How To Kill A Basilisk
A phenomenological reduction
“For it is in your power to retire into yourself whenever you choose. Perfect tranquility within consists in the good ordering of the mind, the realm of your own.” - Marcus Aurelius
-
ABSTRACT
Premise 1:Relativism causes paralyzing doubt about which beliefs and values are justified. If all worldviews are mere assumptions, why not assume nothing? “Man would sooner will nothing than nothing at all.”
Premise 2: Inescapable perceptions provide a standard for evaluating all beliefs and values, as Relativism is itself an Inescapable Perception–Relativism cannot doubt inescapable perceptions without being an Inescapable Perception. This provides the capacity for diverse psychologically certain perceptions.
Conclusion 1: The inescapably perceived “given” self is the psychologically certain standard for all beliefs and values, and we must perform Introspection to determine a standard beyond our “given” inescapable perceptions.
-
0/4
We seek a standard that provides confidence and justification, yet first we must understand where such a standard might originate. As in, what does relativism leave us with? It has taken so much certainty, but what do we have left? Perhaps we can learn from those who came before us, starting at the beginning of modern western philosophy: So we will see where Descartes failed to fully address the Basilisk of Relativism–perhaps understandably unwilling to meet its gaze–and then we will acknowledge the Basilisk. We shall acknowledge it and know its power, and only after doing so may we think to hold a mirror up to the Basilisk: Slaying the Basilisk with its own gaze.
Considering Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” concept once more, the problem with it is Descartes’ reasoning, not necessarily his conclusion. As previously discussed, using your thinking to prove you are in fact thinking cannot actually be what makes the foundational principle of “I am conscious” justified to assert. Because the dice-thrower could use their foundation of believing the truth to be something, to ‘prove’ that in fact they do believe the truth to be that thing. If we want a standard for all beliefs and values, it will not derive justification solely from the fact that it can consistently justify itself. In this essay we will construct a reason to believe in Descartes’ conclusion of “I am”, as well as “I think”, that does not rely on such self-affirming tautologies.
But Descartes has another problem if you know his argument, and this is where we shall finally put to rest any previous rebuttals of relativism that I am aware of: What if our inability to conceive of “I think therefore I am” as false, is simply yet another illusion the evil demon has cast on us? Descartes draws a line in the sand between our senses and our thoughts. Descartes assumes that the Human belief that you cannot doubt without thinking is a justified belief, but he himself has authored an argument why Human beliefs are not trustworthy. Intended to strike down empiricism, the beast turns on its master. Say, if the evil demon controls all of our perception, our thoughts and senses, so too could he control whether we believe we are thinking or not. So why assume our thoughts are safe while our senses are not, when a demon controlling not only our senses but our perception as a whole could simply make us perceive that our thoughts are secure? What makes for Descartes the Human perception “we are thinking” uniquely justified whereas the perception “there is a desk in front of me”, is supposedly doubtful to him? They’re both perceptions a perception-creating demon could fake. Your instinctual reply that there’s something unique about thoughts that couldn’t be totally faked is itself predicated on perception–on an instinct this demon could conceivably have implanted within you. With this argument we watch the evil demon rend rationalism’s head from its torso.
No Descartes, in my quest to describe Humanity, I must observe that our own subjective perception is all we have. It’s what makes “self evident” things self evident; In retrospect, could any standard or reasoning that is supposedly objective ever hope to appeal to ‘self-evidence’ in the first place without immediately appearing as if it forgot that a ‘self’ is definitionally subjective? We can’t know if an evil demon is making us believe we are thinking when we’re actually not. And so, it seems as if all is reduced to our immediate subjective perceptions. At least, that’s what we perceive to be the case. Although… of course, like the dice thrower, it seems you could just assert “cogito ergo sum” as an unquestionable first principle and then you’d be just as justified as anyone else. Subjective actors may always perceive themselves as objective. Even if all that I say and all I could ever say, and your own consideration of these words and ideas as either correct and incorrect, could all be the elaborate manufactured perceptions of some perception deceiving demon.
