This is a very interesting idea, and I think it's a useful framework for a lot of people. I think we agree on a lot, but here is where we diverge just a little: "Although we will never reach this ideal, what we are pursuing is a system of beliefs which can incorporate the whole of reality and still make sense."
I think we agree that no system of beliefs will ever incorporate all of reality, but I don't think any set of beliefs ever could, and I don't think that should be our aim. Undergirding this process there seems to be an implicit assumption that there is a capital T metaphysical true reality. I happen to believe that, but I think that we only arrive at it incidentally, individually. The truth is something we arrive at through inquiry, individually and in groups, by finding solutions to problems, because of our technical, ethical, and moral needs. I guess you could say when it comes to philosophy I am more of a Pragmatist, in that my view is beliefs and ideas are tools we use to navigate the world rather than a reflection of it.
Other than this pedantic (but nonetheless tectonic) distinction, I think we agree. Anyone who reads this essay would be immensely benefited by going through with this exercise. I actually used to teach a writing course where I had people start with something called "the worldview exercise," where they'd write as many statements as they could in the format of:
- "Every 'noun' should/shouldn't 'verb.'" with a focus on the nouns being a type of person.
(For example, "Every college student should study abroad at least once." "Everyone with aging parents should interview them on video." "Everyone with the power to vote should, even in protest.") I believe I adapted it from a book I read many years ago by Jeff Goins but I don't remember now. Then they circled the top five they felt most strongly about, then got into breakout groups with two other people and talked them out. It was great fun.
Thanks for the kind words, Charlie! And that writing exercise sounds awesome - I would love to do that sort of thing.
Thanks for the pushback as well. I guess my main question would be: If you think beliefs and ideas are not actually a reflection of reality, then why do you think they are useful as tools to navigate the world? What makes them work, if not their correspondence to reality?
Awesome article. I think there's a ton of overlap between this approach and the epistemological approach of the American Pragmatists. Do you broadly agree with the Pragmatic approach and what do you think the differences are between your approach and theirs? Here's a link where I discuss the benefits of the Pragmatic approach vs the Cartesian approach:
As you say, an ambitious essay, but perhaps one that will resonate more with the ordinary person than a philosophy academic. However, it appears suspiciously like the presuppositional approach of Van Til and Schaeffer (referring to He is There and He is not Silent), which is similar to one approach of the scientific method. That is
1. Propose a model (presuppose it is true)
2. Check how well the model fits with the real world (lets do some experiments)
3. Identify gaps and decide whether to discard or refine the model
4. Propose a new or refined model and repeat
I would argue most people use this approach subconsciously, in isolation (not seeking a model that applies to every area of life) and when it's convenient to rationalise their otherwise preferred beliefs. They are thrown into crisis when the model doesn't help when some new phenomenon occurs - eg the death of a loved one. But their preferred beliefs are more driven by right brain thinking than left. People are boldly led by their heart, and rational arguments trail behind attempting to tidy up and make sense of the train of resulting debris.
I spent a good part of my life presenting arguments to business leaders around the world, successfully convincing them to commit millions of dollars to a project. But I would always try to grab their heart first, perhaps with a heart felt story, before laying out the rational arguments.
As an engineer, scientist, writer, poet and artist I use the same method above in all domains. I see a unity across the whole, even if there are many "truth gaps" that remain to be filled. But that unity only makes sense under the framework of an infinite personal God.
There is another model for truth that starts with God being "truth", and God also being a person - eg as a properly basic starting point. This means that truth is a person we can know. We get to know a person by relationship with them, and we may know them very well (like we know our spouse) without ever knowing them completely. In the same way, there is always more to learn about the truth of any matter, and being finite creatures, we can never know it all. But we can know enough to have a functional and purposeful knowledge of truth, whether that's truth about a butterfly, a black hole, or why our spouse needs that pair of red shoes in a shop window.
Thanks for these thoughts Ian, and sorry I missed them! I just reshared this post and realised I hadn't seen your comment initially.
I haven't read any Schaeffer or Van Til yet, though both are on my bucket list (I'm a slow reader ☹️). But a lot of what you've said really resonates with my experience/perspective as well.
Your observation about people typically making decisions with their hearts first is probably right I think. But it's interesting to compare that with a common observation that a lot of *academia* and especially Western philosophy, and several other major domains in contemporary culture, are very left-brained.
in "Rumours of a Better Country" Marsh Moyle of the UK L'Abri argues that we reason with our heads but its our hearts that motivate us to action. I think that's often true of human nature. Another way to think about it is if we are trying to batter down the gates of a castle, the rams pointy end is the reasoned argument, but its massive bulk is the "weight" of emotional content that carries it through and wins.
This is a very interesting idea, and I think it's a useful framework for a lot of people. I think we agree on a lot, but here is where we diverge just a little: "Although we will never reach this ideal, what we are pursuing is a system of beliefs which can incorporate the whole of reality and still make sense."
