A Systematic Approach to The Ethical Pursuit of Truth
ESSAY BY JACQUELINE MCALEER
In this paper, I’ll be discussing the value of metaphysics and epistemology on the levels of both the individual and the community, claiming that these pursuits are minimally valuable at the individual level but become even less productive and less necessary at the community level, as well as containing high potential for harm at the community level. Lastly, I’ll claim that ethics is the most noble pursuit of philosophy, as it is able to bring communities together in a way that the other two branches cannot, as well as making the most tangible progress due to its goals as well as this potential for unification, and conclude with the claim that science is the only ethical pursuit of truth.
I. Truth and the Individual
For the philosopher, who I believe to be a natural kind, thinking about pure metaphysics, pure epistemology, or the intersection of the two can all be a fun and pleasant way to pass the time. It can contribute to a strong sense of self, as seen in Castenado’s “The Teachings of Don Juan” and Huxley’s “Doors of Perception”, both in which the narrator is tripping on a psychedelic and comes away from the experience deeply changed. In both of these accounts, the narrator has profound metaphysical and epistemological realizations and seems very grateful for the opportunity to experience such realizations. Further, it seems important to have a personal set of beliefs, or truths, that guide one’s actions. Personal existential truths seem particularly important. Without some formed epistemological belief about truth, however practical or abstract, it becomes harder to take action and similarly, without some set of formed personal metaphysical beliefs, action can be severely impaired.
Action is tied strongly to the concept of the good life, so at first glance it seems as if the pursuits of metaphysics and epistemology can be valuable tools enabling actions that propel one toward the good life. However, there are several problems with this conclusion. First, not every individual is a philosopher; rather, philosophers are the minority in the population. Thus, it’s important to recognize that most people don’t even enjoy thinking about these pursuits, much less structuring their lives around them. Just as it takes a certain kind of person to deeply enjoy a psychedelic experience rather than be scarred by it, metaphysics and epistemology aren’t for everyone, and can actually be quite repulsive. Even to those philosophers who do choose to spend their time with these pursuits, it can get quite miserable fairly quickly. In Dostoevsky's “Notes from Underground”, the underground man is in a state of misery brought on by his natural philosophical state of mind and his inability to ever make up his mind about anything. Rather than metaphysics and epistemology guiding him to positive action as previously suggested, these disciplines are the very reason he’s paralyzed with inaction. He constantly talks about how much he envies normal people and how easily they’re able to act without having his burden of being disposed to think about these things all the time. It’s important to note here that the underground man’s misery stems from his metaphysical and epistemological questionings rather than from philosophy systematically.
Additionally, pure metaphysics and epistemology by nature are impossible to make real progress in or confirm any beliefs in. There’s no way to measure metaphysical or epistemological accounts against each other, especially the more abstract you venture. This is precisely what ends up tormenting the underground man. Voltaire’s “Candide” also criticizes this abstract kind of metaphysics and epistemology by repeating the claim “all is for the best” throughout the story even as each character endures torturous event after torturous event and is in complete misery. There’s no way to prove that Pangloss is incorrect to say that this is not the “best” it could be, even as it seems ridiculous given everyone’s misery, which is why Voltaire seeks to satirize the abstract natures of metaphysics and epistemology. If these pursuits are indeed aligned with the good life of the individual, it seems very odd that it’s impossible to confirm whether one is on the right track. Feedback is necessary to learn anything, and these fields are completely void of feedback, rendering them impossible to learn from. In these ways, although pursuing these topics can have some value at the individual level, it’s still incompatible with the good life.
II. Truth and the Community
Perhaps the solution to the uncertainty and lack of feedback that comes with these branches of philosophy is the inclusion of more people and opinions rather than grappling with these ideas individually. Maybe these frustrations can be resolved in a group setting. But rather than settling disputes and uncertainties, group discussions involving metaphysics and epistemology often result in even more confusion. Very rarely do discussions on these topics result in anyone changing their mind or coming to an agreement with each other, due to the aforementioned uncertain nature of both fields. With no agreement, no action is taken. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, not everyone in a community is going to be a philosopher, so expecting a community as a whole to enjoy or willingly spend time thinking about metaphysics and epistemology is unrealistic. Focusing on metaphysics and epistemology in a group setting is therefore exclusive and inefficient. One could argue that not every activity has to be enjoyed at the large community level in order to be an element of the good life for the individual, with which I would agree. However, the lack of broad appeal isn’t the only negative that comes with studying pure metaphysics and epistemology, and the potential for abuse of philosophical ideas to harm others makes them unique among activities that people enjoy.
