1 Is Philosophy’s Task Difficult? And... what is the Nature of the Difficulty?

The problem is to recognize the nature of the difficulty, to not exaggerate it or distort it, and then to make philosophy interesting despite its difficulties. One could say that the real difficulties are rewarding to overcome and so provide part of the challenge and interest

If philosophy’s task is to enlighten, then, given that the “common man” is intelligent, philosophy should be difficult. Also, since philosophy is a tradition that each generation builds on the foundation of the past, the learner will need to retrace at least some main events to understand the problems of today. There are at least three more reasons for philosophy to be difficult. First, the work of enlightenment must include clarifying common mistakes in our everyday understanding. These mistakes are often assumptions that form the fabric of the way we see the world. History shows that there is a succession of “world views”, yet each era sees its own viewpoint as obviously true. Second, philosophy must use the best knowledge available - from all cultures and, within our culture, from all major areas of knowledge: physics, biology, humanities, art, and the insights of religion, logic, language and mathematics. Third, philosophy is not merely about knowledge. What is knowledge? Is there really something called knowledge that can be held separately from experience and the web of life? Philosophy must include or be included in life and living. This, as each individual knows from his or her life, and as we know from history for the tradition of knowledge, is a dynamic growing affair

2 What, then, is the Role of the Teacher?

The teacher gives life to philosophy, makes it have meaning, and makes the student or learner excited. Not everyone has a philosophical temperament and so one does not expect 100% success... especially in the modern era when many people are taking courses in an experimental way

But, a teacher should not make philosophy harder than it need be... or easier. There is a route –perhaps there are a number of routes– to learning, living philosophy in which the teacher guides while the learner finds his or her footing

Therefore, philosophy’s task is difficulty... but it should not be made to be more difficult than it is and the role of the teacher is first, to make the challenge exciting so that the difficulty is inviting due to the potential gain rather than overwhelming; and, second, to guide the learner

3 On Knowledge, Belief and Experience

An event happens everyday at dawn. Will it certainly happen tomorrow at dawn? The answer is “no.” This is a simple examples of one of the classic problems of philosophy that enlightens us about the nature of knowledge. The ground is there every time I put my foot down will it be there the next time? The answer is “probably, but not certainly!” Although in many situations it is practical to believe in the regularities of our lives –if I constantly doubted the ground I would be neurotic– they are not certainties. When it comes to the question of truth, however, it is not neurotic to doubt every day regularities because we learn and grow from that doubt. The doubt leads us to question the nature of knowledge and what we learn helps as we push knowledge into new realms. The purpose of doubting every day truths is not so much to show their falsity as to show their limits; and not so much to show limits to particular truths but to show the nature of truth

Thus truth is not and cannot be certainty. Rather, truth is knowledge of general patterns that may have exceptions. The exceptions are not meaningful on a day-to-day basis but have large and profound consequences on a larger scale. There are many examples from science – relativity, quantum mechanics, and the theory of evolution... I do not want to rehash that story here

There is a seeming exception to the idea that truth is not certainty. For example consider that it always becomes light at dawn. It is easy to see that the only way it always becomes light at dawn is if becoming light is part of the definition of dawn. In that case “it becomes light at dawn” is not knowledge. If some other definition is used, say “dawn is the time of sunrise” then it is likely that there will be light at dawn but there could be exceptions and... and so, even though it is not certain, “dawn is the time of first morning light” is then knowledge

I want to consider an extreme example. Consider the assertion “Ultimate being is open to individual being.” I do not want to do magic with words. The assertion means what it says: an individual being can experience and become ultimate being. Is it true? What would its truth mean - since it seems that becoming ultimate cannot be a regular occurrence its truth would not seem to be of the type of knowledge of a pattern with possible exceptions? Go back to a simple example, the belief in the firmness of the ground - that belief is automatic; without it I would behave neurotically, dreading every step. It is knowledge even if not certain. I say, further, that the deepest scientific knowledge is like that: its depth does not depend on its certainty but on other features like breadth, compactness - expressing broad canvasses of experience in a single idea. The function of knowledge and belief are action and construction: they allow both every day activity and growth. Thus, when I say, “Ultimate being is open to individual being” I need, of course to have some degree and kind of justification, some reason for holding to the idea, but I do not need absolute knowledge and absolute justification. But, first ask, is not the belief grandiose, futile, risking the here and now? First, if I pay sufficient attention to the here-and-now, I do not risk much; actually I risk least by paying balanced attention to immediate and ultimate reality. But what of the idea of belief as an action principle? That belief makes for realization? As one individual I may take certain risks with my own life; this does not require all persons to take those risks. There are many who risk nothing of that kind, at least not by intention, and there are many who do so risk. This is the balance that makes for stability and growth - of course this is not the only growth model, there are others such as revolution; and an extreme case of revolution is extreme risk. So there is some “practical” reason for taking risks of the kind implied by a belief that “Ultimate being is open to individual being.” In so far as it is risk it is risking my live rather than risking my death. But, I now want to turn to reasons for the belief without which the “risk” would be stupid, and with which what I call “risk” is one form of knowledge

Firstly, I want to review the nature of knowledge described above. I stated that truth is truth is “knowledge of general patterns that may have exceptions.” This was a working concept of knowledge. Practically, if we demand that our knowledge [of regularities and patterns and not mere facts - facts seem to be always something that has happened] be certain, then we have no knowledge and become quite neurotic. So, to repeat, knowledge is knowledge of general patterns that may have exceptions. But, apply this to the concept or idea of knowledge itself. There are exceptions to the idea that knowledge has exceptions. When does knowledge not have exceptions? Firstly, when knowledge is an action principle; the idea of knowledge as representing facts or patterns is one conception, and considering the real nature of our navigation of reality, it is not at all the only conception of knowledge as something that enables navigation, nor is it an ultimate conception. Secondly, in the realm of ultimates, e.g. possible destinations of spirit and consciousness, as hinted above, there are no patterns from which to have exceptions

Secondly, I want to review specific reasons to consider “Ultimate being is open to individual being” as knowledge. A beginning is in horizons enterprises™