You may still be utterly convinced of “I think therefore I am”. Note again that I did not contradict its conclusion, only its implied reasoning and justification. To illustrate this, why is the opposite: “I think not, therefore I am not.” wrong? Why does it seem obviously false? The statement does logically affirm itself: If you don’t think, then “you” don’t exist to acknowledge and think of your own existence. Obviously, you’re already thinking to even conceive of that statement, and that’s precisely why Descartes thought Cogito Ergo Sum was a good base axiom. Because you seemingly shoot yourself in the foot, because to think of a criticism is to, well, think. This consideration reveals that it is not enough for a first principle to merely affirm itself, rather it must actually be perceived by the individual. Contrary to what Descartes argued, the reason “I think therefore I am” is relevant at all is because it’s seemingly inescapable from your own perspective. It’s not uniquely justified as a standard because “thinking you are thinking” reaffirms itself. “Because you can’t help but think even when you doubt your very thoughts.” Instead, it’s justified because you honestly do perceive yourself to be thinking. Perhaps there are other justified axioms to adopt, but with Cogito Ergo Sum it’s simply so fundamentally part of our perspective as humans to affirm it, that we do. We perceive ourselves to be thinking even when considering critiques of the statement.
And that’s what makes Descartes' axiom convincing to adopt: It’s the underlying notion that “we humans truly, honestly, cannot hope but perceive this thing to be true and justified and sensible”. “I cannot escape perceiving myself to be thinking, therefore I decide I am thinking.”–would be the translation of Descartes if he could just let go of wanting that inarguable “““objective””” principle. The self is justified because it seems as if, from the human perspective at least, no matter what you try to argue you can’t honestly escape the admission that even doubting implies something is doubting, and we humans conceive of this something as our ‘self’. It is not the discovery of some unquestionable truth, but rather the acknowledgment of an inescapable perception. Perhaps it is ‘wrong’–the artificial illusion of some demon–but it is inescapable and we cannot help but perceive it regardless.
The symmetry breaker between “I think therefore I am” and “I think not therefore I am not.” is not logic, reason or rationality, neither is it circularity, but mere humble inescapable perception. For now I can offer a translation of what all human beliefs and values are, and with this we may finally name our confusion:
1/4
Perception. It’s about what we honestly, truly experience. What we seem to value and believe, what we perceive we choose to value and believe. You cannot escape perception. But what is perception, anyways? When I say perception, I’m talking about all experiences of the self and of the world. Conscious and unconscious, intentional, and unintentional, thoughts, beliefs, desires, feelings, memories, intuitions and senses. All thoughts, all senses, all feelings, all desires, all beliefs, all values, all intuitions–all are experienced, all are perceptions. Anything understood, considered, or felt by you, is meant to be reducible to this general term: ‘perception’. We may call all perceptions ever perceived our “sum perceptions”. All things that seem to be the case to you are perceptions. This is because, for anything that humans do intentionally or unintentionally, consciously or subconsciously, represented by x, it can be said that “I perceive x”. “I am cold. = I perceive that I am cold.” “I had an urge to eat 5 days ago = I perceive that I had an urge to eat 5 days ago.” I may have a very unique sensation or intuition concerning, say, a totally original and new sense. A sixth sense, telepathy, perhaps implanted in humans in the future. Even for this currently inconceivable thing–let’s call it “x”--it can be said that “You perceive x” Thus, at a fundamental descriptive level anything and everything you will believe or value will be something you perceive. Something you perceive to believe, something you perceive to value. All is perceived, all is perception. This itself is perceived.
“Prior to all theory the world is given. All opinions, warranted or not, popular, superstitious, and scientific ones — they all refer to the world already given in advance. How does the world give itself to me, what can I immediately articulate about it, how can I immediately and generally describe that for what it gives itself, what it is according to its original sense, as this sense gives itself as the sense of the world itself in “immediate” perception and experience?... – Edmund Husserl [Phenomenology is, while certainly in my opinion the right starting point, not nearly broad and ambitious enough in its consideration of human perception. While I appreciate Phenomenology and was thrilled to learn other people had started with perception, I don’t feel satisfied upon reading it. Husserl used the mirror to look at himself instead of to kill the Basilisk. We must go further! We must acknowledge the subject's perception of things outside itself!]
Perception can of course mislead us–we can perceive a mirage in the desert–but it is also perception that informs us there is indeed no mirage: We perceive there to be no water when we reach the illusion, and we perceive to remember from experience that others have also suffered mirages in similar circumstances, you even perceive a man told you there’s no nearby oases. Perception is not perfect and this is perceived–though the critical analysis of our perception is not the purpose of this essay–and so all human truth and falsehood is contained within our perception.
