Alternative 'Wisdom' and 'Philosophy'

Of course there is one very popular alternative course
an individual can take.  In philosophy it can be called
by serveral names; solipsism, radical skepticism or
relativism, etc.  In some respects today it is called
post-modernity but this is too broad for the scope of
this chapter.  But what is this alternative?

To begin with it is the view that making any sense of
life, or of any kind or degree of objective reality is
meaningless and absurd.  Therefore for these individuals
the search (if it can be called a 'search') is a
rigorous attempt to NOT have a consistent, comprehensive
world and life view that is rational, emotionally
satisfying, personal, or volitional in terms of an
informed kind of choosing.  

Renee' Descarte could doubt everything except the fact
that he was a thinking kind of being, who in the very
act of doubting proves he exists.  The alternative 'wisdom'
and 'philosophy' I am discussing buys into the old 
Cartesian Method of Doubt.  But in their alleged quest
for absolute certainty of proof, they find the method
itself is addicting and become dehumanized addicts to it.  
But how is this so?

It could begin with the question of the existence of God.
One can use any of the arguments to show for instance that 
the cosmological argument (uncaused, first cause, creator) 
does not bring us absolute certainty for the actual
existence of the Christian, Islamic, or Jewish creator
God.  That is fair enough, of course.  The universe
and matter *could* be eternal for instance.  (Or they
*could* be an illusion for that matter as well.)

But one who uses this argument, in this new alternative  
course or direction, doesn't have to really believe that
matter is eternal.  Nor do they need to believe that there
is no God or gods or goddesses or admirable newage 
energies they might want to call 'god.'  Their task is just 
to show that no absolute certainty exists.  They have no 
desire to show how their system of knowing or believing 
or being is one that anyone, including themselves, should 
actually consider seriously or believe at all.

They may argue materialism against the cosmological 
argument, and polytheism against the design or teleological
argument, and utilitarianism or even democracy against 
morality, but they are not utilitarians or polytheists or
materialists.  And they have no apparent desire to know
or be known, to find truth or to be found by truth.

This alternative anti-philosophy can be seen as all of
the following;  anti-reason or anti-rationality, anti-
personal or anti-relational, anti-volitional responsible
or anti-informed choosing, and anti-emotional.  In short,
sadly, they are dehumanized and dehumanizing.  Let's look 
at one of these items at a time.

In a combinational case, or a comprehensive case or world
view, one can acknowledge weaknesses in certain arguments
and yet like a jury in a court of law, after preponderance
of the points in the case, reach a verdict which they call
'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  If an individual's *entire*
point is to *not* reach a conclusion, then reason itself
is absurd.  Except for the interesting self inherent 
contradiction, that it is used to escape reason (e.g.
In this case showing via reason that one does not have 
absolute, undeniable, certainty, and therefore there is
no data anywhere that is beyond reasonable doubt), but even 
this they would not infrequently admit, is absurd.  Why?
Because it is reasoning!

How is this alternative, anti-relational or anti-personal?
First there must be a person that exists outside of the
individual doubter.  Solopsism denies that anyone else
exists in the universe.  This is Cartesian doubt (named 
after DesCartes) again taken to an extreme.  If the person
is 'creating his or her own reality' or has no view of
any external (to themself) reality, then any reason to
deny God, will work as well for denying anything (the 
world) or anyone (other persons) at any time for anything.  
Surely they might chose to be a hedonist for one-night or 
one-week or one-year fling, but nothing would compel them 
to do so or not do so.  Nor would anything compel them to 
not use the opportunity to torture the 'other'.  There is 
no reason, no purpose, no justification, only doubt, and 
the individual creator of whatever for whatever.  

This brings us to its anti-informed choice position.  It 
is choice for choice sake.  There is no worldview or truth, 
or conclusions based on anything consistent.  It is 
intellectual dodge-ball.  

Sadly but predictably, in the end it is hardened to the 
pain and suffering of others. Hardened to compassion itself.  
It may have moments, like tossing coin into a wishing well, 
of compassion, but even this makes no sense.  It is more 
of a nightmare for the alternative, worldview escapists than 
a momentary sanity.  It is a nightmare because it reminds
them of a worldview that attempts to do something with the
realm of moral notions, but then wakes to find that this
is a trap of rationality, personality, informed choosing,
and dignifying emotion, and must be escaped at all cost.
So this person retreats to the nightmare they imagine is
a dream of liberation.  And alas, even the concept of 
liberation, ironically they seem to know 'full well'(?) 
is not to be believed at all.

