I've often mentioned that my mental outlook underwent a seismic change years ago. After the change, like a patient chisel, it gradually chipped away the solid bedrock of my former supernatural views. At the very end I could see the broken pieces for what they were and sweep them away. The work couldn't have gone any faster; these views had been part of my psyche since early childhood development.
But it's been some time since I simply stated what that mental outlook is. I like to think of it as a triangle, because its three parts interact and depend on each other. I classify it as Pragmatism-ish; it's too colored by my own preferences and too poorly laid out to be plain Pragmatist philosophy. The three parts are
- Ideas. Ideas are never in short supply, because people create ideas so naturally. This is good, but it comes with the inherent problem that ideas can exist without a connection to anything at all. Ideas fall into bewildering varieties of fiction and nonfiction, bare truths and elaborate lies, wild speculations and careful theories, literal confessions and metaphorical tales. Being too quick to grant credence to any idea in isolation is a fool's error, even if the idea is coming from a self-described Truth-teller. Supporting one incorrect idea with another incorrect idea won't be an improvement, obviously. The ideas must be firmly linked to something outside...
- Realities. In contrast to the ocean of ideas that people swim in, realities are scarcer and more difficult to obtain. Plus, all people encounter realities through the "lens of themselves". Each person is finite and they're able to think outside themselves only by significant effort. Therefore, at least by default, the realities a person proposes can't be assumed to be objective. The objectivity is a quality that needs to be demonstrated. And just because one idea's objectivity is firm, we can't assume that every follow-up idea about it is is as equally objective. (Side remark: Pragmatism-ish is a set of very general observations about what it's like to be a person existing in the world. It's real to the extent that the observations are good summaries of those experiences.)
- Actions/Outcomes. If the domain of ideas is distinct from the domain of realities, yet people don't have a reliable inborn "sense" for the overlap between the two domains, then what can people do to rectify this? The answer is they can take action. When they act according to an idea, the outcome is a clue for the connection between the idea and realities. The twist here is that the innocent term "action" covers an oddly broad range. Following a logical argument is an action. Opening one's eyes and interpreting what one sees is an action. Reading an article is an action. Calculating statistics is an action. Predicting a result based on one or more causes is action. And judging the outcome's meaning and significance is too, of course. The fact that a person thinking deeply in an armchair is performing an action is a reminder that mental actions can have similar problems as physical actions...such as fatigue or emotional compromise at the time. Brains are organs. I've sometimes written that thinking is a "brain action".
The consistent use of the triangle leads to a few consequences. One is the same point from the introduction: that each vertex of the triangle is kind of flimsy without the others to give it structure. An idea detached from realities and actions isn't that convincing. A so-called reality that is beyond the comprehension of ideas, or a reality that has no impact on anything people do, isn't convincing either. Neither is an action that's carried out without reference to anything thoughtful or real, such as a mysterious ritual or superstition. Like a cord of three strands (mixed metaphors ahoy!), the triangle is self-reinforcing and stronger as a whole. Prioritizing mind over matter or vice-versa would be a mistake.
A second major consequence is that actions can take many different shapes, so outcomes can take many different shapes, so the ideas found to be realities can take many different shapes. The degree of confidence can vary greatly too. This is the reason that we describe realities more than we describe "Reality". In the same way, we describe truths more than we describe "Truth", or we say an idea is more accurate or less accurate than another.
Another inescapable consequence is that progress tends to be incremental. Even an action that seems to be a clear confirmation could be misleading in the long run. Individual actions aren't generally that grand, and people cope by repeating and accumulating outcomes from such little actions. There isn't a hotline that we can pick up and instantly receive whatever perfect truths we seek—when someone offers such a hotline, or offers to be that hotline, we should be supremely skeptical. A truth is more like a brick building that we must construct layer by layer, and the materials we have to build with are nothing special.
The final consequence might be the most radical of all. Perhaps the triangle's usefulness goes further. What if it became the way that an idea's meaning is analyzed in the first place? Instead of people talking in circles when they disagree about a complex idea, they could (honestly) explain the effects that their version of the idea has on real actions (actions considered in the above broad sense). And certain extremely abstract versions of the ideas, which have no impact on anything, would be either dropped for discussion altogether or demoted to a calmer level of passion.
Based on this approach, by the end, I wouldn't say that I was thinking as much about whether some of my beliefs had been true as much as I was thinking about what many of the beliefs had truly meant...if the beliefs had meant anything other than wishful or compassionate feelings.