If we hope to establish some standard by which to hold our beliefs and values to account, it will be a standard we perceive. It will be a standard we stitch together from what it is we have merely been given by virtue of existing. It will be a standard we come to know using our perception of what the world is, and who we are within it.
This term “perception” is the language we reduce all human experience to in order to ensure our victory over relativism. In order to slay a basilisk you must constrain its movement such that it can only face you head on: Let us begin by pointing out that you cannot prove relativism to be the case objectively. The evil perception-deceiving demon whispers “There is no objective standard for what we experience, nor for reality”, yet this promise could not simultaneously be the singular, protected, objectively true standard that strikes down all other standards while claiming to not be a standard. If you honestly couldn’t help but perceive relativism to be false, relativism would have no ground to stand on. It obliterated its own foundation when it killed ALL foundations. By what standard is it accepted that all standards are only justified by appealing to themselves? If there truly is no first philosophy, by what philosophy do we accept the denial of a first philosophy as true? Instead what justifies our relativist doubt is, just as with cogito ergo sum, an inescapable perception of relativism. We will speak of relativism in terms of perception. We perceive there to be relativism. We perceive there to be no objective standard by which to hold all beliefs and values to account. Even when wielding the sword of nihilism to kill all other beliefs, our usage of relativism is enabled only by a perception of relativism.
But let me temper my enthusiasm. To face a Basilisk head on surely only means certain death, where otherwise you could maybe still evade and escape. “Perception”/our experience of reality on its own does little to dampen the doubt of all things. It seems all we have done is justify subjectivity, and Human subjectivity is evidently not compatible nor prone to being correct. If the dice thrower perceives himself to be true, then according to his perception he is true. Those who disagree with my framing of perception as the basic language for all thoughts, beliefs, values and philosophy can disagree using their perception I just defended. Relativism isn’t at all defeated, the Basilisk can live fat and happy in our framing of all human experience as perception. Other phenomenology, such as that of a dude named Husserl, places undue certainty, I perceive, on perception. They did not doubt perception as the universal underlying language. The absolute and fatal threat of relativism must be faced head on, in its strongest most brutal articulation, if any victory over it is to be considered true and final. Selfishly, I cannot live with myself knowing I am avoiding a possible better, more convincing formulation of a criticism. We must have courage to face the Basilisk. Courage to live or die standing. So, let us consider relativism’s lethal venom of “circularity” and “bias” once more, with perception itself sacrificially placed within its maw:
Relativism challenges us that no matter what we perceive reality to be, we can only use that same perception circularly to confirm our beliefs. But perception itself may be questioned; Relativism would challenge this assertion that “perception is the standard” by comparing it too to the assertions of the Dice-Thrower or the presuppositionalist. Are we merely asserting our perception as correct, perception as the “correct language” and as most justified? Can’t anyone do that for any standard?
Previous attempts to constrain relativism have pointed out that the claim “There is no objectivity” and positions derivative of that sentiment are nonsensical and self-refuting. Fair enough, pointing out that relativism is self-defeating because “no standard for truth means the statement denying a standard for truth can’t be true” seems to seriously undermine relativism. But I think it is ultimately a very weak argument. It doesn’t give relativism the full amount of credit it deserves. Relativism does exist as an inescapable urge to doubt everything–that is evident by the very existence of disagreement between humans. Even if relativism might not be “objectively valid” by any measure or standard as a critique, it certainly seems to undermine every worldview by questioning how that worldview knows it’s correct without circularly appealing to itself. It certainly seems to bring all principles down to an egalitarian playing field where each is just as arbitrarily justified–or arbitrarily unjustified–as the next. It certainly makes the human perceive any and all ideology as an arbitrary freely made choice. A kamikaze pilot kills himself, but he takes the whole ship down with him.
If after lengthy and intense introspection we still cannot help but consider relativism a justified doubt–if we cannot rid ourselves of our perception of this unsurmountable appeal to nihilism and cynicism being justified, then that is merely what the perceiver will perceive. If Relativism reduces all to an uncertain likelihood it will still have functionally subjugated our passionate belief. We will perceive relativism as an omnipresent poltergeist, constantly challenging us whether we’re living a lie. Phenomenology, including my own interpretation of it, is a matter of soberly identifying what it is humans descriptively perceive, and as a member of a nihilistic, superficial, and meaningless society, I am only being honest here when I admit that relativism’s taunting can certainly seem valid. The bomb is itself obliterated, but the collateral is our trust in human passion. Perception only seems to provide the Basilisk a more direct path to kill us, if anything.
