I've been reading some Descartes lately. He's always a fun read. As I've said before, Gangadeanians are Cartesians at heart. It was Descartes after all that sought an indubitable foundation upon which to build an entire worldview. Throughout his meditations, he seeks to find that which he can't possibly doubt. And if you've ever taken a philosophy course with a Gangadeanian, it's likely that you'll hear the cogito argument. I know of no other philosopher either in the past or present that seeks certainty in the way that Descartes does with the exception of Gangadean of course.
There are other similarities which is what prompted this post. For instance, Descartes believed that by simply unpacking the content of an idea, we could come to know about the world beyond our concepts. For instance, Descartes begins with his idea of a triangle and says the he perceives that the nature of triangle is to be (among other things) a three-sided figure. And importantly he could ascertain this nature simply by reflecting on his idea of a triangle. Indeed since he doesn't believe that triangles actually exist (he believes they are merely imperfectly instantiated in the concrete world), there is no other way he could come to know about them except via the reason.
Gangadean similarly takes it that "in a concept, one grasps the essence of a thing". That is to say, we can know at least some things about substantial reality in virtue of reflecting on our concepts of things. For example, as Gangadean sees it, you can just sit and reflect on the concept/word 'knowledge' or the concept/word 'eternal' and certain indubitable truths will come to mind. For instance, 'eternal' just means without beginning and end. 'Knowledge' just is a justified true belief. 'Evil' just is that which is contrary to one's nature. 'God' just is a spirit, that is infinite, eternal and unchanging in his being... 'Friendship' just is a relationship with a mutual aim towards the good...I'm only scratching the surface. As I've noted before Gangadeanians have their own vocabulary and it is in virtue of this vocabulary that many of their deductions turn out valid (although far from sound). So the similarity with Descartes is hard to deny. Descartes speaks of ideas, and Gangadean speaks of concepts, but they are functionally the same thing. Descartes speaks of the natures of things, and other times the essences of things, and Gangadean does the same. More importantly, both thinkers are committed to this idea that we could learn about the nature of things just by unpacking our concepts or ideas of those things. To be clear, neither Descartes or Gangadean are saying that you can know the nature of an idea by unpacking the idea (that would merely get one to idealism). Instead, they are both saying that by simply reflecting sufficiently on our ideas, we can know about things "out there" beyond our minds (that's what Gangadean means by "grasping the essence of things").
In his Fifth Meditation, Descartes, after speaking about triangles, seems to realize that if he can know (with certainty) about the very nature/essences of triangles simply by thinking about his idea of a triangle, then he should be able to extend this method to prove that God exists. After all, he's got a "clear and distinct" idea of God. Just like he has a "clear and distinct" idea of a triangle. So in the manner by which he could come to know about the nature of triangles by thinking about his idea of triangles, he argues that he can do the same as it concerns God.
Now for Descartes and many other theists that he was following, the very idea of God contains (necessary) existence. That is to say, just like one cannot really have an idea of a triangle that doesn't contain the idea of a three-sided figure, according to Descartes, to think of God is necessarily to think of a being that exists. On the other hand he says his ideas of other things like that of a lion or a mountain, do not have this feature. He can think of a lion that doesn't exist and he can think of a mountain that doesn't exist without committing anything like a contradiction or conceptual confusion. And insofar as his idea of God contains within it the further idea of existence, he concludes that this proves that God really does exist. Just like he can prove that a triangle has three sides by thinking about his concept of a triangle and realizing that he can't separate (in his mind) three sides from a triangle, he can prove that God exists by merely reflecting on his concept of God. He can't by his intellect separate his idea of God from his idea of existence, so he concludes that it is the very nature/essence of God to exist.
