FROM SKEPTICISM TO BELIEF

By Vikram Pudi Having been motivated towards the path of knowledge, in this chapter, we shall address the question of whether it is correct to believe in anything at all. In the following section, we shall see why such a question might arise in the first place.

Views of Reality
People are usually certain of many things in their daily lives, and thereby carry out their work normally. But eventually they see defects in their beliefs and realise that some of their implicit assumptions are at fault. The process that leads to such a realisation can be quite painful, depending upon the strength of the belief that is being uprooted. At some stage it may even become possible to conclude that one must not believe in anything for certain, and that all belief is only a practical aid to lead a happy life. Whatever a person thinks of as real, that is a view of reality. There being scope for alternate viewpoints, further analysis is required. Think of any particular view. For instance, perceive the objects around you and feel that they are real. Our inherent notion is that there is something there which is real. What we see of that reality is our view. Different people may have different views of the same thing depending on their background. Our view might be an accurate depiction of what is actually real or it might not. We realise that our view of reality changes whenever we make some new observations or forget (or ignore) old ones. Having become accustomed to this phenomenon, we obtain the doubt whether there is any sense in regarding particular views as right or wrong. Is it that some views of reality are correct and some wrong? While at first the answer to this question may obviously seem to be yes, the argument of the following section forces us to consider the question more carefully.

The Pessimistic Argument

Every viewpoint has certain prerequisites. Whenever those prerequisites are satisfied, that viewpoint appears to be obviously true. The prerequisites may sometimes be very stringent and difficult to attain. Sometimes one may be required to ignore certain preconceived notions of reality, in order to see that viewpoint. Having thus ignored and forgotten everything that opposes that viewpoint, will it not naturally stand out as being real? It will. Hence it is possible for any viewpoint to appear real, and for any viewpoint there will be several others which support it. Then how can any one dismiss any particular viewpoint as being wrong, and on what basis? If there is any basis for such a dismissal, it must be merely another viewpoint that can be entertained by the disbeliever. Every alternative viewpoint can be replaced by its alternatives. Any basis of arguing for or against an alternative is also a viewpoint that can have its alternatives. Hence it is not possible to declare for certain that some particular views of reality are correct and some wrong.

This argument and its variants are what we refer to as the pessimistic argument. While it appears to be very strong, yet it is beatable. For when we realise that it is also a viewpoint, it contradicts itself. Let us dissect various interpretations that a proponent of the above theory may raise.

Interpretations of the Pessimistic Argument 1. Logical Interpretation

It is not true that some views are correct and some wrong. In this interpretation, the words true and correct are synonymous. Two different words have been used only for convenience. Hence it implies It is not true that some views are true. Then considering this itself as a view, it also cannot be true. Hence it contradicts itself.

2. Immorality and Impossibility

It is incorrect to declare that some views are correct and some wrong. meaning either that it is immoral to do so or impossible to do so. Either interpretation is defective. If one takes the immoral interpretation, then, is it not that the statement is preaching us something that it itself does not follow? If it has thus lost its sanctity by doing something it talks of as immoral, then how can it have the face to preach us that, and how are we to trust it? The impossibility interpretation is similarly dealt with, as the statement is caught in the act of doing something it claims to be impossible.

3. Certainty
It is impossible to declare any view as correct or wrong with certainty. This is a minor variation and introduces the notion of with certainty. It tries to defeat us by raising doubts in us that we could be wrong after all. How can we say anything with certainty? etc. This version is defeated again by realising that it is also a view. How can it declare to us itself with certainty? If it does so, it contradicts itself. And if it doesnt declare its view with certainty, then it certainly doesnt tell us anything concrete and substantial. Hence we would merely be wasting our precious time and effort in lamenting over what it says. Verily, if it doesnt tell us something definite, it cannot be a statement of fact. At best it can merely be a tentative hypothesis until a correct view that we can be certain of comes into our field of observation. And even in this, we realise that we have a choice of whether to entertain it as a tentative hypothesis or give it up altogether as a contraption designed to trap those who are weak in intellect and are satisfied and frightened by indefinite claims. It will be falsified anyway when we come across a correct view. Hence why should we keep it as a tentative hypothesis until then?

4. Pessimistic Argument Proves Itself

Since we cannot believe the pessimistic statement with certainty, it applies to itself also. The fact that the pessimistic statement applies to itself doesnt prove anything. There is an alternative (optimistic) statement, which also applies to itself We can believe in something

with certainty. If we believe in that with certainty, t hen it stands as its own witness. Hence the fact that a statement applies to itself doesnt prove that it is true. By other means, however, the pessimistic statement has been proved false. It is false, as it claims with certainty that nothing can be claimed with certainty. If its claim about itself is not certain, then it can only be a hypothesis, until we know something with certainty. Then, the hypothesis will automatically be proved false. So it is useless to keep it as a tentative hypothesis until then.