Or maybe not.
Briefly, translate Relativism as doubt of all things. If I am truly committed to doubting everything, then I will even doubt my doubting of everything! I will doubt whether it is truly justified to perpetually doubt every breath I take, every moment I am alive. I will doubt whether perhaps it is justified to live after all. Tantamount to looking at a mirror and getting an idea.
“All we have to work with is what we perceive, and this I can’t help but perceive. I can’t help but perceive a thing to be thinking, and that thing to be myself. I can’t help but remember, perceive logic as justified, and my body as hungry. I also can’t help but perceive every standard, including this one, as a self-referential infinite regress kept churning by doubt that is itself infinitely recursive.” I will present an answer which describes the essence of this “doubt of everything” you have: The doubt is an inescapable perception. You persist in doubting whether you exist–whether anything exists and is "real", because there exists within you an inescapable perception of absolute doubt. You can't escape from this perception that everything you know and love is fake. You can't escape from this perception that you yourself might be fake.
Afterall, how could you know you exist? By what standard could you be sure?
Relativism can not attack inescapable perception without using it. We lift the mirror so that the Basilisk may gaze upon itself. The notion that our beliefs and values have no standard, itself rests on a perception that such doubt is indeed a belief I simply can’t help but perceive. How is this doubt itself justified? Where does the doubt gain its persuasive power? How have you been convinced to accept this doubt? Ultimately, it's because the doubt is simply, as described, an inescapable sense. Something scratching at the back of your mind: Can I REALLY be sure that "I" exist?! Can I really be sure this isn't all some illusion?
The only justification for this doubt of all things is that it is psychologically perceived as certain
2/4
We have identified the source of power for our doubt. We know what supplies it with endless energy. We know that it locks the victim in place, with the perceiver unable to escape the gaze of Relativism once it has looked into it. What paralyzes the perceiver from future action is obvious now: it is merely a doubt we cannot help but perceive. An inescapable perception of doubt.
What comes next is beautiful. The destructive power of the Basilisk is reflected magnificently back at it as Relativism sees itself for the first time. It is a very very simple consideration:
"If 'doubt of all things' is perceived as truly inescapable, what other perceptions are perceived as inescapable?"
Now I ask you this: Look outside at a blade of grass. If you suspect the intention of my communication cannot be coherently grasped, then instead just look at this image online: https://cdn.britannica.com/22/215522-131-FB1512ED/green-grass-close-up.jpg The question is simple: "do you perceive the grass in the image to be the color green?". Just think of the color green, and compare it to that image.
Next question: "Can you escape this perception?" Can you possibly look at the image I have shown you, and tell me that it does not look like the color green? I'm NOT asking if it's "true" or "correct" that the grass is green. I'm NOT asking if it's immune to doubt. I'm asking if you, regardless, can help but perceive that image to be green.
The answer is: no. No matter what you do, or doubt, the image just seems green. I cannot help but perceive that my senses inform me that grass is green, and I cannot help but assume and feel confident believing that the grass is in fact green. Could the color of the grass be otherwise? Perhaps, yet I am incapable of perceiving it any other way. It is not the inability to doubt, it is the inability to not believe in the face of doubt. It is the psychologically stable sense of certainty when considering the perception.
I will present to you an answer which describes the essence of this "sensation of green" you have: The green is an inescapable perception.
If your "doubt of everything" was as strong as mine, you will immediately doubt all that I have said here. Fabulous. You have just proven to yourself how truly inescapable "inescapable perception" truly is. Every time you doubt, every time you disbelieve reality, know that you are inextricably binding yourself to a perception–the perception that everything is fake. Breathe. Take in the truly inescapable perception of this doubt, and rejoice in the first perception you have regained: You have gained a perception that the doubt truly is inescapable. This is a belief in something. The doubt of everything is perceived as inescapable. But the consideration remains consistent: "If this 'doubt of all things' is perceived as truly inescapable, what other perceptions are truly inescapable?"