It's an ontological argument which are fascinating beasts even though they are largely rejected. However, the merits or faults of the argument itself are not what I'm interested in. What I'm wondering is how or on what grounds a Gangadeanian would reject such an argument. That is, how does it differ structurally from Gangadean's argument that "something must be eternal"? Recall, that that argument depends on the conceptual analysis that 'eternal' just means without beginning, and that 'none is eternal' entails that 'all began to exist'. If you ask a Gangadeanian how s/he knows that 'if none is eternal, then all is temporal and all began to exist' they will say that it's a matter of definition--that is to say, it's a matter of conceptual truth. One can just sit and reflect on the concept/idea of 'eternal' to realize what it entails about beginning to exist and temporality. Well, this is just what Descartes thinks is happening in his ontological argument for God's existence. It's perfectly plain to him that the very concept of God contains within it necessary existence. Thus it is in virtue of his definition of God, and his commitment to the idea that (in Gangadeanian terms) "reason is ontological" that the conclusion that God really exists, follows.
As I recall, Gangadean rejects this kind of ontological argument. What I'm currently interested in is whether he's got good grounds for rejecting it. Does he reject Descartes claim that it is part of the very concept of God that he exists? That is, does Gangadean believe one can have the idea of God and at the same time imagine God as not existing? I doubt it. Isn't God according to Gangadean, by definition, a being that is infinite, eternal and unchanging? And doesn't Gangadean believe that 'eternal' just means always existing? If so, it seems he must agree with Descartes' definition of God in an important sense. That is, to have a concept of God is to have a concept of an eternal (or always existing) being.
So if Gangadean wants to legitimately reject the Cartesian argument, he must looks elsewhere. As I see it there are only two more exit points. Gangadean must either reject the claim that we can know the nature of God by reflecting on our concept of God (i.e., he must say that one can have the concept of God without grasping the essence of God), or else he must deny the final inference that Descartes makes namely, "if it is part of the very essence of God to exist, then he does exist." But I don't see how he could deny either of these. To reject the first is to admit to a counterexample to his foundational claim about concepts. Remember, he says that "in a concept we grasp the essence of a thing". But if we can have a concept of God without thereby grasping the nature of God, then his thesis about concepts is falsified. To reject the latter of Cartesian moves is to admit that it is in God's nature to exist and yet God can somehow fail to exist. But again, if Gangadean accepts that by reflecting on his concept of God, he grasps the essence of God which includes eternal existence, then it's hard to see how Gangadean could reject the Cartesian inference unless of course something can have as its very nature existence while failing to exist.
Where this leaves us is that regardless of whether or not Gangadean actually rejects the ontological argument, there's a question about whether on pain of inconsistency, he should. I think we have reason to think his views actually force him to accept Descartes Ontological argument for God's existence and so much worse for his view. This is the cost of his commitment to the claim that we can know the essences of things just by a priori, analysis of our concepts in conjunction with his definition of 'God'.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Contact
Since I've been getting some requests for my email address lately, here it is.
reasoniidoubt@gmail.com
reasoniidoubt@gmail.com
Friday, October 21, 2016
Gangadeanian Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological phenomena wherein, a person holding(either tacitly or occurently) two or more beliefs that are in tension experiences a kind of mental discomfort. In crude terms, we sometimes have beliefs that are mutually incompatible or in some real tension, and the result is a kind of internal struggle. There are four options when we have such beliefs. 1) Let go of or otherwise revise one belief, 2) let go of or otherwise revise the other belief, 3) abandon or otherwise revise both, or 4) adopt another belief which entails that there is actually no tension between the two. I assume that Gangadeanians like the rest of us face cognitive dissonance regularly and in this post I want to talk about one particular juncture at which I experienced an episode when I was a Gangadeanian. My intent is not necessarily to be critical in this post, but rather provide an exploration for those wanting to understand Gangadeanian psychology a little bit more. I can't promise what I have to say generalizes to all or even most Gangadeanians, but I'd be quite surprised if it didn't apply to at least many of his followers. What will result is a partial account of why people who are defriended from Gangadeanians due to philosophical/theological disagreements might feel the extent of hurt that they often report.
