On Thursday, September 18th, I participated in Grappling with the Gray with Naya Lekht, Kimberly Davis, and our host, Yonason Goldson. At one point, after 20 minutes or so of sharing thoughts, Kimberly said:
We’re going, “We’re the virtuous ones”. But other people think they’re the virtuous ones. So, who’s right? What’s truth?
She’s correct, of course. And it prompts two other questions: Beyond acknowledging our own biases, ideological or otherwise, can we begin any contemplation or conversation without presuming our own virtue? If so, does that mean we can begin any contemplation or conversation without convictions about right or wrong?
Why Should We?
If we can manage it, starting any contemplation or conversation without the presumption of virtue brings us down from some ostensible moral high ground. Being able to recognize our motives, biases, ideological convictions, and actions, enables us to question them. Where did they come from? Why do we adhere to them? How do they influence our attempts at reasoning? What might they prevent us from thinking, seeing, or doing? How might they prevent us from connecting with and appreciating (the perspectives of) others? What if we don’t hold our self-perceived goodness as a preconception?
When I was in school, we studied the philosophical concepts of (1) a priori knowledge and (2) first principles. A priori comes from the Latin ā priōrī, which means from what is earlier. It refers to knowledge derived through reasoning alone, without relying on empirical observation or sensory experience. It might even be called common sense.
First principles, on the other hand, originate in ancient Greek philosophy, in which a first principle was called an arche, meaning beginning, origin, source of action, or the curved structure formed by the tarsal and metatarsal bones of the foot. First principles are seen as fundamental, foundational assumptions or truths that serve as starting points, are considered self-evident or axiomatic, and are accepted as true without requiring further justification.
A priori reasoning can be used to justify or derive first principles, but not all a priori knowledge consists of first principles. And first principles are often known a priori because they are foundational truths that don’t rely on empirical evidence.
Since we live in an age in which the notion that everyone is entitled to his own truth is taken to be a priori knowledge and a first principle, it’s best to start with the conviction that our self-perceived virtue isn’t a priori knowledge, a first principle, or even true.
Kidding Aside
Getting back to Kimberly’s point, most people likely believe they’re virtuous. That’s understandable. But what if we set that self-perceived virtue aside, especially when we consider or interact with others? What if we approached such considerations or interactions tabula rasa, as equals, with a priori knowledge or first principles as starting points? It wouldn’t matter which. We’d be on common ground from the start.
Then we could approach contemplations, considerations, and interactions without judgment.
And judgment’s no place to start anyway.
Originally Published on https://www.bizcatalyst360.com/category/lifecolumns/notes-to-self/