I think we agree that no system of beliefs will ever incorporate all of reality, but I don't think any set of beliefs ever could, and I don't think that should be our aim. Undergirding this process there seems to be an implicit assumption that there is a capital T metaphysical true reality. I happen to believe that, but I think that we only arrive at it incidentally, individually. The truth is something we arrive at through inquiry, individually and in groups, by finding solutions to problems, because of our technical, ethical, and moral needs. I guess you could say when it comes to philosophy I am more of a Pragmatist, in that my view is beliefs and ideas are tools we use to navigate the world rather than a reflection of it.
Other than this pedantic (but nonetheless tectonic) distinction, I think we agree. Anyone who reads this essay would be immensely benefited by going through with this exercise. I actually used to teach a writing course where I had people start with something called "the worldview exercise," where they'd write as many statements as they could in the format of:
- "Every 'noun' should/shouldn't 'verb.'" with a focus on the nouns being a type of person.
(For example, "Every college student should study abroad at least once." "Everyone with aging parents should interview them on video." "Everyone with the power to vote should, even in protest.") I believe I adapted it from a book I read many years ago by Jeff Goins but I don't remember now. Then they circled the top five they felt most strongly about, then got into breakout groups with two other people and talked them out. It was great fun.
Thanks for the kind words, Charlie! And that writing exercise sounds awesome - I would love to do that sort of thing.
Thanks for the pushback as well. I guess my main question would be: If you think beliefs and ideas are not actually a reflection of reality, then why do you think they are useful as tools to navigate the world? What makes them work, if not their correspondence to reality?
Awesome article. I think there's a ton of overlap between this approach and the epistemological approach of the American Pragmatists. Do you broadly agree with the Pragmatic approach and what do you think the differences are between your approach and theirs? Here's a link where I discuss the benefits of the Pragmatic approach vs the Cartesian approach:
https://open.substack.com/pub/travismonteleone/p/why-im-against-critical-thinking?r=1l2z5n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I'm eager to get to this, Travis, but haven't made time yet. Soon! Sorry mate
Hi Eliot,
As you say, an ambitious essay, but perhaps one that will resonate more with the ordinary person than a philosophy academic. However, it appears suspiciously like the presuppositional approach of Van Til and Schaeffer (referring to He is There and He is not Silent), which is similar to one approach of the scientific method. That is
1. Propose a model (presuppose it is true)
2. Check how well the model fits with the real world (lets do some experiments)
3. Identify gaps and decide whether to discard or refine the model
4. Propose a new or refined model and repeat
I would argue most people use this approach subconsciously, in isolation (not seeking a model that applies to every area of life) and when it's convenient to rationalise their otherwise preferred beliefs. They are thrown into crisis when the model doesn't help when some new phenomenon occurs - eg the death of a loved one. But their preferred beliefs are more driven by right brain thinking than left. People are boldly led by their heart, and rational arguments trail behind attempting to tidy up and make sense of the train of resulting debris.
I spent a good part of my life presenting arguments to business leaders around the world, successfully convincing them to commit millions of dollars to a project. But I would always try to grab their heart first, perhaps with a heart felt story, before laying out the rational arguments.
As an engineer, scientist, writer, poet and artist I use the same method above in all domains. I see a unity across the whole, even if there are many "truth gaps" that remain to be filled. But that unity only makes sense under the framework of an infinite personal God.
There is another model for truth that starts with God being "truth", and God also being a person - eg as a properly basic starting point. This means that truth is a person we can know. We get to know a person by relationship with them, and we may know them very well (like we know our spouse) without ever knowing them completely. In the same way, there is always more to learn about the truth of any matter, and being finite creatures, we can never know it all. But we can know enough to have a functional and purposeful knowledge of truth, whether that's truth about a butterfly, a black hole, or why our spouse needs that pair of red shoes in a shop window.
Thanks for these thoughts Ian, and sorry I missed them! I just reshared this post and realised I hadn't seen your comment initially.
I haven't read any Schaeffer or Van Til yet, though both are on my bucket list (I'm a slow reader ☹️). But a lot of what you've said really resonates with my experience/perspective as well.
Your observation about people typically making decisions with their hearts first is probably right I think. But it's interesting to compare that with a common observation that a lot of *academia* and especially Western philosophy, and several other major domains in contemporary culture, are very left-brained.
in "Rumours of a Better Country" Marsh Moyle of the UK L'Abri argues that we reason with our heads but its our hearts that motivate us to action. I think that's often true of human nature. Another way to think about it is if we are trying to batter down the gates of a castle, the rams pointy end is the reasoned argument, but its massive bulk is the "weight" of emotional content that carries it through and wins.
That's an exciting image. Lewis wrote about something similar, and I think he saw storytelling as a way to "lower people's defences" a little.