wayward scepticism
here Santayana is concerned to point out that
a sceptical analysis of dogma or accepted belief -
can lead to a solipsism - that is effectively a dogma -
a compensatory dogma - and this he suggests misses
the point of real or proper scepticism
i.e. -
'The postulates on which empirical science and inductive
science are based - namely that there has been a past,
that it was such that it is now thought to be, that there
will be a future and that it must for some inconceivable
reason, resemble the past and obey the same laws - these
are all gratuitous dogmas. The sceptic in his honest retreat
knows nothing of a future, and has no need of such an
unwarrantable idea. He may perhaps have images before him
of scenes somehow not in the foreground, with a sense of
before and after running through the texture of them; and
he may call this background of his sentiency the past; but
the relative obscurity and evanescence of these phantoms will
not prompt him to suppose that they have retreated to
obscurity from the light of day. They will be to him what he
experiences them as being, denizens of the twilight'
and
'The solipsist thus becomes an incredulous spectator of his
own romance, thinks his own adventures fictions, and accepts
a solipsism of the present moment'
he goes on
'Scepticism is not concerned to abolish ideas; it can relish
the variety and order of a pictured world, or any number of
them in succession, without any of the qualms and exclusions
proper to dogmatism. Its case is simply not to credit these
ideas, not to posit any of these fancied worlds, nor this
ghostly mind imagined as viewing them'
and on ideas -
'Ideas become beliefs when by precipitating tendencies to
action they persuade me they are signs of things; and these
things are not those ideas hypostatized, but are believed to
be compacted of many parts, and full of ambushed powers,
entirely absent from the ideas. The belief is imposed on me
surreptitiously by a latent mechanical reaction of my body
on the object producing the idea; it is by no means implied
by any qualities obvious in that idea. Such a latent reaction,
being mechanical, can hardly be avoided, but it may be discounted
in reflection........'
and back to solipsism - Santayana says -
'The difficulties I find in maintaining it come from the social
and laborious character of human life'
and latter -
'But identity....implies two moments, two instances, or two
intuitions, between which it obtains. Similarly, a "present
moment" suggests other moments, and an adventitious limitation
either in duration or in scope; but the solipsist and his world
(which are not distinguishable) have by hypothesis no environment
whatsoever, and nothing limits them save the fact that there is
nothing more.'
I think Santayana is right here - solipsism is really a result
of a quest for certainty - and one that is not logically sustainable
- the self is only a self relative to non-self and if we were to
drop the idea of non-self - it would be no solution for the solipsist
- for the result would be - on paper - as it were - that the self
has disappeared into the totality - it actually no longer exists -
the totality is self - and this makes no sense for the whole point
of self is its definition - its distinction - and there is no
distinction in everything
so this kind of a quest for certainty - really results in denial
of the subject - and leads to an ontology - a world view where no
thing per se exists - let alone a peculiar thing
like the self -
and we ask what is the point of such a quest - even if we don't
end up in the paradox of solipsism - why certainty?
where does the idea come from - what is its use?
my gut feeling is that it is a retreat from the world - a desire
for an alternative reality one that is unchanging - Plato knew
this and was up front about it -
and who has not been thwarted by the vicissitudes of life - yes
nevertheless it is still a retreat - a denial
but I suppose a denial with hope - the hope for something better?
even so - whatever one comes up with as a better reality - is no
more than a fancy defeated in every moment
perhaps at the very least it is safer to acknowledge the
uncertainty of life - of existing
at the best the idea is to see uncertainty as the very basis -
the ground of possibility -
and hence the source of all human freedom and creativity
this is not a natural reaction - and not a common one -
let alone an easy one - I think it only comes from deep experience
and /or deep thought -
it is a position you can arrive at via a healthy and positive
critical approach to life - it is a position that is hard to
maintain - and requires courage in life and thought
the sceptic does not need to deny the existence of anything -
let alone the world - the question is how to regard beliefs -
ideas - about the world?
what are they and what is the point of them?
are they not simply companions of action?
and the substance - the qualities - the ground -
of the inner life -
a ground never sure - but ever bright
