Contemplating superficiality, identifying examples of it, and pinpointing just what distinguishes shallowness from depth are themselves very deep things that any philosophical awareness is incomplete without. To recognize logical truths about superficiality, superficial epistemology, and the refusal to go beyond the most basic ideas or truths is not shallow. Ultimately, identifying superficiality and the ways in which foundational, important, or precise truths and ideas (these are the three kinds of depth) can be approached in a shallow manner is about coming to or basking in the light of reason. This can be a very deep celebration of truth and the laws of logic that both ground it and reveal it to all willing thinkers. In fact, all intentional avoidance of assumptions has inherent depth because it is easier (in one sense, not that people cannot become so used to rationalistic thought that it becomes easy) and irrational to just make assumptions instead of reason out logical truths, refrain from believing things because of unexamined perceptions or preference, and identify mere assumptions.
In light of this, I want to (for the second time) explain the intention behind this statement of mine in a 2018 post [1]: "The only reason why many people regard talk about the basic nature of axioms as particularly deep is because it is generally rare to find people who engage in serious discussion about even the elementary aspects of reality . . . there is nothing incredibly deep about merely realizing or describing simple axioms, like how truth must exist because it would otherwise be true that truth does not exist." This would be false, and easily disproven, if I had meant that the epistemological self-evidence of logical axioms themselves or a person's awareness of them (or restructuring their worldview around them) is not especially deep, and it would also contradict everything else I know and have stated about the laws of logic. Many people do seem to find discussing or thinking about the most basic facts about logical axioms deep because they are not used to doing so, but this is a reflection of their own subjective experiences and not axioms themselves. As I have specified before, this is not what I was conveying with the aforementioned words from years ago.
I will again clarify that I only meant that a person who barely recognizes the epistemological self-evidence of logical axioms and stops there or does not understand that their self-verifying nature is the core of everything is not particularly deep. Both a person who directly, intentionally recognizes the basic but all-encompassing truth of logical axioms and the axioms themselves (not even their full ramifications) are in any way shallow. No one has to discover the more esoteric logical truths that go beyond the mere starting point--including some of the more explicitly metaphysical truths about how logic transcends all but itself by existing by necessity even if all other things were removed from existence--to be an immensely deep, rational philosopher. The basic concepts of some aspects of reality or least perceptions of reality (like chemistry) are not intellectually deep or philosophically vital, but the basic self-evidence of logical axioms underpins all things, from the most familiar things to the most unfamiliar, mundane, subjectively exciting, trivial, practical, or abstract.
There is nothing deep in and of itself, in the sense of being utterly foundational, epistemologically or metaphysically vital, or even precise to the point of demonstrating general philosophical aptitude, in many subjects that commonly dominate public and corporate interests. Subjective fascination with something as trivial on its own as this can still be deep, and understanding and acceptance of the logical fact that things like this are unimportant by themselves brings a depth behind even thinking about the less important aspects of life or perceptions. Reflecting on and seeking out information (unprovable information, but information nonetheless) about some less central aspect of history or a scientific model-- with history and science already being far less central to philosophy and reality than logic and consciousness--can be deep if it is done with the truths of rationalism in mind. Motivations and the ideological context of a reflection can make a huge difference in imparting depth to ideas or the contemplation of ideas that are not significant, but only subjectively useful or appealing.
The deepest possible part of reality regardless of how a person subjectively approaches it in the sense of being supremely foundational, though, is the self-evident, necessary veracity of logical axioms (and one's own existence alongside this awareness). The deepest possible part of reality in the sense of specificity is related to how logical axioms and logical truths are not just epistemological methods, psychological constructs, or true because of things other than themselves; there is nothing but the laws of logic that exists by inherent necessity as a metaphysical thing that would persist if all else hypothetically ceased to exist. All deep truths about everything else, from the epistemological inadequacies of scientific methodology to the existence of an uncaused cause to the nature of values, are rooted in and revealed by the laws of logic--logic and even a beginner's earnest recognition of logical axioms could therefore not possibly be shallow. The only shallow ways to approach reason are to misunderstand, ignore, or trivialize it, and this is only a lack of depth on the part of non-rationalists, not a lack of depth in reason and knowledge of reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment