Three Epistemic Options and Garden State
In my last post, I tried to outline how the need for certainty leads us to believe we cannot know anything at all. The bar many of us set for truth is so high nothing seems to be able to pass it. Sometimes it seems reason leads us to believe there is no reason (in the old model’s definition). So what the heck do we do with this?
We really only have three options. We can stay in the old model. We can admit that nothing can be known (what I call epistemic nihilism). Or we can scrape the old model and save knowledge.
The first option is the one I held to up until a few months ago. We can continue to defend proofs for the self’s existence and God’s existence. I went so far as to constantly defend Aquinas’ Five Ways and Anselm’s Ontological Argument. But this seems to be dishonest because they do not stand up to the level demanded for truth by the old model. Continuing to affirm that certainty is possible is not possible. Maybe people living under the old model have not critically looked at their epistemology. For If knowledge must be infallibly, necessary, and universal “we end up having to say that we know precious little” (Meek, Longing to Know).
The second option can be called epistemic nihilism. Post-modernism is just one form of this. It is a radical skepticism (and it is not new). Post-modernism is rightly criticized for its subjectivism and ethical relativism, but this seems to be the logical outcome of an attempt at certainty. If nothing can pass the bar of “absolute truth,” and knowledge must be infallible to be knowledge, then the belief that there is no truth follows.
One does not have to look far in our culture to find epistemic nihilism. Much of art is dedicated to the attempt to find meaning when we can know nothing. One of my favorite movies on the issue is Garden State. In it no one has “the answers.” There is no certainty. Dr. Conan, a neurologist, with all his degrees begins by saying “how should I know?” and ends with “I am in no position to comment, but if you want my opinion…” There is no certainty, only opinions, and therefore no real knowledge. But if we cannot know anything how can there be meaning? We must make an illogical jump from epistemic nihilism to the belief that life has meaning.
However, I will vive for another option. When I realized my need for certainty lead to epistemic nihilism I saw a problem. I had used reason to conclude that reason (that is autonomous reason, with knowledge defined as infallible) was undependable. My conclusion negated my premises. Furthermore, radical skepticism doesn’t seem to sit right. There must be some kind meaning. Zack Braff’s character at one point says, “its like you’re homesick for a place that doesn’t even exist.” Meaning seems to be hardwired into our very existence. But such meaning requires there to be some knowledge. So we have to scrape the need for certainty. We have to redefine truth and knowledge.
Recommended Reading:
Worldview: The History of a Concept by David Naugle
-If you want to look into what the “old model” really is
Longing to Know: The Philosophy of Knowledge for Ordinary People by Esther Meek
-Inspiration for this and my last post
-Proposes a new look at knowledge, I will be writing on this in future posts
Posts
Well said, though I’m going to call issue to “epistemic nihilism.”
I’m not a philosophy expert, and this is is probably devolving into a horrid discussion about semantics: I do believe your Latin is right, but epistemic and nihilism don’t quite blend.
Nihilism applies more to ethics and morality while epistemology speaks more to the subject of knowledge and facts. Nihilism is not generally related to epistemology. Falliblism and skepticism deal more with facts and knowledge.
And I’m also going to say that post-modernism as a nihilistic epoch is an assertion made more by the Christian and theologian community than the community at large. That is, the jury is still out from those who don’t view nihilism as leading to a representation of the rejection of God.
It’s frustrating even to me to mince words, but I identify as a nihilistic agnostic (ha!), and, despite what people expect from that, I have little to no anomie about it. So I’m a tad defensive.
Kyle-
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you, I should have thought about a response a week ago. You’re right about the definitions of “nihilism” and “epistemology” from the latin. Nihilism meaning nothing, and epistemology meaning the study of knowledge, and you are also right that they normally do not go together. I used them in conjunction with one another because I needed a word that meant “the stance that there is no ability to know what is really real.”
Although this was not my point in the post, you are also right about how “the jury is still out from those who don’t view nihilsim as leading to a respresentation of the rejection of God.” I think that was the point of Nietzsche’s parable of “The Madman.”
My conclution on the second option: “We must make an illogical jump from epistemic nihilism to the belief that life has meaning” was meant to be a summary of existentialism.
I would also like to say that the epistemological arguments I am making are made by Christians and non-Christians alike. The “third option” is Coherence Theory. Many philosophers hold to this as oposed to Foundationalism.
Interestinly enough, many Christians have defended Foundationalism (the 1st option) and opposed Coherence Theory as “subjective.”
Uhhh…. Josh…. Anyway you could reword that in English? I have no idea what you are talking about, but it sounds important!
Hahaha…. Use small words so people like me can hear ya.
Kyle, if you are reading this, I am laughing that you used the term “post-modernism” without puking or hitting someone.
I would offer up the following as a definition of post-modernism (which is mostly a restatement of what you said, Josh):
It uses the scientific method and modernist thought to say that nothing can be proven. If nothing can be proven, then all truth is therefore subjective.
I wanted to offer that definition, because you (Josh) mentioned that post-modernism is criticized for being subjective. While I’m not offering an opinion on whether or not truth should be subjective, I would like to say that in my understanding, subjectivity is pretty much the POINT of post-modernism. I would argue that it isn’t possible to be post-modern without being subjective.
A further extapolation of the concept would be that if truth is subjective, we all have a hand in it. Truth is reduced (or expanded?) to a series of personal truths. What is true for me is not the same as what is true for you, but they are both true.
Now, any post-modernist would (probably) argue that just because they’re both true, there are still truths that are more true (ha!).
And those more true truths - drumroll please - are based on the “evidence.” And therein lies the crux of post-modern. It’s after-modern thought, but that doesn’t mean it denies anything contained within modern thought. It just relies on an implication that was already there.
For example, in literary theory, reader response criticism is a post-modern take on literature. It argues that each reader’s interpretation of the text is valid as a means of criticism. BUT the effectiveness of that criticism is usually judged by its citation of specific textual examples that support the interpretation posed by the reader. So, it’s still modern in that it relies on “evidence,” but it’s also subjective in that it relies on personal interpretation as a means of “knowing.”
Your comment, “But if we cannot know anything how can there be meaning?” is precisely the stance that deconstructionists (in literary terminology) take. I both love and hate it as a theory. Because basically, deconstructionists break apart a text, using its own “evidence” against it, to prove that it doesn’t have meaning. Or that it contradicts itself.
Which I think is the evidence people use against the Bible and virtually all forms of religion - that it contradicts itself.
I love it as an academic exercise, but in the end, I want the text to mean something. In the end, I want life to have meaning. Otherwise, what’s the point?
And so I think you’re right that we must make that illogical jump. Because I feel that - subjectively - if I want life to have meaning, then it does. It has meaning for me. And while there are a thousand or so analogies that could be used against my comment there, I can’t get past that internal feeling that meaning exists.
Danielle-
“Subjectivity is pretty much the POINT of post-modernism”
Yes!!!! I think your definition of post-modernism is dead on. Also, I was trying to outline the deconstudctionist stance with knowing and meaning. So I’m glad I got it right.
“I love it (deconstuctionism) as an academic exercise, but in the end, I want the text to mean something. In the end, I want life to have meaning. Otherwise, what’s the point?”
That’s what I came to as well, only in many ways I was o.k. with there being no meaning. However, I could not reconcile my ability to think and communicate with this stance. I still think there is some wieght to the theory though.
Meaning does seem to be inherently part of us as humans, doesn’t it? I think our subjective feeling that life has meaning does tell us there is meaning. The desire for meaning is a “natural desire.”