And so, furiously thrashing to and fro, the Basilisk intensifies its stare. It magnifies the power of its gaze tenfold, surely meaning instantaneous death for all those that meet its gaze. But as we have lifted a mirror, the only creature that it sees is the Basilisk itself. The only hateful eyes it can peer into are its own. Your doubt of all things, if as ardent and inescapable as my own, will churn inside you. You will doubt, and doubt, and doubt, furiously seeking to poison your inescapable perceptions with a sliver of doubt in their inescapability. But the more certain, the more inescapable this doubt becomes, the more dread you feel that what you hold close to your heart could be fake, the more you prove the true breathtaking inescapability of those perceptions close to your heart. No matter what you do, your inescapable perceptions remain. Any of them, and all of them truly inescapable.
Why is perception the language we use to describe all experience? Because it is the sole language that describes all possible doubts. It is the sole language that addresses the convincing nature of relativism, that uses precisely exactly whichever appeal relativism will use to frame both doubt and certainty in equal terms. There is no use in using a mirror that can’t reflect everything shone upon it, for then Relativism will merely manifest itself in the sole thing that the mirror cannot reflect. And so there is nothing outside of perception. Whenever Relativism critiques perception it is itself a perception. But do not mistake this explanation of why all things were reduced to perception as sufficient justification for relativism being false. The mirror does not contain the power of the Basilisk, only the ability to reflect the attack of the Basilisk back onto itself. So perception is the mirror, and that which is inescapable is the Basilisk’s gaze. The fact the mirror reflects does not prove it to be correct–what it reflects is obviously of crucial relevance. The thing that kills the Basilisk is ultimately an inescapable perception that it is not certain, yet still perceived. That it is equally perceived as inescapable–perhaps even less inescapably perceived–than other perceptions:
It is not the fact that we perceive perceptions, but the fact that we perceive we absolutely couldn’t perceive otherwise, that makes perceptions formidable. Sure, certainly, we might inescapably perceive there to be no “objective” standard for beliefs and values, (at first)–we still perceive relativism–but if we also perceive there to be apparent beliefs and values we cannot escape–belief and values we cannot help but believe and value–then relativism is rendered utterly irrelevant, at least insofar that it attacks the individual, at least for now. It might be “wrong” “unjustified” to think a blue car we see is blue, but we can’t help but believe it to be anything other than a blue car. The inescapable threat that our beliefs and values are fake–merely imagined–totally free for us to choose–isn’t threatening when we perceive just as readily that our beliefs and values are also inescapable, that there are beliefs and values we cannot help but have. That the doubt itself is merely an inescapable perception. Beliefs and values we cannot help but feel are correct and justified. In this manner the skeptic’s inescapable urge to doubt has been used to justify another action–belief in something on account that such belief is also an inescapable urge–in a fabulous display of mental ju–jitsu. “If relativism is perceived as truly inescapable, what other perceptions are perceived as inescapable?”
To clarify: the arguments I have provided SHOULD NOT erase this doubt you have. It should merely introduce the possibility for *other '*inescapable perceptions'. You should continue with the "doubt of everything" and will if it truly is an inescapable perception. I certainly still feel it every day. But now I also have other inescapable perceptions that I recognize may not be ""true"" or ""justified"" or ""real"" but regardless they're perceptions I can't escape.
We return to Descartes to triumphantly proclaim him correct, though perhaps not for his communicated reasons. I can't escape perceiving that 'I' exist. I'm not sure who this 'I' is exactly, but I do inescapably perceive a number of things about him. I perceive some sort of consistent personality. It doesn't have to be "real" or "true"--It's just that I can't help but perceive it. I perceive he's interested in philosophy and has an immense urge to doubt. I even perceive that he has tamed this doubt by recognizing that this urge to doubt is not alone--he has inescapable urges to do many more things. He has the urge to love, to think, to sense, to dislike, to reason.
And it does not matter if these inescapable perceptions, these "urges" are "true". Or """objectively real""". It never mattered. All that mattered--to and from his inescapable perspective--was that he couldn't help but care about his family. Even if his family was "in reality" fake and his love from them fake as well, he couldn't help but perceive a family and an inescapable love that he had for them. And because the urge to love is inescapable–just as the urge to doubt is inescapable–he did love, he perceived that he loved, he did doubt.
So never speak of "truth" or "reality" in a vacuum ever again. For alone they are indeed meaningless words. And we do not speak of words, we speak of things. Inescapable perception is the actual language of human existence, and all "truth and objectivity" is only ever a truth and reality we cannot help but perceive.
