The resolution (at least the public one) I have for myself this December 21st is to adopt Metaphysical Pluralism, which I will define in a moment. This write-up is mostly for myself as it is how I process things, but I figured it could be beneficial for others.
Definitions
Metaphysical System: a provisional framework for understanding reality.
Metaphysical Totalitarianism (MT): there is one single valid metaphysical system, any deviation from it is invalid.
Metaphysical Pluralism (MP): there is more than one valid metaphysical system, deviation from one may not mean invalidity in general.
Rejecting Metaphysical Totalitarianism (MT)
1) If MT is true, then only one metaphysical system can be rationally justified. [If P then Q]
2) More than one metaphysical system can be rationally justified. [~Q]*
3) Therefore MT is not true. [~P]
Accepting Metaphysical Pluralism (MP)
1) Either MT or MP is true. [P xor Q]
2) MT is false. [~P]
3) Therefore MP is true. [Q]**
*Premise 1.2 (more than one metaphysical system can be rationally justified) is best illustrated in our common rejection of solipsism. Solipsism, the idea that only one’s own mind exists, is a metaphysical system which we have no conceivable way of proving or disproving with any certainty. While it may be true that “I exist” is the only thing we can be metaphysically certain of, few people go on to believe that other people exist in a way different from themselves. In other words, the vast majority of us accept that others are conscious in the same way we are, that “I exist” is as true for them as us, despite the epistemological reality that we can never conceivably prove this. Not only is solipsism rationally justifiable, but the rejection of it is also rationally justifiable, which we seem to implicitly acknowledge. Here already we have proof of 1.2.
Tied into this premise is the concept of epistemological friendliness, the idea that people can come to different conclusions than us while being just as rational as we are. An example I like is how an atheist who has never experienced (or at least never recognized) the divine may be justified in their disbelief, but a theist who has many divine experiences may only be justified in accepting theism. Or someone who has never seen (or recognized) a ghost may not believe in them, but for someone who grew up in a haunted house it would be disbelief that is irrational.
These all tie into the fact that we seem incapable of achieving metaphysical certainty on most topics. Thousands of years have shown we cannot “prove” which metaphysical system is right, if gods exist or not, if ghosts are real, and so on. The biggest take away from science and philosophy should be that ideas will always be in competition with each other, to think otherwise is a pipe dream. Thus we are led to Metaphysical Pluralism.
** The acceptance of Metaphysical Pluralism is not synonymous with the acceptance of Relativism. MP does not imply that each and every metaphysical system is rationally justifiable, only that more than one can be. To use the square of opposition, “some metaphysical systems are rationally justifiable, some metaphysical systems are NOT rationally justifiable.” This rejects "all metaphysical systems are rationally justifiable" and "no metaphysical systems are rationally justifiable."
Science and logic can certainly disprove things, the problem is they seem incapable of proving the majority of things in the most pure, metaphysically certain sense. Indeed neither can even disprove solipsism with any certainty, despite us (including me) commonly rejecting it. Either Solipsism or Non-Solipsism may be true, either Theism or Atheism may be true, but on the other hand, the physical world being created 6,000 years ago does NOT appear to be true. An all-loving, all-powerful god does not appear to be true. A system that believes abusing children is good for them is demonstrably false. So MP does not imply Relativism.
Applications of Pluralism
1) Reality is made of many different things, rather than a singular/unitive whole. I like to say “it is dualism, but worse.” For instance we have matter, and also consciousness, but further we have different forms of consciousness, logical and mathematical law, the gods themselves, so forth and so on. Reductionism contradicts MP as it inevitably leads to MT.
2) There are many valid and valuable forms of knowledge, not just one. For example scientific empiricism is a critically important form of knowledge, but not the sole form. Logic is another. Experience is one that is absolutely central for all of us and much overlooked in modern discourse. Myth can provide deep knowledge, even fiction can. Even revelation is not something to be ignored (though, like empiricism, it cannot be given undue weight).
3) Epistemological Friendliness: I must remember that different, even contradictory paradigms can be reasonably concluded depending on one’s knowledge and experiences. Contradictory as they can be at odds with each other, rather than internally contradictory. As mentioned, someone who has no experiences they would categorize as divine may be valid in atheism, whereas one who has such experiences may only be valid in theism. Atheism and theism obviously cannot both be true, but both can be reasonably concluded with consistent internal reason/evidence. Even as a polytheist I must realize that if someone is raised in monotheism, has a divine experience, and the only god they experience literally says “I am the only one,” it only makes sense they would grow deeper roots into monotheism. This does not mean I believe monotheism is TRUE, but I can understand why someone may conclude it without them being inherently irrational. Debate is somewhat pointless, the focus should be more on philosophical questioning to help individuation.
4) Pragmatism. Multiple (non)spiritual paths can lead to valid and valuable ends for the individual, there is not one true religion or path. For instance both the RHP and LHP can be right for the individual depending on who they are, what they desire, etc. Practices that have no value or even use for me may be extremely valuable and useful to others, and that is just as true as what works for me. A good example is when I was a social worker and families would bond over things like prayer boxes or going to church. MT would imply I must step in and stop this irrationality, that it is not valid, but I would never have done such a thing and was right not to. Likewise while I have little use for ceremonial magic it may be critical for another, and thus projecting my own needs and experience onto them may easily do more harm than good.
5) Obviously then people can value things in general which I have no value for. As this is already covered I will reiterate that I am not implying Relativism here. If someone gains the same power from their cross that another does from their pentagram, and another from their family crest, that is all equally valid. This does NOT imply something like a value of abuse is equally valid, and we will dive into morality in a moment.
6) Keep in mind that metaphysical systems quite alien to your own may have much to offer, and that all of one’s own cultures are likely flawed the same as any other. Not much more to say.
7) Look up to the Egyptians. There is not “one true myth.” The importance of a god or symbol depends on the population you are addressing. Myths and symbols provide as much knowledge as modern methods. Look for the similarities across metaphysical systems like Setesh and Baal, Djehuty and Ningishzida, the Neteru and the Platonic Forms, etc. Have altars to many gods and ideas, many loved ones, many wants and desires.
The Morality Clause
All Metaphysical Pluralism must be rooted in morality. Thus a metaphysical system which promotes or seeks to violate the wills of others is not one we must honor and consider, a system being immoral invalidates it from acceptance. That said, it is important to be very aware that something actually seeks to oppress the individual will, and isn’t just something at odds with your metaphysical system.
Comments