A Problem with False Dichotomies
by Joseph Rowlands

A common source of problems in philosophy is when two things are connected, but the connection is not obvious. What often happens is that some people accept one without the other, and other people accept the reverse. Each picks a side and sticks with it when they can't figure out how to have both. This is a source of false dichotomies.

Consider one complicated issue in philosophy. How are abstractions connected to concretes? How does one get from here's a car, there's a car, and there's another car, to here is the concept 'car'. The question has been hotly debated, and many people have thrown up their hands in defeat. The result is that they say that there is no connection, and then go on to glorify one over the other.

If abstractions are not connected to concretes, which should we be concerned with? Which is important? The empiricist answers that concretes are important, and that abstractions are an illusion or distraction. The only real knowledge is concrete experience. On the other hand, the rationalist claims it is the abstractions/principles that matter, and that their connection to reality is unimportant. As long as you are logically consistent, that's all that can be expected. Deduction is the primary tool of cognition for the rationalist, and deduction requires abstractions.

Or consider another example. How are reason and emotions connected? The connection isn't obvious, especially since at times they appear to be in significant disagreement. Maybe there is no relationship? And so people pick a side.

On one hand, you have those who accept the validity of emotions and consequently reject reason as "insufficient". Emotions appear to provide a firmer foundation for moral judgment because often reason can't provide good answers. So emotions are treated as some kind of mystical insight into the truth of the universe. Or emotions are seen as reflecting your true self, whereas your thinking can be twisted against you. This is all consistent with some form of emotionalism.

On the other hand, some people accept reason as the really valid method. The only way to really understand anything is through reason, and it is obviously capable of enormous accomplishments, like putting a man on the moon. Emotions, on the other hand, are seen as a form of weakness. Emotions are seen as random, happenstance, and out of control. They seem to push you to act against your best judgment. And so in this half of the dichotomy, emotional repression is the goal. Emotions are treated as an enemy.

Another kind of difficult connection is the connection between your mind and reality. This is the topic of objectivity, and the key question is how our specific form of consciousness can identify reality and maintain that knowledge in valid, objective form. For instance, how are our concepts objective? If the connection isn't clear, you can pick one over the other.

In one view, knowledge is not connected to reality. Knowledge, or a better is beliefs, are disconnected from reality. There is not way to connect them, and that's okay. They are what they are. We can believe whatever we want to believe. This is the view of subjectivism. It disconnects beliefs from reality, and maintains that beliefs are all that matter. We can't know reality, so why bother?

A different approach claims that reality is the important part. In the intrinsicist view, knowledge is a direct reflection of reality. Our consciousnesses provide nothing of value, and may even get in the way. Real knowledge is automatic, like mysticism or divine revelation. You don't have to discover it, or determine it. Any attempt to would just obscure the truth. It is like the religious claim that God communicates them through their emotions. You just have to listen. But if you question it, if you try to figure out what to do or judge it yourself, then you won't be able to hear. Knowledge is automatic, unless you let your consciousness get in the way of it.

We can see other forms of this phenomena with other false dichotomies. A moral-practical dichotomy would have some people choosing to live a "practical" life devoid of morality, and others to live a "moral" life that is a disaster in practice. The connection they can't answer, or don't answer correctly, is how is morality connected to practicality. In altruism, and other sacrificial moralities, the connection is that they are opposed.

Or in one form of the mind-body dichotomy, some people choose to promote values associated with the mind or spirit, and oppose values related to the body as animalistic or lowly. The other side upholds physical pleasure and discounts the useless trappings of the intellect. Both of these are due to an inability to connect mind and body in the form of rational action, or purposeful living.

Time and again when a connection is troublesome, we can see people giving up and choosing one side over the other.

Discuss this Article (2 messages)