaction, gap due to absence, appreciation due to presence. This transactional, tradable, replacement value itself is a very small part of materialistic ideology of our human life.

See, our existence, thereby we being alive is dependent on so many materialistic things/ resources which are inherently important for our existence. You will not find a beggar asking for the explanation of the ideas in stoicism or nihilism. Most of the times he will only think about the ways to get the next meal. (Although, a beggar can also question about nature of him being a beggar

instead of a king if he wants)

In short, what I am trying to establish here is that for us as a human being, we need materialistic objects and our interactions with them through our senses to become aware of our consciousness. To become sure that the materialistic world and the sensations from them are not the only bounds of the life that we live in. The curse to human life here, I would say is that the first step in awareness of “knowledge greater than Self” starts with the awareness of our materialistic nature. Our first dose of true knowledge is only possible from the establishment of truths from the material world and our interactions with them. The material worlds being born from higher level of “uncertain things” reveal these uncertainties, thereby making us question their fundamental nature. This leads us to understand that there are things greater that what we are experiencing but there is no surety of completely true, certain answer.

Lifting the curse

I have a thought that, there is also benediction for this curse, rather anti-curse which is “the Curiosity”. Curiosity itself is the definition of philosophy. The whole purpose of philosophy is not to find the definitive answers, truths to the questions rather it is asking the questions and keep asking the questions.

Satisfaction of the curiosity is I think the boundary of the truths. The extent of satisfaction of the curiosity will be dependent upon how real or practical you want to get (What is the extent of real and practical also needs definition thereby). Here, there is no place for value, worthiness rather it is about satisfying the purpose and truly implementing philosophy to solve some real problems.

Bruce Lee has one famous quote on the same front:

“…here is the natural instincts and here is control. You are to combine the two in harmony. If you have one to the extreme, you will be very unscientific. If you are another to the extreme, you become, all of a sudden ‘a mechanical man’- no longer a human being. So, it is a successful combination of both, so therefore it’s not pure naturalness, or unnaturalness. The ideal is unnatural naturalness or natural unnaturalness.”

Bruce Lee

It is about the union of Self and not-Self to find the knowledge as Russel explains. You need not to infuse your boundaries, your prejudices to the questions of philosophy while on the quest of knowledge. You have to again lose your identity to find the real knowledge.

Again, Bruce Lee’s philosophy about being water reflects similar ideas about the nature of true knowledge from philosophy.

“Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless, like water. Now you put water in cup, it becomes the cup. You put water in bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow, or it can crash. Be water my friend”

Bruce Lee

Be water my friend!

– Bruce Lee

This also explains the innocent nature of knowledge. It takes shape of anything that it is in.

(That is the exact reason why we were forced to write the essay in our school on “Science: Curse or Boon”! OK, Jokes apart)

Having answers to the questions ends the quest thereby giving the boundary to the idea; asking the questions creates the possibilities. And creation of possibilities however uncertain they may be is the purpose thereby the worth of philosophy.

So, philosophy is not about finding definitive answers, it is about keeping on asking questions.

“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”

– Richard Feynman

 

“Through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind is also rendered great, and becomes capable of the union with the universe which constitutes its highest good”

– Bertrand Russel, The value of Philosophy from “The Problems of Philosophy”  

      

Further readings and references:

  1. The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russel
  2. Richard Feynman– image from Wikimedia
  3. Bertrand Russel– image from Wikimedia
  4. Bruce Lee– image from Wikimedia
  5. Philosophers meme- Form starecat.com
  6. Clip from the lectures by Richard Feynman from youtube.com
  7. Clip on Bruce Lee’s Philosophy from Bruce Lee “The Lost Interview” from youtube.com