“We believe ourselves to be mortal, just as a madman believes himself to be God”,
Nabokov wrote.
I have pondered this quote for a while since the first time I read it a few nights ago. It is deceptively simple and seems to have a bit of Lao Tzu’s Butterfly who is dreaming. Try as I might I just can’t get a positive read on it. The topics at risk here are questions of sanity and insanity and the possible definition of God as the determiner of meaning. Are we not more than madmen in agreement when we claim –those of us who might claim- we are mortal? And is there a displaced God-like arrogance, as Nabokov seems to hint, when each of us claim that we know reality to be “x†with our regalia of “evidence†trailing behind? What do you think Nabokov might mean, philosophically?
“nabokov might mean that claims to human knowledge are madness…”
Would you, given your predisposition towards Hume, agree with this? For you is there a fundamental distinction to be made between an individual locating himself within a collective “madness”, i.e. common “knowledge”, and an isolated individual having “private” knowledge unagreed upon by others?
there is a fundamental distinction between public and private “knowledge”… my truth is not your truth… my pain/joy/pleasure/dispair what have you are never anyone elses…
"there is a fundamental distinction between public and private “knowledge”… my truth is not your truth… my pain/joy/pleasure/dispair what have you are never anyone elses… "
I’m not sure that that answers the question with the correct distinction, because in each case it is an individual who is holding beliefs. In the one case (a reportedly sane person) an individual is, as I put it, locating himself within a collective “belief”, which is not to say that his ideas are exactly the same as those he is in agreement with, but that they are similar or at least not in conflict “we are mortal”, and in the other case it is an individual (a reportedly insane person), who holds beliefs in disagreement with the “collective belief”, i.e. “that he is God”. Is there for you a distinction between these two types of personally held beliefs, each unique, but one in agreement with many others, and one in disagreement with many others.
As I have pointed out, when we believe ourselves to be mortal, we have a great deal of evidence for that. But when a madman believes himself to be God, he has no evidence for it. Of course, whenever anyone believes anything, he believes that what he believes is true. That is, itself, a truism. So, on the level of believing, the madman’s belief, and the sane person’s belief are on a level. They both believe that what they believe is true. That is in the nature of belief. But on the objective level, their beliefs are very different, for one is supported by a great deal of evidence, and the other is supported by no evidence.
So, what Nabokov says is less than meets the eye. For he points out the truism that for anyone, both the mad and the sane, what he believes, he believes is true. But, of course, it is not true that for anyone, what he believes is true, nor it is the case that for anyone, he has evidence for what he believes is true. And the mad man who believes he is God is (a) wrong, and (b) has no evidence for his belief. But the sane man who believes he is mortal, is (a) wrong, and (b) has a great deal of evidence for his belief.
So any suggestion that the madman and the sane man are on equal footing is obvious nonsense. Philosophically and actually.
“But on the objective level, their beliefs are very different, for one is supported by a great deal of evidence, and the other is supported by no evidence.”
I’m sorry for your lost post, the thread had to be reformulated. But may I ask, if the madman’s belief is not supported by evidence, what is it supported by? Is it not “confirmed” by the world daily?
Consider Quine’s observation regarding evidence:
“…the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior field, except indirectly through considerations of equalibrium affecting the field as a whole”.
I thought I made the same points you were making by example, so it seems that you would agree with Nabokov that there is not a distinction between a madman who holds “x” to be true in contradiction to popular belief, and one of a “we” who holds “y” to be true in acceptance of popular belief. This is what I take from your post, does that seem right?
"my “truth” is not your “truth”
With this I agree. My “truth” may not even be my truth, let alone your truth.
Well, as I said, it is not supported at all by anything objective. And no, it is not confirmed by the world daily although the madman might believe it is. Reminds me a little of Bertrand Russell’s famous chicken who lives on the farm for a while and is fed every morning by Farmer Brown who, one fine morning, rather than feeding the chicken rings its neck. The chicken may have fancied that he was destined to be fed every morning and to live a long and comfortable life. The chicken was wrong. He hadn’t noticed the other chickens all around him who had disappeared on previous morning although they too had been fed every previous morning by Farmer Brown.
The madman is like that chicken.
