Back to OSNet

Editorial: The Power of Perspective

“Philosophy is, approximately, the study of the meaning and justification of beliefs [perspectives] about the most general, or universal, aspects of things – a study which is carried out not by experimentation or careful observation, but instead typically by formulating problems carefully, offering solutions to them, giving arguments for the solutions, and engaging in dialectic about all of the above.”[1]

Philosophy is based on a level of introspective thinking that so many people seem to lack. Humankind is so focused on becoming more advanced and sophisticated that it often forgets it must sometimes search for answers on a basic level (as Socrates so aggressively preached) – this is the job of the philosopher. There have existed many great thinkers throughout the history of Western society, but even the most intuitive of their theories have so often been diluted by one predominant error: They assume that the reader will come supplied with the same cognitive perspective as they have. While it may seem to the author that he/she is presenting an irrefutable structural argument, in truth all belief and credibility lies in the hands of perspective.

This “assumption”, if you will, gives birth to many equally destructive problems. The first resulting problem is a dissension in theoretical foundation. When a philosopher constructs an argument, that argument is, by definition, based at least partially on personal belief or viewpoint. This is evident through the examination of the works of certain philosophers. As an example, let us examine an argument from Thomas Aquinas: The “Governance of World” argument for God’s existence is based on the perception of the world as an arranged or administered set of events and material preparations. Just because it “seems to be the case” to Aquinas that the world was created by a higher being or governing power in no way proves that a God or entity of higher power exists – and yet his theories are labeled “proofs”. Aquinas’ fallacy is his lack of realization that in philosophy, there are no absolutes (technically, there are no absolutes in anything), and thus something cannot be proven through hopeful observation. There are so many possibilities surrounding our existence it would be ludicrous to label a likely one certain… and this is not the only one of his arguments that is built upon the foundation of a specific perspective. Yet he presents all of his arguments under the label of “proof”.

The second problem with neglecting to consider conflicting perspectives is essentially a derivative of the first: The seemingly inappropriate tone of the author’s message resulting from the portrayal of their arguments as an all-or-nothing, undeniable proof based on fact. Perhaps it could be argued that this is the best way to convince the average reader to submit to a specific form of thought, but to the wary and critical observer this sort of rhetoric seems to be nothing more than narrow-mindedness and blind faith in one’s own imagination. Because of this, the reader is often discouraged and left with little trust in the author and his/her theory. Descartes, for example, offers several very well refined arguments concerning human existence, but his rejection of anyone who does not see eye-to-eye with him paints his theories quite unattractive. This is especially detrimental to his message if one considers the fact that any rational thinker could come up with counterarguments to his claims provided enough time and effort are applied; and all of these counterarguments would be the child of unique perspective. Yet Descartes condemns anyone who does not agree with or understand his theories as someone who is not a “rational thinker”. The same sort of over-self-confidence applies to many other close-minded philosophers (an oxymoron?), a few of which include St. Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas. There is a difference between offering a theory or possible answer to a question and forcing a manufactured truth on someone. The latter often leads to further complications or, more specifically, the third problem with failing to realize the difference in viewpoint.

The next problem I am referring to is the provoked dismissal of all related theories by the reader. If the tone of the author is definite and close-minded, once the reader finds something that he/she disagrees with, they will often, by nature, inadvertently develop counterarguments and then continue to dwell on the fact that they have detected a weak point or inconsistency in the author’s theory. For this reason the author should take extra care to ensure that his/her writing style is not too imposing, or risk rejection of his/her entire argument by the reader. Often when an advocate unintentionally offends the listener or overlooks a point which could be considered debatable (thereby underestimating its importance to the listener), the remainder of their proposal becomes much less appealing. Therefore, even the most profound argument could be converted to unsubstantial and void solely by a single potentially offending or controversial statement… someone once said that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

It could be argued that Descartes is hurt the most by this rule of human tendency. His arguments are, for the most part, very well organized and structured; however, his vocalized rejection of anyone in opposition helps to create discord between the reader and the author. It seems at times that Descartes offers several insightful ideas followed by a single statement of discrepancy – and this one inconsistent word works to discredit his entire argument. Considering how many proverbial “limbs” Descartes chooses to stand on throughout the course of his Meditations, the choice of such an accusatory tone toward the opposition is quite a risky one.