Early on in my career as a philosopher, when I was still on team-Gangadean, and I had only taken a few undergrad courses in philosophy (mostly from Anderson) there was a time where things seemed rather straightforward to me. By 'things' I mean philosophical issues or problems. As a result, when in the presence of other students and philosophers not affiliated with Gangadean, I was often dismissive of analytic philosophy as well as the "problems" they found to be vexing and thus worth discussing. I often thought to myself, "they just aren't using the proper method--i.e., rational presuppositionalism, those well-educated fools!" "If only they would think of the less basic in light of the more basic!" It wasn't until I entered grad school and had the opportunity to take a closer look at things, that I realized that I was seriously mistaken. It turns out philosophy really is that complicated. Deriving satisfying answers to fundamental problems is that tricky. Many philosophers are quite serious about answering them, but there's a reason why some foundational problems continue to be discussed at great length and this for thousands of years! Now I'm of the view that philosophy is not for the faint of heart or mind---you have to be okay with uncertainty.
I recall at one point, I finally began to entertain what I had to that point not really entertained seriously. Could I be wrong? Could Gangadean or Anderson, those that I had placed on the pedestal, actually be wrong? Maybe basic things are just not clear in the way that I had accepted. The cognitive dissonance arose in the following way. I believed Gangadean's doctrines concerning clarity. But I also noticed that people who appeared thoughtful, reflective, and otherwise quite rational didn't agree with me. Moreover, they raised problems for the Gangadeanian worldview (also my worldview at the time) that I didn't have ready answers for. I would often try to use the rhetoric that I was taught, although now that I reflect on it, I must report that it frequently felt insincere as if I were trying to trick my interlocutors to win the discussions and save face. So discomfort came to me in increasing degrees from one pair of beliefs in connection to a third. First, the clarity theses: i) basic things are clear to reason, and ii) one knows whatever is clear just in case one sincerely seeks. The clarity theses were in tension with my belief i) many philosophers that I knew didn't agree with me about the basic things (and so didn't know them), and ii) these philosophers were sincere, rational and intent on knowing the truth. This was the source of my cognitive dissonance. The two pairs were at odds with one another. I suspect, that if there are still any Gangadeanian lurkers at this blog (which I doubt) they can certainly relate to this feeling.
What is the Gangadeanian response to alleviate such dissonance? Well, they are so committed to clarity (indeed there would be no Gangadeanian worldview without it), that the clarity theses are beyond revision or denial. So what gives is the other pair of beliefs. They adopt the following narrative: anyone that doesn't agree about basic things contrary to appearances, doesn't actually want to know or seek sincerely. This eventually leads to their making pejorative remarks about the field of philosophy--that it's a bunch of really smart people that don't really want to know the truth, but pretend that they do or are self-deceived into thinking they do. This is the sort of narrative that they tell themselves about persons like me. Adopting such narratives enables them to resolve the cognitive dissonance while maintaing that basic things are clear to reason + anyone at anytime that wants to know and seeks to know, will know all that is clear.
Of course, there are lots of ways to resolve the dissonance--as I've said there are four general ways to resolve a tension between two views that one holds. But they opt for holding fast to one belief and denying the other. This approach is then further buttressed by a theological view about original sin and its noetic effects. "No one seeks not one", even if they appear to be seeking. So of course, we as Christians should expect people by in large to not seek to know and hence fail to know--so goes the thinking. (Yes, Gangadeanians make the exception of course--they manage to escape the scope of the quantifier "no one").
So in interacting with others outside their own, they have a fundamental view about the other. At least anybody that disagrees with them about foundational issues (and sometimes not so foundational) is someone that doesn't seek or at least doesn't seek consistently enough. The Gangadeanian commitment to the clarity theses are deep. Many of them probably feel like I did at one time before I decided to abandon ship. As if their entire lives would be in disarray, meaningless and the like if Gangadean were to turn out wrong. In fact, Anderson once in conversation told me that he wouldn't know anything at all, if the basic tenets of the church (including the clarity theses) turned out false. So as the Gangadeanians see it, there are significant psychological and practical costs associated the denial of clarity. We don't have to look far to see how they ever came under that spell. It's explicitly taught by Gangadean that without clarity all is meaningless (since meaning presupposes clarity)! It is no wonder that they adopt the narrative that any and all dissenters don't agree because they don't want to know the truth and thus don't seek sincerely. It is this background that you're going up against when you express disagreement with their foundational views.
