First Principles
A reader asks, regarding my last post: “Now, I’m no particular fan of deconstructionism, but part of your condemnation bothers me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to imply that we should never apply skepticism to first principles (or at least some subset of them). What justification do you have for this?”
Sorry, but no. I did not imply that one cannot apply skepticism to first principles.
First principles are statements which must be true because they cannot rationally be false. They cannot be investigated by rational deduction, because rational deduction presupposes them. They can be questioned, if at all, by induction, by seeing where and how they fit into the scheme of things. Something that purports to be a first principle, upon skeptical examination, might turn out not to be.
Here is the procedure. Apply skepticism to first principles. See if a manifest absurdity results. If is does, accept the first principle as confirmed. If it does not, draw out the logical implications of the universe that would exist were that first principle not the case. If that universe matches the universe, (including the part of the universe where rational ideas live) the first principle is no longer a first principle.
The first principle of objective truth:
First Principle — Truth exists.
Contrary statement — truth does not exist. No truth is true.
Absurdity — the statement that “no truth is true” if true, is false.
Conclusion — the idea of objective truth is inescapable, since we cannot articulate a logical conclusion without this principle.The principle of self-existence
First Principle — A is A. A thing is what it itself is.
Contrary Statement — A is not A.
Absurdity — If A is not A then that we can substitute any statement for the letter A. Let us substitute the statement “A is not A”.
If statement “A is not A” = statement not-A “A is A”.
Therefore the statement proves it own contradiction. If the statement is true, it is false. This reduces to the first case, the principle of truth.The principle of Free Will
First Principle — I make decisions.
Contrary — I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot.
Absurdity — if I make no decisions, I did not decide to believe the statement “I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot.” If I did not decide to believe it, I did not decide to believe it on the basis of the fact that it is true. I cannot judge it to be true or false, because judgment is a type of decision. I cannot judge any statement to be true or false. Since I cannot judge any statement to be true or false, there is no truth. This reduces to the first case, etc.The principle of Honesty
First Principle — I ought to be honest
Contrary — I ought not be honest
Absurdity — If I ought not be honest, then I need not honestly address, or think about, even this question: whether I should be honest or not. I cannot trust even my own thoughts (if I am not being honest with my conclusions) and cannot conclude that any conclusion is true. Since I cannot judge any conclusion to be true or false, there is no truth. This reduces to the first case, etc.
This is not what the moderns do. Their procedure is something like this: Apply skepticism to first principles. See if a manifest absurdity results. If it does, ignore the absurdity and reject the first principle. Announce this as a bold discovery. Marx concludes that there is no truth, merely the ideological superstructure (i.e. the excuses and rationalizations) of men conditioned by the means of production around them to support their selfish class interests. The Nazis, with equal absurdity, assert that there is no logic; that the principles of reasoning differ from race to race, and are genetically determined. The Determinists conclude that there is no free will. The Moral Relativists conclude that there is no moral rule saying we ought to be honest.
Oddly enough, the only people out there in the world giving a philosophical and metaphysical reason for believing in truth, logic, free will, and morality are the zany atheist Objectivists and their diametric opposites, the zany theist Christians.
ADDED LATER: I talk often about the Four Causes of Aristotle, and I think my comments are nigh-incomprehensible without an understanding of what these Causes are. Here is a sum-up I found on the web: http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/4causes.htm
We post-Hume fellows tend only to think of efficient (also called mechanical) cause, and never to talk about the other three. This leads to perilous confusion.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