5. Pessimists Claim for Correctness

Except for this view (being correct), it is not true that some (other) views are correct and some wrong. A view that declares itself to be correct is similar to a person who declares himself to be correct. We find that both truthful persons and liars are capable of declaring themselves to be correct and hence we ought not to be fooled by such claims. We must analyse a view by its content only and not by its claims about itself. We have no way to decide based on such claims alone whether the statement is true or whether it is a lie. Hence such claims being redundant, we shall henceforth disallow such claims from being made in our subsequent discussions.

6. Pessimists Claim for Supremacy

The fact that no belief can be certain is not a view. It is above all views. This argument is also like the one that claims its own correctness. The claim for supremacy is merely a claim and does not have any basis upon which we can decide whether it is true or false. Further, if something has an alternative view, then that something must also be a view (which can be replaced by either knowledge or forgetfulness by the alternative). We see that the pessimistic statement does have alternatives, for there are innumerable viewpoints according to which somethings are correct and somethings wrong. Also the pessimistic statement is incapable of defending itself against these viewpoints since by its definition, it cannot declare its alternative viewpoints to be wrong.

7. Is there an Absolute Truth?

It could be that there is no absolute truth. If there were nothing absolutely true, then this fact (that nothing is absolutely true) would be the absolute truth. Hence an absolute truth would exist anyway. This being a contradiction further proves that some positive entity must exist. That is, it cannot be that there is no absolute truth.

8. Is Truth Knowable by Us?

Perhaps we cannot know any absolute truths. To prove this wrong, we only need to consider the following form of the pessimistic argument: Is it that all views (or notions or concepts) which I can have are unreliable? Ask yourself this question. The possible answers are

1. no 2. may be You cannot answer yes for if you do, then from the meaning of the pessimistic question above you cannot have a definite answer. But yes being a definite answer, you must be lying. Hence your honest answer must actually be one of the two alternatives above. Similarly, if you consider the optimistic question: Is there any view (or notion or concept) which I can have that is reliable?, then your answers can either be yes or may be. But may be only indicates that you do not yet know the answer. It is not the actual answer. It is just that you have not yet been able to make up your mind. The actual answer can only be yes or no since the questions are crisp and unambiguous. The correct answer doesnt depend upon whether you know it or not. It already exists and we are merely trying to find it. Hence if we remove the may be options from above, then we are left with the indubitable realisation that the answers to the pessimistic and optimistic questions are no and yes respectively.

9. Is Certainty of Truth Necessary?

It is possible to live without believing anything for certain. To this we agree. But it cannot be concluded from this that it is not possible to be certain about anything valid. Nor can it be concluded that it is better to live without believing in anything for certain. The proponent of this pessimistic statement cannot conclude anything (from this pessimistic statement).

Why not Ignore Defects?

The pessimist may object that our arguments look at the pessimistic view from a second persons perspective. If we allow the view to come upon us, instead of looking upon it as another object, then it cannot be refuted. To this we reply Any imaginable view can be allowed to come upon us, but that cannot justify all of them to be true. To whatever extent one feels some particular view to be right, to that extent its alternatives will appear wrong. It is only by cheating (i.e. by rapidly shifting between the correctness of a view and its alternatives) can one think that all of them are right. It is quite possible that in such a state of confusion, one loses the ability to discriminate between what is true and what is false. But that is no reason to confuse others and no reason for others to be confused. Since we cannot prove the truth or falsity of the pessimistic view by assuming it upon ourselves, is it not appropriate that we should observe its defects from a second persons perspective? Defects are visible only when they are not (or cannot be) ignored. Does this imply that defects are actually not there? Whether one looks at this from the pessimistic viewpoint or otherwise, there is no basis for such a deduction. When the optimistic argument is made explicit and seen from a pessimistic viewpoint, it appears wrong. Similarly when the pessimist argument is made explicit and seen from an optimistic viewpoint, it appears wrong. Because of these two observations, if we attempt to reconcile them by saying that neither is correct or wrong then that is no reconciliation. It is gross injustice for we are holding on to the pessimistic viewpoint.

The truth of the two arguments becomes visible only when each is turned upon itself. When the pessimistic argument is made explicit and seen from a pessimistic viewpoint, it destroys itself. On the other hand, the optimistic argument does not. Perhaps those who neither speak, think nor feel anything can be justified if they never consider the notion of right and wrong. But even they ought not to feel that nothing is right or wrong because they would then be wrong. The moment a statement is uttered or thought of, the notion of right or wrong is present. Therefore to think that nothing is right or wrong is to fool oneself. Such a statement or thought is always wrong.