Additionally, inconsistencies in argument hurt the author’s credibility as a whole – whether human tendency is being dealt with or not. Surely, it is best to present a possibly inaccurate point interrogatively than it is to make it seem as if the statement is purely unquestionable. By leaving room for error, the author provides a hypothetical cushion of sorts to soften their fall if their argument does happen to rest on a shaky foundation. However, some confidence must be displayed. If a philosopher records his/her thoughts as a skeptical collage of question marks, people will not be inclined to follow their teachings.

Another problem that arises from differences in perspective is one that is not so controllable: the more the theory deviates from existing beliefs, the more susceptible to rejection it will be. This is a major problem that many philosophers have had to deal with – some have even been defeated by its magnitude. If a culture has lived its entire life believing the same established traditional teachings, it is very hard for one man to alter the perspective of the people as a whole. Regardless of how freethinking the philosopher may be, it is hard to stray too far from the norm and still hope to make a dent in traditional thinking. People in general tend to think “within the box”, so in a sense, a philosopher is trapped by society’s own close-mindedness and assumed truths.

The best way to deal with this is to gain public support before releasing radically deviant theories to the public. This way, the public at least already trusts the author to some point before having to try to stomach his most wild thoughts. However, many philosophers have not perused this possibility of rejection and have thus ignored the potential repercussions of coming on “too strong, too fast”. The main reason the teachings and theories of some of these philosophers have stuck the way they did, in my opinion, was that later philosophers following their example reaffirmed their theories through their own structured teachings. Eventually part of society began to accept these ideas, no matter how radical, because they had been around for so long and had been mentioned so frequently by different people.

Some refer to this increased level of acceptance as “enlightenment”, but a more specific definition could be “an expansion of accepted thought horizons”. Really all that is happening is forced change in perspective by one party (the philosopher) on another (society). The philosopher is striving to convince a group of humans with narrow perspectives to widen their fields of thought in order to allow for the creation of a greater number of possible theories; theories that could then exist in harmony with accepted ones (which are, in fact, of equally ridiculous proportions anyway). So, then, the substance that the philosopher is seeking is nothing more than that of acceptance, is it not? If this is the case, why would the philosopher attack existing, widely accepted concepts as if they are any more absurd than his are? A person drowning in a pool of criticism cannot hope to stay afloat simply by forcing under the heads of others; instead, they must learn to swim on their own. This is done by logically and substantially supporting one’s theories and seeking the aid of those placing judgment – not by ridiculing existing popular theories in hopes that the only argument left standing will be their own.

Using Descartes as an example once again, we can see how enticing his writing style makes his theories seem during the early parts of his Meditations. The question at hand is this: Had Descartes continued in this style of writing and response rather than in his traditional critical and condemnatory methods used against those in disagreement, would his theories have been more widely accepted by members of society? Granted, the author must exert some degree of confidence in his argument (or it is no longer classified as an argument), but is it good practice to carelessly brush off those who offer opposing points of view? It was once said, “What does not kill you only serves to make you stronger”. In this particular case, if an opposing point has the potential to “kill” an argument, there is a good chance that the argument was not very strong to begin with. Otherwise, the author can merely debate the points with his challenger, and in doing so prove to his followers that his argument is in fact one of notable substance.

Could this be Descartes’ reasoning behind his withdrawal from discussion with any antagonists? Perhaps his only fear was founded in his knowledge of the fact that his rhetoric is fallible after all, as it seems that it may have failed him in his effort to force his viewpoint on the people of his time – just as has happened to many other philosophers in the past. They are consumed by their efforts to share their perceptions – their perspective, something that does not perfectly equal that of any other living soul at any given time. Something that holds so much power in governing the thoughts of its possessor and the ideas this possessor creates. Something that controls the meanings of the very words written on the page and decides how they are interpreted by the mind of the reader. Without freedom of perspective, there would exist no records of philosophy, nor would there be any need for any such documents or modes of thought. Since this possession is such an important and powerful one, let us not overlook the fact that it exists and that it differs amongst us – for to do so would be to commit philosophical suicide.