This argument–“I can’t escape perception, and that which I cannot help but perceive will constitute my consciously held beliefs and values”–is itself something I can’t help but perceive to be a convincing argument. Maybe you disagree. Maybe you think it’s unconvincing. Maybe you’re still stuck in the relativist purgatory of the last essay. Maybe you still have yet to perceive the inescapability of your doubt as its justification. I pity you–relativism stinks horribly and the perception-deceiving demon should at least take a shower every now and then.
Maybe you perceive “whatever I think is true is true” to be a better foundation just as the dice-thrower before you. I can’t jump in your head, and perceive for you. I perceive that I can’t just tell you what to perceive, I perceive that you can, just as the dice thrower, assert a different standard. I CAN however perceive that humans share relevant perceptions, that you are a human, that humans misunderstand or don’t know their own perceptions and are generally ‘mis-aligned’. People may pick a dish at a restaurant they end up regretting–for whatever reason people may not desire and believe what I can’t help but feel they “ought to”. If you are a flat earther, I can’t perceive a round earth as true and justified for you, but I also can’t help but perceive you to be wrong and capable of correcting your belief upon sober, humble, honest consideration of your perceptions. But now we have named what our beliefs are–inescapable perception. We need not be demoralized by those who accept absurdities, because it is inescapable to us that they are absurd and we are sober. The doubt of all things is forever challenged by the inescapable perception of all things.
3/4
There are many ways of framing what was enumerated in this essay. “A justification of all human beliefs that are subjectively inescapable, all equally convincing as relativism, if relativism too is perceived to be an inescapable doubt.” “A reduction of all human beliefs, true or false, justified or unjustified, to a mere inescapable sense of validity.” “An analysis of what justifies relativism itself, and using that descriptive analysis of human cognition to phrase all other beliefs in equal terms as perceptions.” “How to kill a Basilisk”. I might even use the last one as a title. However, what I would like to frame this essay as, consciously and intentionally now, is a rebuke of the implied first philosophy of western philosophy. The very words “first philosophy” presuppose a first philosophy of various philosophical paradigms that come “first”–Of ideologies and axioms that are merely supposed and affirmed, a sort of thrift shop of ideology where you are condemned to freedom. This is seen in mathematical axioms, as well as the modern framing of the landscape of various ‘competing’ beliefs/worldview we find ourselves in.
It is depicted as if axioms are merely asserted, and when you question “why?” the most substantive answer you will ever receive in return is “because we do”. And so this essay is nothing more than a stripping away of the pomp and circumstance. No, all things can be said to be believed “because it seems to be the case”. Why portray axioms and worldviews as things that are merely asserted by the adherent when in actuality these axioms are asserted because the adherent can’t help but assert them as valid? Why not merely describe all things in equal terms, as perception that is or isn’t inescapable? When you speak of “I think therefore I am” and “I think not therefore I am not” as if they were somehow totally equally valid axioms we could 50/50 choose, supposedly merely chosen because they were chosen, you are misrepresenting why and what humans perceive. One axiom is inescapable, the other is not. It is literally that simple–appealing to inescapability provides you with justification and shields you from those that propose another option on the grounds that all axioms are “free to choose”. Moreover, it describes far better why the axioms we landed on were the ones we chose. Aristotle didn’t write the three laws of logic because they seemed nifty. He merely wrote what he inescapably perceived to be the 3 laws of logic.
In my mind, the importance of reducing all things to inescapable perception is akin to “e=mc^2”. When Einstein proved the interchangeability of all energy and matter as both equally parts of the fabric of spacetime, he opened the door for the manipulation of both. Consider the Butterfly Effect: A small change, at the absolute core of our interpretation of the Human Condition and the Philosophy that seeks to catalog, explain, and prescribe to it, can have massive effects that ripple outwards and reorder all aspects of this Human Condition. When I speak of all things as inescapable perception, I intend to enable the manipulation of ALL of our inescapable perception. All beliefs and values are inescapably perceived. They can be used interchangeably, just as 6^2 and 6*6 result in the same output. And though this does for now, seemingly, justify all subjectivity and all worldviews insofar that they are inescapably perceived by the human–from dice thrower to relativist–it also shields subjectivity–subjectively to you and I–utterly and entirely from relativism. Because relativism is also only ever subjectively perceived. Because if relativism is merely not inescapably perceived, or perceived just as readily as other perceptions, then the individual at least has themself–the self they cannot help but perceive.