Now if you've known any Gangadeanians previous to their becoming Gangadeanians, and try as you might, you just can't see eye-to-eye with them, or if you're like me and you once broke bread with them, before being kicked out and viewed as the enemy, then you know just what follows (for your relationships) from such a hardline position. Sometimes Gangadeanians act as if you can just make yourself believe what they believe (although I highly doubt they accept belief-voluntarism i.e., the view that believing is a matter of the will). Sometimes Gangadeanians forget that they are determinists and Calvinists and so believe that God has given them unmerited grace which was necessary for their seeking to know what is clear, and that God hasn't (on their view) extended this same grace to others which is what ultimately explains why people disagree with them. I suspect they haven't thought much about the appropriateness conditions of negative reactive attitudes, but there's a rather rich literature on that they might do well to consider.
Now as I've said, the commitment to the clarity theses and others is non-negotiable for them and this is what forces them to accept the view that anybody that disagrees with them about basic things doesn't actually want to know the truth. But to adopt such a view (which is radical in my eyes) in certain circumstances means overlooking lots of evidence to the contrary. When I reflect on my own experience, I find that reflecting on these considerations brings to the surface a plausible explanation for why people who are either kicked out of the church, or otherwise excluded by family members, friends (who are Gangadeanians) might feel hurt by members of the group.
I'm not particularly keen on sharing my own experience in this regard, but I think it might be instructive since I have particular insight into my own case. There were friends I had known for years who ultimately cut me out of their lives upon my exodus from the church and in keeping this here blog. Now it's quite likely that the justification they present to themselves for their choosing to sever our relationship is found in their adopting the position that I don't actually want to know the truth and as a result I've set up this blog to attack them, which is on their view likely to be the work of the devil. If I did want to know the truth, on their view, I would know and I certainly wouldn't keep a blog of this sort or continue to speak out against Gangadean. But to adopt such a position, they have to overlook or ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. And sometimes I wonder about that. Sometimes I wonder, if after years of close friendship, they didn't gather enough evidence to believe confidently that I am someone that wants to know the truth---that I work tirelessly (though of course, imperfectly) to know and that I care deeply about fundamental questions because I recognize how much they matter. After all, it's become my life's work. I'm certainly not in it for the "money" or "fame"!
Of course, you might wonder about some of the same things about me and my view of them. But our situations are far from symmetrical. The friendships I speak of, were ended entirely by the Gangadeanians. The purity of my motives constantly called into question and so little effort spent on trying to really understand my views. Of course, I have to adopt a narrative about how they, despite being good-natured and otherwise rational people, don't see what I take to be rather obvious truths (that Gangadeanism is gravely mistaken). However, I alleviate the cognitive dissonance in a different way and a way that I find far more plausible and far less uncharitable about the character of the others. I maintain that they are sincere in their pursuit of truth or at least no less sincere than most (nobody is perfect in this respect of course). I can maintain the evidence supporting this view which I gathered over the years of our friendships--I don't have to throw that out. But the reason they don't see the truth is that they are ill-informed and stuck in a seductive way of thinking that they can't see beyond. It's understandable. Philosophy is really difficult. It takes years of specialized training, just like anything else. And the people in power have a way of spinning sophistries, of indoctrinating persons with certain kinds of vulnerabilities and controlling them in subtle ways. It happened to me and I suspect under the right circumstances, it can happen to anyone.
What all of this suggests to me is a part of an explanation for why people who have either left the Gangadean fold and been unfriended by the group, or else people who have experienced strains on their relationships with Gangadeanians because of core disagreements, feel the extent of hurt that they feel. The Gangadeanians essentially have to adopt a view that you're fundamentally flawed. You don't care to know the truth and so you don't actually seek to know. You're in it for the lolz or for self-aggrandizement, or for some other nefarious purpose. This wipes away whatever evidence they have gathered to the contrary. Perhaps it tosses out years of loyal friendship. On their view, you're basically a terrible human being (at least on their notion of what it means to be human!).