The question arises;  Would you want this individual as a
teller in a bank?  Or would you request them as the philosophy 
teacher?  Or hope for someone like them to become the spouse 
of your daughter or son?  OR, Why would they not teach
others that there is *no* wisdom, there is no truth, there 
is nothing that matters?  Why would they not cheat on exams
or rob funds?  Why would they not lie if caught?  Why would
they not cheat or abuse their relationships like they cheat
and abuse their own personhood, rationality, dignified 
choices, and emotions?  

On the one hand there exists an appearance of freedom and 
autonomy in these anti-philosophers.  A winsome aloofness
and free spirit can seem to permeate these individuals.  
Do not be deceived.  It is likely the euphoria of some 
ultimately destructive substance or relationship or fantasy 
that they are engaged in, on a purely internalized, self 
oriented level.  Like the happy public drunk who terrorizes
his wife and childern in the late night after getting a free
ride home from the kindly and helpful peace officer.  

Re-read the last 10 paragraphs and you will note that one 
reason for their apparent illusionary and thus intriguing
existence is evident.  It is because what they believe, and 
what they are and do, are self-contradictory. They are a kind 
of tricky illusion, or a mental, social, and emotional 
'sleight of hand'.  And like catching the street 'cup and
balls ruse' ripoff artist, you will need to keep a sharp 
mind.  Of perhaps admit that while you cannot see or
explain fully the trick, it is an unjust con just the same.

In this world in the year 2001, the abuse of women and
bashing of gays is not only politically incorrect, but
I would say it is morally evil.  Yet the anti-philosophy
crowd can find the abuse of women and violence toward
gays, promoted in someone's philosophy like Eminem (real 
name Marshall Mathers, the rapper) captivating and 'more 
brilliant' than the rest of society can ever really know.
It is even liberated and liberating.  But someone
who believes that moral notions could have a basis in
reality, like a former White House prosecutor, Ken Starr 
for instance, can be considered whether rhetorically or not
is still hard to determine, worse than a Stalin or Hitler.  
And this, not for moral, rational, or any other real 
justification.  Just because.  They do not need to defend 
their views (or so it is alleged) and it is arrogant for 
anyone to ask for a defense.  Of course they do not believe 
arrogance exists, or that *any* case is persuasive!  

Marque de Sade is the inhumane individual from whom we derive 
the word 'sadism.'  He is the man who tortured and poisoned
women and had a moral inversion philosophy that said such
behavior was not evil.  After a long life of such activities
in a patriarchal culture where survival of the fittest was
the ruling philosophy, he was nevertheless finally put in 
a kind of house arrest holding, by his mother in law, e.g.
the mother of his stalked and often tortured wife.  Allegedly 
and it would not be suprising for the anti-philosophy crowd, 
he (de Sade) becomes a free speech hero in a new film.  Like 
Larry Flynt, this is the one of these characters, the anti-
personal, anti-rational, anti-philosophers would select as 
their hero, no matter how they have to re-write history in the
film 'The Quill'.  I believe you can only imagine what they 
would think of the writer of this chapter you are now reading
for writing and questioning these kinds of conclusions and 
thinking!

'True beyond a reasonable doubt', is a helpful category.
Our alternative uses it in the morning when turning on 
their light, or standing on their floor, or turning on the
news or their car key.  They function in a world where there
is reasonable certainty but no absolute certainty.  For
instance, there is no absolute certainty that their car will
start, the electric is on, or that I will even finish this 
sentence without having a stroke.  But we type on, and converse 
and sit and read and think...

It seems to be true that any point in a cumulative case
world view, can be vulnerable to certain kinds of
critical critique, and the believer should welcome
critique.  It would be wise, like in the analogy of
a 'leaky bucket', to combine points in ones case to
involve reason, volition, emotion, evidences, and yes
even revelation and mystery, as well as the hard
sciences, history, archeology, etc.  This way the 'hole'
as it were, in one bucket, does not line up directly
with another 'hole' in the second bucket you place
inside the first bucket to keep the water from leaking.
And the flatter the bucket bottoms, pushed down into
each other, the better for a useful case!  

