How Much Is Certain or Uncertain in Life and Philosophy?
In some previous thread discussions I have had discussions about the nature of uncertainty, and to what extent does it exist in the context of apparent certainties. However, the dichotomy between certainty and uncertainty is one which still haunts and plays a role in my imagination and understanding. I see it as an aspect of existential angst, such as that expressed by Kierkergaard in thinking about the unknown. There are many unknown variables in life, especially the dichotomy between opinions.
However, the nature of certainty and uncertainty is an aspect of philosophy discussed by Wittgenstein and many other philosophers, and it may be an important factor in contemplating actions and risk. Wittgenstein said, 'The difference between the concept of "knowing" and the concept of "being certain" isn't of any great importance at all, except where "I know" is meant to mean: I can't be wrong. I a law court, for example, " I am certain" could replace "I know" in every piece of testimony.'
I am writing this thread on the basis of the issue of the 'New Philosopher' titled 'Uncertainty Rules(2021). It includes various thinkers on certainty, uncertainty and aspects of life, like the uncertainty which a person has about when he or she will die. The editor of the volume says,
'the certainty of death in an uncertain life should galvanise us into action to live life to the fullest. We mightn't have much much control over our fate- when we are born, the amount of luck in our lives, and when it will end..'
So, I am asking about how much is certain and uncertain in life experiences and knowledge? What is the tension between the certain and uncertain in philosophical understanding?
However, the nature of certainty and uncertainty is an aspect of philosophy discussed by Wittgenstein and many other philosophers, and it may be an important factor in contemplating actions and risk. Wittgenstein said, 'The difference between the concept of "knowing" and the concept of "being certain" isn't of any great importance at all, except where "I know" is meant to mean: I can't be wrong. I a law court, for example, " I am certain" could replace "I know" in every piece of testimony.'
I am writing this thread on the basis of the issue of the 'New Philosopher' titled 'Uncertainty Rules(2021). It includes various thinkers on certainty, uncertainty and aspects of life, like the uncertainty which a person has about when he or she will die. The editor of the volume says,
'the certainty of death in an uncertain life should galvanise us into action to live life to the fullest. We mightn't have much much control over our fate- when we are born, the amount of luck in our lives, and when it will end..'
So, I am asking about how much is certain and uncertain in life experiences and knowledge? What is the tension between the certain and uncertain in philosophical understanding?
Comments (21)
There are only 3 possible ways of proving a proposition p.
1. Infinite regress (... justification for the justification for the justification for p)
2. Circularity (p, ergo p)
3. Axiom (p)
All 3 are unsatisfactory (1 never ends; 2's fallacious; 3's exactly why logic was invented)
Responses from dogmatists.
1. Infinite regress [Infinitism]
2. Circularity [Coherentism]
3. Axiom [Foundationalism]
Can being the operative word.
Logic relies on value structures within language/mathematics for its appearance of certainty, in useful relation to the Cartesian assumption of positive quality in life experiences and knowledge - ie. consciousness.
Certainty exists as a relation between logic, energy and quality. It is necessarily inclusive of self, and so any statement made cannot be certain in itself, but only in ones positive and practical relation to its meaning - which is, at best, intersubjective.
Certainty is a scientific methodology, and can be seen as an attempt to limit philosophical discussion - to exclude, isolate or ignore. Whether the intention is to appear certain or to eliminate alternative perspectives, the result is to detract from the accuracy of understanding achieved by the discussion, which should be the aim of philosophy, I think.
Quoting Jack Cummins
[i]"The future's uncertain
And the end is always near"[/i]
~JDM
[i]"Only in uncertainty
are we naked
and alive"[/i]
~PG
I usually disagree with you, but this is right on! :smile:
No "back to the future" quotes... :down:
[quote=Tertullian]Certum est, quia impossibile.[/quote]
:lol:
Quoting 180 Proof
We have all met people who make certainty a way of life, sometimes very successfully. The fact that this is possible says something about the nature of the reality which we inhabit.
I don't look for certainty and place this notion alongside 'absolute truth' as a mythic construction. I generally look for reasonable confidence in my beliefs, based on the best I can do with what knowledge or experiences I have access to. Certainty, like truth, is not an immutable property but a convenient abstraction which seems to look different in different situations.
The only reality I can possibly know is the world as I perceive it at this moment. The only reality you can possibly know is the world as you see it at this moment. And the only certainty is that those perceived realities are different."
- Carl Rogers
Setting aside Roger's metaphysical assumptions about perception - I'm happy to take 'perceive' and 'see' as experience. :wink:
Quoting 180 Proof
It is true that psychological and epistemological uncertainty are different aspects for thinking about. The two can both be sources of stress but philosophy is more able to deal with the epistemological aspects, although it may give some underlying basis for contemplating the uncertainty and unpredictable nature of our own life. At times, people may see the experience of the uncertainty of daily life and the understanding of reality as a fused in a quagmire of confusion. However, in stripping down the basics of thinking it may be possible to disentangle the explanatory foundations for knowledge. This may be more of a possibility than trying to predict what will happen in life, even though a certain amount of logic may enable thinking about what may or may or not occur may be useful in a pragmatic way.
I wonder if it is certainly which people have, or a matter of faith. I am not dismissing the positives of certainty because I am sure we all rely on so much certainty or predictability. Understanding of causation and predictability are intrinsic to life on even the most mundane, common sense way. If there were no certainties it would be like sinking in a quagmire of complete confusion, with not even a hope of a lifeboat or any aid at all. It may be an ongoing battle between fear of chaos or faith, and hope.
To look for complete certainty may be too extreme. I remember as a child that I used to check what I was thinking before putting up my hand in class and I came to realise the absurdity of this even when I was 5. Endless struggling for certainty may be a waste of time and energy. It may be important to recognize uncertainty when it seems to be a genuine lack of knowing but, sometimes, it may be about going with intuitive logic rather than wavering unnecessarily.
Doubt against certainty can be a stumbling block in making decisions. I have certainly hesitated with so many 'what ifs' in making decisions. Action has to be taken to some extent, or being completely stuck, and once an act has taken place there is often the unknown of potential consequences and the angst which this may entail. Even then, sometimes the results, good and bad can be different from what was originally imagined in the original decision making process.
But could one be mistaken about the indubitable? Doubting is purely subjective, whereas the indubitable is objective. So wouldn't that foist a subjective property onto an objective entity. Unless the indubitable is just a representation.
:chin:
Quoting Pantagruel
I disagree. When there are publicly accessible grounds to doubt, doubting is not subjective and not to doubt is subjective.
It is possible to spend life in the sceptical aspects of philosophy questioning. As far as the uncertainties in life, in some cases it does become too much, especially when the existential aspects of philosophy become incorporated. This does seem true of many cases of neurosis and psychosis. I have seen people who experienced florid religious psychosis, often in response to stress and unhelpful ideas which they had grown up with.
For many of us, rather than philosophy questioning being a case of acute crisis it can be a life long exploration on an ongoing basis. As far as the uncertainties of life and decisions, often involving risks, some action has to be taken because life goes on at a certain pace and it is not possible to spend one's entire life agonizing over all the possible uncertainties because this life has to be lived in the here and now rather than postponed until all the philosophical possibilities are explored. So, it may involve mistakes and it may be the mistakes made which involve the strongest lessons in life.
Ati sundar (most beautiful) mon ami, ati sundar. Like I once said, @Jack Cummins, human history seems to be about the misses, not the hits.