Wikiphilosophers/Foundationalism/Modestmicah

This page is part of Wikiphilosophers, a project aiming to provide an overview of philosophical ideas from new philosophers and thinkers, based on their own research. This article represents the personal view of a user. Do not edit this article unless you are the author of the article. For questions, you can visit the article's discussion page. In this way, you can ensure that the author can expand and improve on his or her ideas!

Let "→" mean therefore, or, more precisely: "only if."

Philosophy is limited not only by a philosopher's ability to communicate observations through logic and language, but also an audience's ability to understand. Therefore if perfect certainty depends on perfect logic, competence, and communication, it is impossible, or, at least, impossible to verify. For example, I don't even know what Descartes meant by "I think, therefore I am." I have to trust that the translations from French and Latin into English I've read are accurate.

certainty must be communicated

&

communication is ambiguous

→

certainty is not transmissible

&

confusion is inevitable

Even Descartes' foundational belief (that he exists, or, maybe, that thoughts happen) is beholden to ambiguity. Maybe he enjoyed existence and absolute certainty for a while, but now he is dead. Thanks to his writing, though, it seems like I can believe that I currently exist with complete certainty, because I am still able to observe myself thinking. From what I currently accept as my foundation, it's possible that he is equally capable, from beyond the grave, of observing his own existence. My friend tells me that Hindu philosophy echoes this foundation in the phrase "aham brahmasmi," which among other things, means "I exist totally," or "I am everything." I think these all work as sound, indubitable beliefs, but that is where their cogency ends. Solipsism is as plausible as any other speculation, the only indubitable ingredient is that observation, thought, or something like that, is happening, while it is actively happening. If this is all there is to foundationalism, then foundationalism is bankrupt.

some thoughts are observable

→

thoughts exist

→

something else happens next (I guess)

I have not even observed time, only clocks. I can only generate memories of the past in the present moment. I can only recall reading a convincing proof for time's passage, where its existence is assumed without support.

time is not observable

I have never observed existence: when I meditate, I find it that I am either observing or recalling a memory, or artifact of observation. When I am distracted from my meditation, I can remind myself of the English definition, plausibility, and infallibility of a concept like existence, but I cannot behold it at the same time. In order to notice that I am observing, I have to stop observing. In English, 'existence' is a state of being nonzero, or simply "being." In physics, to occupy a state, or "to be", entails time, or some dimension to set being into. I might believe I exist with justified and complete certainty right now, but my justification could be cast into doubt in the future, and the present moment could be said to have never happened. Therefore, if time passes, my existence is currently vulnerable to doubt from future thoughts, doubts, or communications.

existence is not observable

Statistics accounts for uncertainty, and offers a fair, working foundation for beliefs that humans can commit to. In statistics, nothing is 100%, or 0% certain, except for statements like "squares have four sides". Beyond this linguistic, physical, mathematical foundation, is a chasm, a chance to witness transcendental certainty, sometimes called enlightenment, sometimes described as the way, or the tao. This is a wonderful experience, sometimes enjoyed by humans. All the above has no bearing on how to behave in the moment. The foundational belief that nothing is certain, therefore anything is possible, appears to be the only sound argument currently available to humankind, that also provides an actual basis for further, valid truth claims. If time really passes, then maybe I will find a better foundation later. In the meantime, I propose an infallible logical chain.

thought is observable

&

time is not observable

&

existence is not observable

→

nothing is certain

→

anything is possible

→

possibly, I exist

→

possibly, time exists

→

possibly, cause and effect exist

Another, less poetic way of expressing this foundation is "every claim is over 0% and under 100% likely to be true." This serves as a functional foundation because it has a direct logical connection to every other claim that sits below it on your epistemic hierarchy. Maybe you are familiar with another philosopher, whose proof is so extremely perfect and unambiguous to you that you can derive absolute certainty from it. Enjoy it while it lasts! In the meantime, I am going to assume that it if I can observe a coffee shop across the street displaying an open sign, it's likely that a barista inside will serve me a coffee, if I ask for one, and cooperate with the rest of the folks in the building too. At least, it's certainly worth giving a shot! Given this foundation, I understand that everything I say, no matter how certain I feel about it, is automatically a humble proposition, and up for debate, and eventually worth interrogating. This process can be joyful in practice, maybe because it is so rewarding of curiosity.

The circularity of my reasoning is, ironically, by design. The claim that nothing is certain is uncertain itself, because it acknowledges the possibility of future proofs or past and inaccessible proofs for total certainty. In a vacuum, it is often lamented pessimistically, cynically, or nihilistically. What doesn't occur to tired, sad sceptics, is that if nothing is certain, it follows a fortiori that anything is possible, anything can be proposed and experimented, ie. anything is possible. This phrase has the opposite effect, and affect, to nihilism, to the point of toxic positivity! Both are very tired, ambiguous phrases, but they do a great job of implying that even the statements themselves are uncertain. After committing this circular tautology to text, I feel more justified to debate in favour of coherentism, foundationalism's main rival. In my opinion, coherentism is foundationalism's immediate offspring. Ultimately, I'm hoping that this inevitable uncertainty hypothesis will eventually put the false dichotomy of foundationalism vs. coherentism to rest.