The Dangers Of Certainty

Recently I've been reading rather a lot about one of the 20th Century's most astonishing, yet apparently least well-remembered, writers: Karel Capek. I am currently adapting one of his novels for radio and felt it right to delve a little deeper into the character of someone who was, at all times, an intensely personal writer. What has struck me most intensely is his espousal of Pragmatist philosophy and the degree to which this chimes with my own beliefs.

Throughout his work, Capek repeatedly insists that whoever believes that he has found the 'one truth' that will save humanity will necessarily find himself in conflict with those who refuse to accept this 'truth', and that personal conviction - however sincerely felt - gives no one the right to feel better or more righteous than others. For the pragmatists "the practical value of true ideas is primarily derived from the practical importance of their objects to us ... 'The true' to put it very briefly, is only the expedient in the way of our thinking, just as 'the right' is only the expedient in the way of our behaving"(1). Moreover, the individual should not try to force his truth on others, save that we should all recognise as true only that which is not in conflict with sound reasoning and which is able to stand up to close scrutiny.

Whatever its epistemological merits, there is something deeply satisfying, to me at least(2), in this approach, perhaps especially because the recognition of the relativity of truth acts as a useful reminder that one cannot simply dismiss those with whom one disagrees as in some way idiotic and/or insincere and/or morally defective, which would at the very least put paid to most of the arguments voiced in Radio 4's 'The Moral Maze'(3). It has another effect as well: when we cast our opponents as idiots or monsters, any evidence of their intelligence or humanity is seen as somehow weakening our arguments against them. If, however, we recognise that they are intelligent beings holding sincere and rationally held beliefs, then it is possible to argue against them. Furthermore, in refusing to assume that our opponents are in some way our inferiors, we are reminded not to assume that we are incapable of the same mistakes. Perhaps a little pragmatic thought might prevent tabloids from publishing headlines such as "Stop The Gipsy Invasion" and "Stamp On The Camps" in the same pages so often used to attack the German people for Nazism.

(By the way, I do recognise how badly the above fits with the various rants hereinbefore but just because I'm a complete hypocrite doesn't mean I'm wrong. Come to think, it also doesn't mean I plan to stop ranting.)

(1) William James "Pragmatism: A New Name For Some Old Ways Of Thinking".
(2) See how addictive this pragmatic relativism can be?
(3) especially, it seems, arguments made by Melanie Phillips. On this subject, I caught a rather neat exchange on the programme last night - Professor Steven Rose expressed his surprise at Melanie Phillips's claim that Christianity was the foundation of Western democratic equality, she replied that equality was a fundamental of Judaeo-Christian thought. The conversation continued:
"Prof Rose: Judaism isn't about equality.
Phillips: Of course it is.
Prof Rose: For goodness sake! It has a chosen people"
Well I thought it was funny.