Benefit of Doubt
The pessimist complains: Doubt has always led to progress, so far. There is no harm in doubting all beliefs. No progress can be attributed to premature doubting. After one has become familiar with any subject, one naturally becomes sensitive to defects in it. Sometimes defects may be visible subconsciously and this manifests as a doubt, which must then be made explicit for further progress. Hence premature doubting is neither the only method, nor is it an efficient method for progress. It is not necessary to explicitly strengthen ones ability to doubt. Explicit efforts must be made only to become familiar with the subject in question. It is clear that if truth is ever known with certainty, there cannot be any further doubts about it. Hence, as long as there are doubts, truth has not been known with certainty. If one holds on to the religion of premature doubt, then surely truth cannot be known with certainty. Neither certain knowledge nor untainted happiness is possible in this. If someone wishes to maintain a perpetual doubt about everything (perhaps to be on the safe side), then let it be that way. But let such a person never conclude that it is right to maintain such a perpetual doubt. Even that should be doubted.

Fault of Logic
The pessimists last try You have used some logic in your arguments. Can you prove your logic itself to be correct? This question can be asked blindly for any claim whatsoever, even for any claim made by the pessimist. The presence of the question itself does not prove anything. Hence no one ought to feel victorious over its presence. If the question has been asked with utter sincerity, then it is very unlikely that anything we say here will be fruitful. However, we give our last try. By asking the above question, you wish to know whether the logic itself is correct or not. You have only two alternatives in mind either believe in it with certainty, or not believe in it with certainty. You may say that you neither believe it nor disbelieve it. But that is equivalent to not believing in it with certainty. By your very efforts to be away from certain belief, you certainly know what it is. Because you know with certainty what you are trying to doubt here, you have disproved the pessimistic statement. This is logic. You know that there are only two options here certain belief and not certain belief. If there is anything other than these two, such as things wholly unrelated to this or things currently unknown to us, you could easily put it in the class It is not the certain belief being referred to here. Hence it suffices to have only two classes certain belief and not certain belief.

You may think that by maintaining a state of doubt, you are achieving a compromise between the two alternatives. But this is not the case here since the alternatives are to doubt or to believe with certainty that there is something to be certain of. As long as you doubt, you are on one side. When you completely believe, you are on the other side. No compromise is possible here by doubt. When we reason such things as in the previous paragraphs, in the privacy of our own minds, we know that it is undoubtedly correct. But after this we may remember times when our most certain knowledge was proved wrong. Hence we impose the defects of previous mistakes upon this also, and think that even this may be wrong. Some may say that because we need to ignore the possibility of error in this case, we can also ignore the defects of the pessimistic argument. This is not valid. Here the defects of previous mistakes are being imposed, and we only ask that this should be avoided. In the pessimistic argument, its inherent defects were ignored. There is a clear difference here, which cannot be denied. If one still asks whether one can properly be certain of anything valid, either they wish to doubt or the doubt is sincere. For those who wish to doubt, this treatise is not for them. Either you must maintain the wish to know truth or the wish to doubt, not both. Doubt about something and certain knowledge of it cannot coexist. For those whose doubt is sincere, let them become familiar with these arguments and contemplate upon them. Think them firsthand, instead of thinking of them as though someone else is telling them to you. Your doubt can only be because you are holding on to the pessimistic view and imposing previous defects on these arguments. Think the arguments from the optimistic viewpoint instead. Then you will clearly see the truth in them.

Fault of the Pessimistic Argument

Looking back upon our discussion, we see that we have argued against a seemingly unbeatable argument. What deductions then were wrong in arriving at the pessimistic viewpoint? This we must analyse carefully if we are to really know the truth behind the arguments. The pessimistic argument is based on the observation that we have not yet come across any trustworthy source of knowledge so far. What is there that we can trust? Even our eyes, ears and other senses fool us sometimes. So how can we believe them? If we cannot even trust the knowledge gained from our senses, what else is there? We do not know yet. The pessimistic argument is wrong because it then assumes that we can never know. Just because one has not come across a trust-worthy source of knowledge so far, one cannot generalise that there is no such source. If one makes such a conclusion, then where is the trust-worthy source of knowledge, upon which basis, such a conclusion was made? Is the mere fact that it has happened like that so far, a trust-worthy source of knowledge? If it is, then even knowledge such as The Sun rises in the east also ought to be true, and hence the pessimistic statement will be falsified anyway.

Summary
You cant say, I cant know anything for then you know that. You can either know something or not know anything. Hence you can know.

You cant say, I cant know anything that is true. If you say that, then even that knowledge would be false. You can either know something that is true or not know anything that is true. Hence you can know something that is true. If you dont say anything, then it doesnt mean that you have proved any of this to be wrong. You have a freedom to remain silent. If you have a doubt whether this logic is valid, it still doesnt mean that you have proved any of this to be wrong. You have a freedom to doubt. You have a freedom to know or not to know. Choose to know

and rejoice! One line summary: You cannot prove that you cannot prove!