This potential for abuse arises from the dissent these fields breed in the first place; when no one in a group agrees, this creates a power gap that is often filled by an oppressive ruler or system that is able to offer up sure answers about metaphysics and epistemology, but at a steep cost. These metaphysical and epistemological ‘facts’ offered up by the ones in power are often used to maintain their oppressive rule over others. In Stoljar’s “Metaphysics of Gender”, she argues that metaphysics has been used as a tool to intentionally oppress those we view as ‘female’ in a way that is detrimental to their ability to live the good life, despite the lack of certainty and agreement on what it means to truly be female or a woman. In “Eurocentrism as an Epistemology of Ignorance”, Alcoff presents the idea that epistemology can be used as an oppressive tool in the same ways metaphysics can for Stoljar. In this piece, she asserts that Western powers have used epistemology to frame European knowledge as superior in efforts to dominate other, ‘ignorant’ people groups, as well as stealing large amounts of knowledge from these groups and branding it as their own, concluding that epistemology is often used as a violent tool of oppression. So although metaphysics and epistemology may be enjoyable activities for some, we shouldn't ignore their high potential for abuse and oppression of others.
On a final and minor note, people are simply frustrating to those around them when they’re pursuing these types of questions individually or with other philosophers in a larger group not composed entirely of philosophers. Back to the psychedelic examples of Castenado and Huxley, both characters end up acting very strangely, need help with basic functions, and are impossible to be understood by anyone else as they undergo profound personal changes. So even in the cases where these pursuits could be beneficial on the individual level, very rarely do these benefits translate over into the good life of the community.
III. Ethics as an Independent and Noble Pursuit
One could argue that ethics is essentially tied up in metaphysics and epistemology, and that it makes no sense to talk about ethics as a standalone discipline. For instance, the pursuit of the good life assumes the metaphysical view that our reality allows for a good life to exist and the epistemological view that if the good life exists, we are able to find it and know what’s best for ourselves. However, I think this can be avoided with the assumption that most people, particular non-philosophers, have a pretty similar view of metaphysics and epistemology. Adopting this ‘normal’ community view, ethics becomes independent. And although group discussions revolving around ethics are not immune to some level of inefficiency driven by disagreement, this independence from other branches of philosophy allows ethics to interest and involve everyone in the community, regardless of whether or not they are a philosopher, which itself increases efficiency and drives action. Sidelining metaphysics and epistemology in group settings in favor of ethics can be noted in Watts’ piece “Indigenous Place Thought”, where she implies that it actually doesn’t matter what the truth of our origin is or how we can know it. Instead, she claims we should focus on the ethical by not talking down to indigenous people based on differences in metaphysics or epistemology and calling their origin a myth as opposed to a history when that word has negative and condescending connotations that are detrimental to the good life of indigenous people. Stoljar has a similar conclusion about gender, claiming that since the metaphysics of it all are impossible to pin down or agree on, it doesn’t matter too much what the ‘truth’ is as long as we focus on the ethical and treat people well regardless of how we perceive their gender.
IV. Conclusion
Given these perspectives, ethics seems like the only noble focus of philosophy: it can function well independently, it includes everyone, it is action-focused, and it doesn’t hold the same oppressive powers that the other two disciplines seem to. Ethics is by definition concerned with the good life of individuals and communities, whereas the other branches can be directly at odds with it. However, I’m not suggesting that we should leave truth behind entirely; although overvalued by philosophers at times, it is an important pursuit and one that is intrinsic to human life. We simply must be mindful of the ways in which we pursue truth, and minimize thinking about truth too abstractly in metaphysical or epistemological terms.
So how do we pursue truth in an ethical manner? I believe science is the only ethical outlet by which to pursue truth. Science is a subset of metaphysics that is exempt from being at odds with the good life, and is rather actually an important component to the good life on both individual and community levels. It’s not pure truth either. Science isn’t uncovering truth for the sake of uncovering truth. It’s funded to solve specific problems that improve human life, such as disease treatment and prevention or the development of new medicines. Science is a way to incorporate metaphysics and epistemology into a purely ethical world, and it should be the focus for those who feel especially drawn to these types of questions rather than unproductive discussions with other philosophers.
WORKS CITED
Alcoff, Eurocentrism as an Epistemology of Ignorance
Castenado, The Teachings of Don Juan Dostoevsky, Notes from Underground Huxley, Doors of Perception
Stoljar, Metaphysics of Gender Voltaire, Candide
Watts, Indigenous Place Thought
Jacqueline McAleer is a senior at the University of Washington, majoring in Neuroscience and Philosophy. You can reach her at mcalejac@uw.edu.