“My truth” = “what I believe is true”. “Your truth”= “what you believe is true”.
It is sometimes true that what I believe is true is contrary to what you believe is true. But that is, if anything, a platitude. People disagree in their beliefs. So what?
I don’t understand what “my truth may not even be my truth” means except it is a confusing way of saying, “What I believe is true may not be true.” If that is what you are saying it is still another platitude.
Is philosophy just a way of uttering platitudes confusingly to make them sound unplatitudinous, and even profound? I hope not.
What is his argument for saying that? Or does he need an argument?
Nabokov’s argument is epigramic. He is of all things, [shhhh…] a novelist.
After all, Nabakov’s saying so makes it true.
Who said it was true? I only wish to question what it might mean, and in what way it could be true.
“Bertrand Russell’s famous chicken who lives on the farm for a while and is fed every morning by Farmer Brown who, one fine morning, rather than feeding the chicken rings its neck.”
Poor Farmer Brown, he like his chicken has no idea how he is grist for the Capitalist mill, thinking he is going about his days, stuffing his gut with the proceeds of his dead chickens, imitating the ideals imposed upon him by ideology and brainwashing like an automaton, just a lifeless cog in the perpetuation valuations that feed on the striping of wealth from others and work for the accumulation of wealth with the few. Like the chicken, Farmer Brown pecks the ground for the illusion of “free” and kindly given seed, when in fact when his farm goes in debt, the bank rings his neck. Other than that, how would you explain to a chicken that he is really a chicken, when he thinks otherwise?
"“My truth” = “what I believe is true”. “Your truth”= “what you believe is true”.
It is sometimes true that what I believe is true is contrary to what you believe is true. But that is, if anything, a platitude. People disagree in their beliefs. So what?"
You don’t get what Imp is saying. He is saying my truth is never your truth, not sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. But perhaps you should take this up with him.
“I don’t understand what “my truth may not even be my truth” means except it is a confusing way of saying, “What I believe is true may not be true.””
Truth is a language game construction. It does not exist outside of particular language games. Truth is a recursive event. Again, try Quine, then try Davidson.
"“My truth” = “what I believe is true”. “Your truth”= “what you believe is true”.
It is sometimes true that what I believe is true is contrary to what you believe is true. But that is, if anything, a platitude. People disagree in their beliefs. So what?"
You don’t get what Imp is saying. He is saying my truth is never your truth, not sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. But perhaps you should take this up with him.
He is saying that he and I ALWAYS disagree? Why would he say that? And how would he know?
“I don’t understand what “my truth may not even be my truth” means except it is a confusing way of saying, “What I believe is true may not be true.””
Truth is a language game construction. It does not exist outside of particular language games. Truth is a recursive event. Again, try Quine, then try Davidson.
That is supposed to be a reply to the point I made? My point is that I have no idea what “my truth may not even be my truth” could mean, except that it is a confusing way of saying that what I believe may be false. What has language games, and Quine, and Davidson to do with that?
First it is necessary to speak sensible English. Only then comes philosophy.
Perhaps take up Imp’s point with Imp. He is very good at expressing his opinion.
“First it is necessary to speak sensible English. Only then comes philosophy.”
Since you define sensible English, as the kind of English that your mind comprehends, and I have experienced the straitjacket of your thinking before, I’ll just let you figure the rest of it out for yourself. Take comfort in your assertions, clearly they are self-evident.
No. That’s how you seem to define it. I define sensible English as meaning something-anything. This jargon of “language games” and tossing names about is not thought, but a substitute for thought. Am I supposed to think, “Oh, language games. Truth in language games. Dunamis must be right, whatever it is he means.” Or, “Oh, Davidson and Quine. Wow. What is there to say now?” If you have an argument, then state it. Otherwise, you are not compelled to post.
No. That’s how you seem to define it. I define sensible English as meaning something-anything. This jargon of “language games” and tossing names about is not thought, but a substitute for thought. Am I supposed to think, “Oh, language games. Truth in language games. Dunamis must be right, whatever it is he means.” Or, “Oh, Davidson and Quine. Wow. What is there to say now?” If you have an argument, then state it. Otherwise, you are not compelled to post.
