Famous Phrases #1

Nothing irritates me more than when you're trying to have a conversation and the other party uses these famous phrases to support their argument from a commonplace. Let me clarify, a 'commonplace' is my term for an idea/theory/prejudice/what-have-you that is common in society and nearly universally accepted [usually by training/default and without thinking about it]. Commonplaces range from the good [killing people is wrong] to the bad [faith heals]. I think Ayn Rand would call them bromides but I'm not sure of her exact use of the word, I've only seen it used as a derogatory. Anyway, people tend to use these ideas in arguments because they expect it to be a point of agreement. In itself, I think this is a pretty good strategy for communication because you can build from where you agree without having to review redundant material.

Now, what gets me is when you don't in fact agree with the commonplace that another is trying to use. More often than not the other guy hasn't even thought about it. He doesn't accept it because it makes sense, he accepts it because he's been told to or everyone else does or he's always thought that or any number of inexcusable reasons. And so, when you point out that you don't agree with some commonplace [for those familiar with arguing Objectivism, an example would be: "actually, I don't think taxes in general are a good idea"] they don't have a reasoned out response, they don't take a step back and first rationally establish the commonplace. Instead, they repeat an oft heard phrase which essentializes the idea beautifully with all the intellectual content of horse shit, on the premise that "some witty man said it and we all agree so it must be true, after all it rhymes". I cayn't stan' it!

So, in this series [and I hope it'll be a series] I'll introduce such a phrase, identify the commonplace it shelters, and explain why such an idea isn't cogent. Because I'm sick of being confronted with such "arguments" and being at a loss for words, I'll do this every time I'm thus confronted and hopefully I can use these ready-made retaliations in the future.

Our first subject is: "we can't really know".

At the surface this may seem simple lack of information, but in such a case one would say "don't know", as in the information is not presently available but may be pursued. No, 'can't' denotes an inherent lack of information, as in the nature of man is such that the information is impossible to retrieve.

There are two ways that a person can mean this and both have to do with how the purveyor of these catch-phrases thinks man understands his surroundings [epistemology]. The first is that he claims man's senses are invalid in some way and therefore one's perception of reality is flawed from True Reality. Just walk away, by his own admission this man can't deal with reality thus it's a waste to attempt to deal with him.

The second way in which he can use that phrase is in what is generally considered a scientific way. That is, he means that nothing is proved until you check every instance, that the only conclusive information we have is when something has been disproven. In order to really know something, he thinks that one must show that it is true in every instance throughout time and space, test every eventuality. He rightfully concludes that this is impossible because humans aren't omniscient, they aren't able to possess infinite knowledge.

His error lies in his understanding of what is true, he confuses truth with reality. He's right in thinking that one must look to reality to find what is true, but he's wrong in thinking that means that truth and reality are the same thing. Reality simple exists, it is as it is and nothing more. Truth is established from reality, but it must undergo a process of being established and it consists in the rational conclusions drawn from necessarily finite observations. Truth is not the same thing as reality though they relate intimately with one another there is a subtle difference. He errs in thinking that there is some sort of Real Truth, some omniscient understanding of reality that goes beyond observation, that is infinite observation. So when he says "we can't really know", he's admitting to a fallacious understanding of truth which leads him to believe that it's impossible to achieve and we have to get by on temporary guesses that don't mean anything because it's not Real Truth.