Early on in my career as a philosopher, when I was still on team-Gangadean, and I had only taken a few undergrad courses in philosophy (mostly from Anderson) there was a time where things seemed rather straightforward to me. By 'things' I mean philosophical issues or problems. As a result, when in the presence of other students and philosophers not affiliated with Gangadean, I was often dismissive of analytic philosophy as well as the "problems" they found to be vexing and thus worth discussing. I often thought to myself, "they just aren't using the proper method--i.e., rational presuppositionalism, those well-educated fools!" "If only they would think of the less basic in light of the more basic!" It wasn't until I entered grad school and had the opportunity to take a closer look at things, that I realized that I was seriously mistaken. It turns out philosophy really is that complicated. Deriving satisfying answers to fundamental problems is that tricky. Many philosophers are quite serious about answering them, but there's a reason why some foundational problems continue to be discussed at great length and this for thousands of years! Now I'm of the view that philosophy is not for the faint of heart or mind---you have to be okay with uncertainty.
I recall at one point, I finally began to entertain what I had to that point not really entertained seriously. Could I be wrong? Could Gangadean or Anderson, those that I had placed on the pedestal, actually be wrong? Maybe basic things are just not clear in the way that I had accepted. The cognitive dissonance arose in the following way. I believed Gangadean's doctrines concerning clarity. But I also noticed that people who appeared thoughtful, reflective, and otherwise quite rational didn't agree with me. Moreover, they raised problems for the Gangadeanian worldview (also my worldview at the time) that I didn't have ready answers for. I would often try to use the rhetoric that I was taught, although now that I reflect on it, I must report that it frequently felt insincere as if I were trying to trick my interlocutors to win the discussions and save face. So discomfort came to me in increasing degrees from one pair of beliefs in connection to a third. First, the clarity theses: i) basic things are clear to reason, and ii) one knows whatever is clear just in case one sincerely seeks. The clarity theses were in tension with my belief i) many philosophers that I knew didn't agree with me about the basic things (and so didn't know them), and ii) these philosophers were sincere, rational and intent on knowing the truth. This was the source of my cognitive dissonance. The two pairs were at odds with one another. I suspect, that if there are still any Gangadeanian lurkers at this blog (which I doubt) they can certainly relate to this feeling.
What is the Gangadeanian response to alleviate such dissonance? Well, they are so committed to clarity (indeed there would be no Gangadeanian worldview without it), that the clarity theses are beyond revision or denial. So what gives is the other pair of beliefs. They adopt the following narrative: anyone that doesn't agree about basic things contrary to appearances, doesn't actually want to know or seek sincerely. This eventually leads to their making pejorative remarks about the field of philosophy--that it's a bunch of really smart people that don't really want to know the truth, but pretend that they do or are self-deceived into thinking they do. This is the sort of narrative that they tell themselves about persons like me. Adopting such narratives enables them to resolve the cognitive dissonance while maintaing that basic things are clear to reason + anyone at anytime that wants to know and seeks to know, will know all that is clear.
Of course, there are lots of ways to resolve the dissonance--as I've said there are four general ways to resolve a tension between two views that one holds. But they opt for holding fast to one belief and denying the other. This approach is then further buttressed by a theological view about original sin and its noetic effects. "No one seeks not one", even if they appear to be seeking. So of course, we as Christians should expect people by in large to not seek to know and hence fail to know--so goes the thinking. (Yes, Gangadeanians make the exception of course--they manage to escape the scope of the quantifier "no one").
So in interacting with others outside their own, they have a fundamental view about the other. At least anybody that disagrees with them about foundational issues (and sometimes not so foundational) is someone that doesn't seek or at least doesn't seek consistently enough. The Gangadeanian commitment to the clarity theses are deep. Many of them probably feel like I did at one time before I decided to abandon ship. As if their entire lives would be in disarray, meaningless and the like if Gangadean were to turn out wrong. In fact, Anderson once in conversation told me that he wouldn't know anything at all, if the basic tenets of the church (including the clarity theses) turned out false. So as the Gangadeanians see it, there are significant psychological and practical costs associated the denial of clarity. We don't have to look far to see how they ever came under that spell. It's explicitly taught by Gangadean that without clarity all is meaningless (since meaning presupposes clarity)! It is no wonder that they adopt the narrative that any and all dissenters don't agree because they don't want to know the truth and thus don't seek sincerely. It is this background that you're going up against when you express disagreement with their foundational views.
