Chapter 71

The man who finds no pleasure in a new theory of knowledge is one who fears his own word might not be law. Granted, philosophy is unable to tell us with certainty what the true answer to the intermittent doubts are it raises, but it is rather able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free our minds. Philosophy is the eternal search for truth and contemplative knowledge (as far as it is possible for man to attain); a search which inevitably fails but yet is never defeated; which continually eludes us, but which always steers us. If we lessen our natural dogmatic assertion which closes the mind against intellectual speculation, certainly we can think more clearly.

If one derives satisfaction from helping others, does it make one selfish? Occasionally there is confusion between selfishness and self-interest. (In ethical philosophy academia, this is known as rational egoism, which basically states that it is only rational for a person to act if it increases self-interest.) It is interesting that our ordinary thinking about decency and morality is full of assumptions that we almost never question. In thinking about human conduct though, the first application of the understanding is commonly held in a passive relation to us, and it would be nice if there were some simple formula that would unite the diverse phenomena of human behavior under a single explanatory principle. But we find this not to be the case. To defend one position is not to defend the other. We may assume quite properly, if my analysis has been correct, that the virtue of beneficence (performing acts of kindness and charity) does, and indeed should occupy an important place in life and should always be encouraged even if selfishly motivated. At present, I am not interested in considering the question of action, but only of knowledge.

Here is a thought floating around inside my head: If one becomes aware of an unbridled falsehood circulating with happy and gleeful ignorance, should one say something to correct it? With so many problems surfacing, at times my mind is filled with so many inconsistent doubts that it is easy to forget my responsibility to refute foolishness and folly; yet still I do not see in what manner I can fully resolve every issue. There are limits to what can be accomplished by argument though, so I shall now proceed to consider a few ideas in the order in which they stand.

If we were reflecting on the disparity between good and evil, for example, evils do not cease to be evils regardless of the amount of rationalization used to purify it. And in that same tone, truth is truth; and this is true despite continued assertions by those who somehow remain seriously and wholeheartedly committed to the propagation of falsities. Tragedy, though truly tragic, may nonetheless be turned from a cause of despair into a state of fulfillment. The exercise of exposing falsehood is a not always a resultant measure of the psychological weakness of self-centeredness, and I notice that insupportable arguments are the ones most often advanced in favor of this view. This really is not a radically new doctrine, so let us consider an analogy of selfishness (the only use of examples is to sharpen the use of judgment): Suppose I have an urge to set fire to some public building (say, a big store) just for the fascination of watching the brilliant blaze. The fact that several people might be burned to death provides no reason whatever why I should not do it; after all, this only concerns the welfare of others, not my own. And according to the egocentric (or self-centered) person, the only person I need think of is me. Some might deny that the ethics of self-centered people has any such monstrous consequences, but does it? In the end, I can live a happy and secure life by acting kindly toward others and correcting wrongs. In so doing I would merely be doing my part to create and maintain the sort of society in which it is to my advantage to have. And this, we find, is living in self-interest, not selfishness.