is_the_unexamined_life_not_worth_living.html
“The honest philosopher seeks only the Truth, even if it bears no comfort; and he must begin by assuming, as Socrates said, that all he knows is that he knows nothing.”
This is a quote from a fictional ancient Greek philosopher Straton of Stageira, from the game The Talos Principle. The part I want to focus on specifically is the “even if it bears no comfort.” I have been thinking about this a bit, whether directly or indirectly in relation to this quote specifically. I’d want to bring up two more quotes from the Talos Principle here.
“I was in school when i first read about the Talos Principle. I think it disturbed me at the time, made me hyper aware of... my body as a physical object, the material reality of the brain. Ideas that made me uncomfortable at first but, I think in the long run it helped me understand how frail human beings are. And how precious. It's not a comforting way of thinking about the world, but I'd rather face the truth than lie to myself.”
This is a quote from Alexandra Drennan, one of the main characters that we learn about in the game.
For context, here’s a part of the Talos Principle that she’s talking about.
“If, then, a machine may have all the properties of a man, and act as a man while driven only by the ingenious plan of its construction and the interaction of its materials according to the principles of nature, then does it not follow that man may also be seen as a machine? This contradicts all the schools of metaphysics, yet even the most faithful philosopher cannot live without his blood.”
See, I’m not sure whether I agree with Alexandra and Straton here. On the idea that one should seek philosophical truth even if it bears no comfort. Well, I suppose perhaps I could agree with Straton that “the honest philosopher seeks only the Truth”, however I would question then whether it is good to be an “honest philosopher.”
People often tell me that I’m a contrarian, or that I like to play devil’s advocate. Or that I simply like to argue with others. What they seem to fail to realize, despite me repeatedly telling them, is that, no, I do not argue with people simply for the sake of arguing, and I do not argue for things I don’t agree with (at least usually I don’t, as there is some utility in playing devil’s advocate in some occasions.)
However I do indeed argue (I’d rather say “discuss”... Semantics) with others quite frequently. The reason for that is, I’d like to say, quite often, that I want to find out the Truth. Indeed, I would argue that I try to be the honest philosopher, and seek the truth. I could even say that I do this in spite of the discomfort that arguments may cause in various ways. See, I doubt myself a lot. I feel I don’t hold that many strong beliefs, I try to be careful with them, and sometimes I doubt to an extent even my strongest beliefs. And that’s not very comforting in and of itself. It causes a kind of cognitive dissonance, I think.
But I have been thinking recently. These philosophical problems, about free will and morality and epistemology and all the other important stuff. I’m not sure my conclusions about them ever really bring any good. In other words, what’s the point of looking for Truth? Alexandra Drennan says, about the Talos Principle, that knowledge of it helped her in the long run. Even if that is the case, can that be said about every philosophical idea or conclusion? Or are there philosophical conclusions, philosophical Truths, that are simply uncomfortable, that simply make your life worse… And will never be able to offer anything, other than this Truth, in return?
There’s another thing that makes this even worse I think. I’m going to bring up another quote from Straton, this one actually coming from The Talos Principle 2 (Sequel to the Talos Principle.)
“To us who have only just begun this journey of philosophy, the world may seem like a mystery that can never be solved. A great deal has been written since the days of the Seven Sages, but how much of it is truth, and how much idle speculation? I have offended many by saying that most philosophy will, as the centuries pass, be discarded as foolishness and superstition, but it is a truth only philosophers fail to see. And yet we cannot abandon reason and conclude that we cannot know anything. Rather we must accept that the journey towards understanding will be long, and our task is to build a foundation for those who will one day arrive at its destination.”
See, this statement is meant to be… Optimistic, ultimately, I think. I think it is meant to say that, even if our philosophical conclusions may not be true, then they will still bring us closer to the truth, by “building a foundation” for the people studying these problems in the future. However I’m not sure if I’d agree with this sentiment. Yes, I suppose, this could be said to be true for many philosophies. Socrates, Aristotle, we may nowadays consider their philosophies as greatly flawed in many aspects, however it is without a doubt that parts of their work still echo in today’s philosophy and that without them, or someone with similar ideas as theirs, we might not be where we are today.
However it seems to me, especially nowadays, that there are many, many philosophical ideas that are, essentially, useless. One reason may be, for example, that they simply have been brought up and perhaps even successfuly argued against before already, but due to the mass of philosophical works that exist today, one may not have heard about this one in particular before. Some ideas may also simply be flawed in some way that the person thinking it up didn’t notice, but which make it utterly useless as a result, having only perhaps the utility of being a “Here’s what not do.” Moreover, for someone like me, who merely thinks and maybe sometimes engages with philosophy through consumption, it seems that these considerations I have will never really be of any use to… Well, anyone. Because unless, like in the Talos Principle (spoilers btw, skip to next paragraph if you care about that), the entire internet is scraped for files to be put into a giant archive database, so that a new civilisation of sentient AIs may learn from it after humanity goes extinct, barely anyone will even read them.
And so here, I think, is the most crushing thing about all this I think. That these philosophical conclusions that cause me discomfort in some way might not even be correct. That they might not even have the value of Truth. That they might be a complete and utter force of destruction upon me. And that’s not even really unlikely, like I stated before, I only sometimes consume philosophical ideas or texts, like, from “actual” philosophers you know. Or even from people who seem to know a little about what they’re talking about in general. I don’t really like reading, and in general, this all really takes a lot of effort, I think.
Perhaps I should just leave philosophy to the philosophers. The question is – would I ever be able to?