I picked up Christopher from work. As soon as he got into the car, he asked me - as he always does - a philosophical question.
“Dad, what is the way to Truth?”
“What do you mean?” I asked
“Well, I’m not asking for the nature of truth,” Chris explained, “How does one deal with truth? I mean, how does one stay on the right path?”
“You’re asking for a certain way of finding the truth? An approach? A method?” I asked.
“Yeah, you can say that. Dad, you mentioned phenomenology the other day. What is it?”
It takes about 10 minutes from his work place to arrive home. How do you explain phenomenology in 10 minutes or less?
“Well, phenomenology is a method of understanding the essence of things, that is, the meaning for being what they are. Everyone has biases and prejudices, whether they are derived from studies or they are irrational. Some of these judgments are not false. Some are scientifically verified. But, these scientifically verified statements were formed from a standpoint that may have nothing to do with the essence of a thing.
By exploring an essence of a thing, I am referring to our immediate experience of an essence of a thing. By immediate experience, I mean, an unadulterated experience prior to the formation of biases and prejudices. To focus your attention on the immediate experience, you need to put aside or ‘bracket’ out these biases and prejudices. Bracketing them out does not mean that they are false or that you are skeptical of them. On the contrary, bracketing is a way of suspending your judgment as you go on your own finding the essence.. Eventually, some of them are taken into consideration after realizing that some of them may after all be part of the essence of a thing.”
“But, can we really let go of our biases and prejudices? Asked Chris, “We can try, but there’s no guarantee that we can put aside all of our biases and prejudices.”
“I don’t think that you or anyone can completely put aside your biases and prejudices, especially the ones that you’re blind to, despite your efforts. It’s the deeply rooted biases and prejudices that escape scrutiny. Now, is phenomenology a total failure? It depends on how you look at it. Insofar searching for the essence, I think phenomenology failed. However, I like its spirit, its intention. Phenomenology assumes that a lone individual can find the truth. That’s a problem. However, if you desire to be truthful, then you’ll realize that you can’t do it on your own. No one individual can.”
“What do you mean? Are you saying that an individual, a specially gifted individual like Gandhi, Mandela, Jesus, or Confucius, in his moment of silence, contemplation, of seclusion, didn’t discover the truth?” Chris was puzzled.
[It contradicts the common notion of a lone wise person, who leaves the pack and stays secluded for a number of years in a place known only to him, only to resurface and reconnect with the multitude who are in need of a moral compass.]
“Chris, I have no doubt that they have a great capacity for knowing the truth, more than most people. But do you think any of them has the monopoly of Truth? I am pretty sure that one knows something that the other has overlooked. Maybe, it’s my bias, but I consider them human beings. But, if you consider one of them to be a god, then I will just have to say, Amen. I cannot pretend to know what only the gods know.something. Socrates was aware of his ignorance.. He said: ‘I know nothing beyond this earth and below it. I only know what is human.’ Or, something to that effect. So, neither you nor II can talk or should want to pretend to know about things that only non human beings know. For instance, ‘is there life after life? It sure is tempting to say that it exists. In all honesty, I do not know about it the way I know my experiences and the steering wheel in front of me, and the driver’s seat I am sitting on, and you beside me, and home, and we’re just about 5 minutes away.”
So, let us talk about human beings, and limit ourselves to what they can know. I am pretty certain that every individual has his own set of biases and prejudices. All he can do is minimize their influence or at least be aware of them; Whatever he claims to be truthful will always be influenced by his history, background, education, to name a few. In other words, he can arrive at truthful statements that others can learn from him; but there will be others who, unlike him, have their own and equally valid interpretation. Each interpretation, it seems to me, has a blind spot that others can fill. Others, needless to say, have their own blind spots. Nothing wrong with blind spots. It is part of being human, limited to time and space.
I think it’s a humble way of looking at truth - that is, truthful statements - and of recognizing that there are various interpretations of a given situation. It’s a humble way because when you realize that no matter how honest and earnest you are in finding the truth (truthful statement) that you believe not only applies to you but to the others well, you will also learn the habit of being critical and open to other ideas.
“Well, we’re home.”
Chris got off first and head for the door. He has work the following day, and I am expected to pick him up. I don’t have to be fortune teller to know that, when I pick him up, he’s going to greet me with another question.
