The title of this post comes from Psalm 36:9 which reads:
For with You is the source of life; in Your light we will see light.
The reason I like this verse is because I think you can build a worldview on basis of it. Allow me to explain.
In our age of post-modernism the idea of universal truth is seen by some as old-fashioned and representing narrowness, things that were once thought of as universally true are now being framed as being true for you while not necessarily true for me.
And there is some truth:P to this, as, whilte I think there are absolute and universal truths, it is obvious that all things and issues we approach are framed and looked into from a certain paradigm. This paradigm has been formed over the years, some parts of it unconsciously, through our environment and some of it consciously through the input we choose to receive. But in the end there is often more than one way of looking at something and arriving at a reliable conclusion.
Naturally if this is the case the question becomes, what is the right way or valid paradigm through which to approach the world?
An example would be the human being, do we look at it from a perspective that considers life to be the product of mere chance? Or do we look at it from the perspective that considers it to be the product of divine will?
This makes a huge difference, as when you look at life from the perspective that its mere chance, then what value can you assign to ‘being’? Can you say its valuable? It seems that consistent with that paradigm would be the phrase used by the ancient Epicureans: “I was not, I am, I am not, I care not”.
However when life is seen as the product of divine will, ‘being’ takes on a very different value, divine will desired to create life and called it good, thus it is intrinsically valuable and not something that we can treat carelessly.
Hence we see that the paradigm that is adopted makes a very big difference, but how does one choose? Assuming one can distance him or herself from preconceived notions and ideas and is actually able to make a choice?
On what basis does one choose? It seems difficult to separate what comes first, the paradigm, and what follows from it, the ideas. As when one looks at the example I gave, to me at least, the idea of life being valuable is much more appealing than the idea that I am here because of mere chance and so the paradigm of life being the product of divine will appeals more as well… but isnt this kind of circular?
It is very difficult, philosophically, to escape the idea of universal truth. For if truth is relative and something else for you and for me, then the proposition: “Truth is something else for me and for you” is a universal truth that cannot be denied, and thus it is demonstrated that the relativistic position of truth undermines itself.
We do approach the world by means of all kinds of paradigms. Paradigms are presuppositions, and they can be of a cultural, religious, or scientific origin. But the very fact that we can speak about our approaching the world via paradigms shows that these paradigms do not hold an absolute grip on our minds. We can become conscious of their hypothetical nature and study their meaning and sense. This implies that we can investigate our presuppositions, and can ask the fundamental questions whether they make sense or not, and whether they are true or false.
Also the idea that things happen by mere chance is a very difficult concept to defend, philosophically. Nothing simply happens of itself. Every instance of movement or change has a cause, for it is impossible that a thing is its own cause. A cause produces an effect. To produce this effect the cause must already be there, and thus cannot be its own cause. If this cause is not the first or ultimate cause, then this cause on its turn has a cause on which it depends. In this light it seems far more probable that everything happens out of necessity than that things happen by mere chance.
It also seems hardly probable that we can do without supposing a sense of direction. Things and events don’t make sense for us if they are completely without purpose. The very idea of rationality seems to break down if we only think in terms of efficient causes without positing goals or ends. If things and events really had no purpose or goal at all, then finally everything would be for nothing and completely devoid of meaning. There would be no reason at all why things are set in motion and working, and thus the idea and meaning of reason itself would collapse.
Hi Geert,
Thank you very much for your insights!
Especially the first paragraph put a smile on my face:)
I think you are right to point out that we can become aware about our paradigms and that its possible to investigate these, though of course this is not easy.
Do you think its necessary to investigate a paradigm without taking into account what it results in? Is that even possible?
May God be with you,
Daniel