Philosophers are traditionally concerned with the question of truth. However, the field of philosophy began with an understanding that one couldnt ever know anything. Socrates in the West, perhaps Laozi in the East (though thats hard to say), both knew that they knew nothing. It was from the antecedent of these gentlemen, and early thinkers with them, that philosophy as a field of discourse grew to what it has become today. The path changed, though, as thinkers thought. At some point, philosophers became convinced that they could know something, and many of them even started to think that they did know something.
And ideas progressed.
Thinkers continued to think and to write and to peer inside the fabric of the universe. Eventually natural science caught up with (and, frankly, overtook) philosophy, adding more and more to the human field of knowledge. And now the circle is turning full.
Mathematics, the field of certainty, has shown that there are an infinite number of things which cannot be proven, and thus cannot be mathematically known. Physics has entered a realm wherein the most rational results are literally illogical, defying the basic laws of reason. And philosophy is starting to remember how little it knows. Wittgenstein wrote that we cant know anything of value. Alan Watts brought the Eastern ideas of knowing nothing to the West in a form that the West, with our Socraticly-born mindset, can conveniently digest.
So where does that put me, in this time of thought-space revolution?
Blissfully free.
If one were to read through all of my philosophical writings, one would see great, giant sweeps of opinion and huge, tectonic shifts in worldview. Ive been Marxist, Nihilist, and Randian all in very short order. In reading what Ive written, one would be liable to assume that my philosophical ideas and opinions have changed, and that my worldview has shifted from one conception of truth to another.
This is so. Ish. What really happened is that I absorbed the truth of it all, and then moved on. I would not describe myself as Marxist, Nihilist, or Randian at this moment. But I see the truth in all three.
The attack then comes: arent these three ideas mutually contradictory? In fact, I think one would be hard-pressed to find three schools of thought more completely mutually contradictory than these three. How is it, then, that I find truth in three ideas that cancel each other out? The obvious answer is that there is a grain of truth in each of them, and that they fill each others holes. This is not what I believe. I believe them all to completely true. This, though, is because I dont know anything. In what has been called a philosophers surrender, I believe them all to be true because I believe everything to be true. Strictly, I dont believe there to be a difference between truth and untruth. As such, all things which are untrue are also true, because the two are the same. Of course, everything which is true is also then untrue. It becomes clear why it just boils down to a point where truth is a null word. It means nothing. In short: I do not believe truth to exist. I am working on a metaphysics for this, but until I have that somewhere where I can unveil it to the world, I will respond against the most obvious argument against this idea: how can I believe it to be true that truth does not exist? This is paradoxical. My response: Thats okay. I accept paradoxes. When we boil away the central dichotomy of truth and untruth, all dichotomies must evaporate (because their dichotomousness is based on an understanding the truth of the dichotomized), and all things (including the false) become workably true. It is paradoxical, and makes no sense, I know. Thats kind of the point.
From here, one must ask what the philosophers job could be. Philosophers are concerned with truth, and I believe truth to not exist, so what in the hell do I do? I dont give a damn about truth, thats what.
For me, the philosophical end is something beautiful. Im not concerned with developing or uncovering or understanding the truth, but rather with building and seeing and experiencing beauty. And beauty is something that damn near everyone can agree is entirely subjective. What I wish to do, philosophically, is think beautiful thoughts. And this isnt out of some notion that truth is beauty (I cant say whether or not that statement is true, because I dont have an idea of what truth is), but rather because I like pretty things. That is the only reason. So I will probably continue to write mutually contradictory ideas. I will probably continue to believe mutually contradictory ideas. But so long as I find the ideas to be beautiful, I will persist.
Perhaps, then, philosophy is the wrong word for what I do, because I dont give a damn about the truth. But if I were to actually believe that the ideas that I have to be true, then it would be philosophy. Since, then, the output would be called philosophy if the motive were not known, I shall continue to call it that. At least until I hear a prettier name.
- Byatt
And ideas progressed.
Thinkers continued to think and to write and to peer inside the fabric of the universe. Eventually natural science caught up with (and, frankly, overtook) philosophy, adding more and more to the human field of knowledge. And now the circle is turning full.
Mathematics, the field of certainty, has shown that there are an infinite number of things which cannot be proven, and thus cannot be mathematically known. Physics has entered a realm wherein the most rational results are literally illogical, defying the basic laws of reason. And philosophy is starting to remember how little it knows. Wittgenstein wrote that we cant know anything of value. Alan Watts brought the Eastern ideas of knowing nothing to the West in a form that the West, with our Socraticly-born mindset, can conveniently digest.
So where does that put me, in this time of thought-space revolution?
Blissfully free.
If one were to read through all of my philosophical writings, one would see great, giant sweeps of opinion and huge, tectonic shifts in worldview. Ive been Marxist, Nihilist, and Randian all in very short order. In reading what Ive written, one would be liable to assume that my philosophical ideas and opinions have changed, and that my worldview has shifted from one conception of truth to another.
This is so. Ish. What really happened is that I absorbed the truth of it all, and then moved on. I would not describe myself as Marxist, Nihilist, or Randian at this moment. But I see the truth in all three.
The attack then comes: arent these three ideas mutually contradictory? In fact, I think one would be hard-pressed to find three schools of thought more completely mutually contradictory than these three. How is it, then, that I find truth in three ideas that cancel each other out? The obvious answer is that there is a grain of truth in each of them, and that they fill each others holes. This is not what I believe. I believe them all to completely true. This, though, is because I dont know anything. In what has been called a philosophers surrender, I believe them all to be true because I believe everything to be true. Strictly, I dont believe there to be a difference between truth and untruth. As such, all things which are untrue are also true, because the two are the same. Of course, everything which is true is also then untrue. It becomes clear why it just boils down to a point where truth is a null word. It means nothing. In short: I do not believe truth to exist. I am working on a metaphysics for this, but until I have that somewhere where I can unveil it to the world, I will respond against the most obvious argument against this idea: how can I believe it to be true that truth does not exist? This is paradoxical. My response: Thats okay. I accept paradoxes. When we boil away the central dichotomy of truth and untruth, all dichotomies must evaporate (because their dichotomousness is based on an understanding the truth of the dichotomized), and all things (including the false) become workably true. It is paradoxical, and makes no sense, I know. Thats kind of the point.
From here, one must ask what the philosophers job could be. Philosophers are concerned with truth, and I believe truth to not exist, so what in the hell do I do? I dont give a damn about truth, thats what.
For me, the philosophical end is something beautiful. Im not concerned with developing or uncovering or understanding the truth, but rather with building and seeing and experiencing beauty. And beauty is something that damn near everyone can agree is entirely subjective. What I wish to do, philosophically, is think beautiful thoughts. And this isnt out of some notion that truth is beauty (I cant say whether or not that statement is true, because I dont have an idea of what truth is), but rather because I like pretty things. That is the only reason. So I will probably continue to write mutually contradictory ideas. I will probably continue to believe mutually contradictory ideas. But so long as I find the ideas to be beautiful, I will persist.
Perhaps, then, philosophy is the wrong word for what I do, because I dont give a damn about the truth. But if I were to actually believe that the ideas that I have to be true, then it would be philosophy. Since, then, the output would be called philosophy if the motive were not known, I shall continue to call it that. At least until I hear a prettier name.
- Byatt