“Dad, what is the way to Truth?”
“What do you mean?” I asked
“Well, I’m not asking for the nature of truth,” Chris explained, “How does one deal with truth? I mean, how does one stay on the right path?”
“You’re asking for a certain way of finding the truth? An approach? A method?” I asked.
“Yeah, you can say that. Dad, you mentioned phenomenology the other day. What is it?”
It takes about 10 minutes from his work place to arrive home. How do you explain phenomenology in 10 minutes or less?
“Well, phenomenology is a method of understanding the essence of things, that is, the meaning for being what they are. Everyone has biases and prejudices, whether they are derived from studies or they are irrational. Some of these judgments are not false. Some are scientifically verified. But, these scientifically verified statements were formed from a standpoint that may have nothing to do with the essence of a thing.
By exploring an essence of a thing, I am referring to our immediate experience of an essence of a thing. By immediate experience, I mean, an unadulterated experience prior to the formation of biases and prejudices. To focus your attention on the immediate experience, you need to put aside or ‘bracket’ out these biases and prejudices. Bracketing them out does not mean that they are false or that you are skeptical of them. On the contrary, bracketing is a way of suspending your judgment as you go on your own finding the essence.. Eventually, some of them are taken into consideration after realizing that some of them may after all be part of the essence of a thing.”
“But, can we really let go of our biases and prejudices? Asked Chris, “We can try, but there’s no guarantee that we can put aside all of our biases and prejudices.”
“I don’t think that you or anyone can completely put aside your biases and prejudices, especially the ones that you’re blind to, despite your efforts. It’s the deeply rooted biases and prejudices that escape scrutiny. Now, is phenomenology a total failure? It depends on how you look at it. Insofar searching for the essence, I think phenomenology failed. However, I like its spirit, its intention. Phenomenology assumes that a lone individual can find the truth. That’s a problem. However, if you desire to be truthful, then you’ll realize that you can’t do it on your own. No one individual can.”
“What do you mean? Are you saying that an individual, a specially gifted individual like Gandhi, Mandela, Jesus, or Confucius, in his moment of silence, contemplation, of seclusion, didn’t discover the truth?” Chris was puzzled.
[It contradicts the common notion of a lone wise person, who leaves the pack and stays secluded for a number of years in a place known only to him, only to resurface and reconnect with the multitude who are in need of a moral compass.]
“Chris, I have no doubt that they have a great capacity for knowing the truth, more than most people. But do you think any of them has the monopoly of Truth? I am pretty sure that one knows something that the other has overlooked. Maybe, it’s my bias, but I consider them human beings. But, if you consider one of them to be a god, then I will just have to say, Amen. I cannot pretend to know what only the gods know.something. Socrates was aware of his ignorance.. He said: ‘I know nothing beyond this earth and below it. I only know what is human.’ Or, something to that effect. So, neither you nor II can talk or should want to pretend to know about things that only non human beings know. For instance, ‘is there life after life? It sure is tempting to say that it exists. In all honesty, I do not know about it the way I know my experiences and the steering wheel in front of me, and the driver’s seat I am sitting on, and you beside me, and home, and we’re just about 5 minutes away.”
So, let us talk about human beings, and limit ourselves to what they can know. I am pretty certain that every individual has his own set of biases and prejudices. All he can do is minimize their influence or at least be aware of them; Whatever he claims to be truthful will always be influenced by his history, background, education, to name a few. In other words, he can arrive at truthful statements that others can learn from him; but there will be others who, unlike him, have their own and equally valid interpretation. Each interpretation, it seems to me, has a blind spot that others can fill. Others, needless to say, have their own blind spots. Nothing wrong with blind spots. It is part of being human, limited to time and space.
I think it’s a humble way of looking at truth - that is, truthful statements - and of recognizing that there are various interpretations of a given situation. It’s a humble way because when you realize that no matter how honest and earnest you are in finding the truth (truthful statement) that you believe not only applies to you but to the others well, you will also learn the habit of being critical and open to other ideas.
“Well, we’re home.”
Chris got off first and head for the door. He has work the following day, and I am expected to pick him up. I don’t have to be fortune teller to know that, when I pick him up, he’s going to greet me with another question.