Example, the truth claim that Jesus Christ existed
historically; So you have a plethora of Believers who
say he existed.  OK, but is that it?  Alright then we
also have anti-christian 2nd century Romans referring
to Jesus as a historical person who lived.  Fine.  A
reasonable questioner might say that perhaps this one
or two Roman folks bit of evidence is like a leaky bucket
too, because these Romans *could* have just been repeated a 
story like a myth, like I might refer to the Powder Puff 
Girls, leaving someone to wonder years later if they were
real people who existed or, as they are, only a cartoon.  

But then you'd want other evidences.  Like the testimony of
an early Jewish, non-christian historian type, like Josephus,
or the testimony of the Talmud, in addition to the
volumous testimony of the early New Testament documents
and you'd like archeological confirmations of sites
mentioned in the four gospels, etc.  You'd want to see
how evidence for Jesus's historical existence compared 
with the evidence for others persons of antiquity whose
existence we academically take for granted.  Whereby we'd
discover a much stronger case for Jesus than for Julias 
Ceasar (!) or Plato, just for instance.  Different kinds
of sources, testimony, evidence, revelation -in the
case of Scripture-, etc.  If all were the same *kind*
of evidence from the same kinds of people, the holes
in our leaky buckets would all appear to be lined up or
located in the same place, and the case would not be
nearly so compelling. Same with a philosophy of life or
a world and life philosophy or world-view.

This is not to say that five thousand lies, can add up
to one truth.  Rather it says that much data from a wide 
range of evidences and perspectives, can give us a more
accurate and helpful view.  Take an automobile accident,
for instance, simply taking the perspective of one
driver in one of the cars is limited.  Skid mark
start and stop points, impact damage, pedestrian 
bypasser viewpoint, other drivers, vehicle damage, 
location of meridians, traffic lights, etc all must be 
considered to get a fuller picture of what the reality 
of the events leading to the accident, actually were.  
And now of course even internal dynamics like; was
the car phone hung up, or the CD changer open (smile)
all add to the complexities.  Even after fact finding, 
absolute certainty will likely not emerge.  But a 
reasonable, and functionally helpful conclusion usually 
can be drawn, and someone will get the ticket and someone's 
insurance company will pay, based on those conclusions.
This is the world we live in.

To take arguments only for the point of playing 
intellectual, relational, emotional, volitional, or 
even theological dodge-ball, is in itself dishonest,
destructive and dehumanizing to the individual and
their circle of influence.  And this level of doubt
cannot be lived out consistently either on a personal
level, or any other level.  Some, defacto worldview
is lived out however inconsistently at each point.
Waking up and calling it such admits human consciousness
at least on this level.  Standing on the floor admits
that there is a floor that will uphold you and your bed
and alas, a physical universe outside the self does in
fact exist.  Someone arguing that what I just said is 
'idiotic', other than of course being an ad hominen, is 
an appeal to reason itself, which (reason) seems impossible 
to deny.  Someone getting mad that I imply moral judgments 
concerning the above cases, is an appeal to some kind of 
shared moral notions that I should be shamed by, or hushed
by, because I might make someone angry.  And even cursing 
God is borrowed capital (our next breathe is dependent upon
His mercy), or borrowed breathe/soul as well.

And so I return to my encouragement for the reader to
develop a world and life view.  A personal philosophy
that is truthful, dignifying, personal, enriching, fruitful,
reasonable, compassionate, ...    And I believe 
such will wisely be grounded on a cumulative case.  Some 
points in the case will admittedly be weightier than others.
It will be broad-based and it will not be a real or
imagined master-narrative use or intented for use in 
oppression.  Quite the contrary it will be rational, 
personal, emotional, and volitional. And one that deals with 
issues of God's revelation in the Bible, which takes
time to critique the world religions in a fair manner, even
considers spiritualities and the mystical with varying degrees
of certitude for various points in the case.  Herein is real
liberation.  This is not the illusive intellectual dodge-ball 
sort of imagined freedom but real freedom.  My intent in this
particular writing, is not so much to prescribe the case as
it develops or unfolds for you, as it is to give dignity to
the enterprise and to protect you from the false liberation(s)
by populist detractors.

Socrates did not say the unintelligible life is worth
living.  He said the unexamined life is not worth 
living.  That there is something worth living for, is
assumed.  That this something will take examination and 
that such examination is useful and purposeful, is also 
further valued.  Denial of these points seems to lead 
clearly to the abyss.  I hope your case does not willfully
lead in that direction. 
			
		/My Documents/anti-phil-cumcase.txt
                Use your browsers 'back' key to return
                to jbwjazz.com