Now if you've known any Gangadeanians previous to their becoming Gangadeanians, and try as you might, you just can't see eye-to-eye with them, or if you're like me and you once broke bread with them, before being kicked out and viewed as the enemy, then you know just what follows (for your relationships) from such a hardline position. Sometimes Gangadeanians act as if you can just make yourself believe what they believe (although I highly doubt they accept belief-voluntarism i.e., the view that believing is a matter of the will). Sometimes Gangadeanians forget that they are determinists and Calvinists and so believe that God has given them unmerited grace which was necessary for their seeking to know what is clear, and that God hasn't (on their view) extended this same grace to others which is what ultimately explains why people disagree with them. I suspect they haven't thought much about the appropriateness conditions of negative reactive attitudes, but there's a rather rich literature on that they might do well to consider.
Now as I've said, the commitment to the clarity theses and others is non-negotiable for them and this is what forces them to accept the view that anybody that disagrees with them about basic things doesn't actually want to know the truth. But to adopt such a view (which is radical in my eyes) in certain circumstances means overlooking lots of evidence to the contrary. When I reflect on my own experience, I find that reflecting on these considerations brings to the surface a plausible explanation for why people who are either kicked out of the church, or otherwise excluded by family members, friends (who are Gangadeanians) might feel hurt by members of the group.
I'm not particularly keen on sharing my own experience in this regard, but I think it might be instructive since I have particular insight into my own case. There were friends I had known for years who ultimately cut me out of their lives upon my exodus from the church and in keeping this here blog. Now it's quite likely that the justification they present to themselves for their choosing to sever our relationship is found in their adopting the position that I don't actually want to know the truth and as a result I've set up this blog to attack them, which is on their view likely to be the work of the devil. If I did want to know the truth, on their view, I would know and I certainly wouldn't keep a blog of this sort or continue to speak out against Gangadean. But to adopt such a position, they have to overlook or ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. And sometimes I wonder about that. Sometimes I wonder, if after years of close friendship, they didn't gather enough evidence to believe confidently that I am someone that wants to know the truth---that I work tirelessly (though of course, imperfectly) to know and that I care deeply about fundamental questions because I recognize how much they matter. After all, it's become my life's work. I'm certainly not in it for the "money" or "fame"!
Of course, you might wonder about some of the same things about me and my view of them. But our situations are far from symmetrical. The friendships I speak of, were ended entirely by the Gangadeanians. The purity of my motives constantly called into question and so little effort spent on trying to really understand my views. Of course, I have to adopt a narrative about how they, despite being good-natured and otherwise rational people, don't see what I take to be rather obvious truths (that Gangadeanism is gravely mistaken). However, I alleviate the cognitive dissonance in a different way and a way that I find far more plausible and far less uncharitable about the character of the others. I maintain that they are sincere in their pursuit of truth or at least no less sincere than most (nobody is perfect in this respect of course). I can maintain the evidence supporting this view which I gathered over the years of our friendships--I don't have to throw that out. But the reason they don't see the truth is that they are ill-informed and stuck in a seductive way of thinking that they can't see beyond. It's understandable. Philosophy is really difficult. It takes years of specialized training, just like anything else. And the people in power have a way of spinning sophistries, of indoctrinating persons with certain kinds of vulnerabilities and controlling them in subtle ways. It happened to me and I suspect under the right circumstances, it can happen to anyone.
What all of this suggests to me is a part of an explanation for why people who have either left the Gangadean fold and been unfriended by the group, or else people who have experienced strains on their relationships with Gangadeanians because of core disagreements, feel the extent of hurt that they feel. The Gangadeanians essentially have to adopt a view that you're fundamentally flawed. You don't care to know the truth and so you don't actually seek to know. You're in it for the lolz or for self-aggrandizement, or for some other nefarious purpose. This wipes away whatever evidence they have gathered to the contrary. Perhaps it tosses out years of loyal friendship. On their view, you're basically a terrible human being (at least on their notion of what it means to be human!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)