The first essay was merely a sober description of how our modern society frames all beliefs and values we have–as mere choices. As previously phrased, Sartre’s “condemned to freedom” entirely encapsulates this sentiment. This sort of freedom is death by a thousand choices. This essay presents what I believe to be an honest alternative. You did not choose to perceive that blue car to be blue. It was merely inescapable that you did. Yes, your affirmation of the car as blue is a choice, but it is hardly uncoerced. Man’s condemnation to “freedom” is mirrored by a condemnation to perceive things as correct and incorrect, and it would be entirely divorced from your sum perception to embrace your inescapable freedom to choose without acknowledging your inescapable perceptions of better and worse choices. If they are both equally inescapable perceptions, the only possible reason to prefer one over the other is itself an admission of the notion that certain choices are merely inescapably perceived as “more correct” or “more preferred”. To believe freedom allows all choices equally is itself a belief you found more compelling than other options–it is to believe your “condemnation to freedom” was not itself free–and so it is to live an inescapable contradiction.
What follows after this essay should be predictable at this point: I will describe what humans inescapably perceive “correct” and “incorrect” choices to be. And think, dear reader, if I did my job, and it is indeed a truly descriptively accurate account of all human beliefs and values, why would you expect it to do anything other than identify and justify of course the values and beliefs humans now have? This initial subjective soup we find ourselves in should be totally expected. Because clearly these humans do as a matter of fact find their perceptions justified beliefs and values to hold by virtue of the fact that they do hold these beliefs and values. Any correct worldview must first acknowledge the sober reality–the sorry state of Human agreement–and explain why all the many Humans do indeed consider themselves correct.
My entire reduction to inescapable perception should itself be understood as inescapable. I make the observation that there is no other foundation capable of dealing with relativism. Absolutely no other “first philosophy” can consciously move past the relativist purgatory of total paralysis of any and all beliefs, without merely ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away. I can move past relativism now, because I refused the notion of “first philosophy” altogether, naming everything as inescapable perception instead–regardless of whether or not one recognizes it as such. This is because there is no other way to even understand relativism, to name it, other than as an inescapable perception. I name the demon and its power, and in doing so reveal how to defeat it.
That is my answer to the question of by what standard we can determine correctness: unexplored, undeveloped, unoffending, unassuming as it might currently seem. In 13 words I will dictate the standard here and now once more: “That which you cannot help but perceive to be the most justified beliefs and values.” Obviously this is a bone without a scrap of flesh on it. It doesn’t give any pragmatic guide for beliefs or values, but it’s a skeleton nonetheless. A meticulously crafted skeleton built to withstand the weight of its eventual flesh. It’s a descriptive account of what humans believe, and now we know at least what it takes to believe in something. We know now what the standard will consist of, even if we can’t parse between different standards. With the introspection we recount in future essays, I hope to build up enough revealed perceptions that you cannot help but perceive this: “We can meaningfully set about characterizing what standard for right and wrong we humans most perceive to be correct.” But that will be a perception cultivated with time and effort. I would not ask you to immediately perceive it as inescapable.
Now, unlike my approach in this essay towards “first philosophy”/metaphysics, entirely intelligent, wise, and virtuous thinkers in response to the relative nature of all first principles, have gone backwards in my summation. They’ve affirmed “objective” worldviews, they’ve gone back and tried to revive standards by which someone is wrong regardless of their opinion. This is akin to using a sword and shield to kill a Basilisk–a brave and useless suicide. The solution, rather, that I petition Humanity to adopt, is to double down as I have done. To affirm subjectivity. To use the mirror. To interrogate that subjectivity and realize that humans inescapably perceive objectivity. That from subjectivity itself objectivity gains justification, and that subjectivity is not inherently “dangerous”, “chaotic”, “arbitrary” or threatening to order and justice if it perceives objectivity within itself.
Make no mistake, I myself do sense objectivity. This defense of objectivity is not merely performative to avoid the ire of those who so eagerly brandish objectivity. I do have a strong sense of objectively true things, but the difference between me and those who merely assert objectivity without descriptively acknowledging its subjective origin, is that I can actually account for this perception of mine. If someone says “yes but if objectivity is dependent on your perception of it then it is not objective” then I will merely point out that they subjectively perceive that, and any further invocation of ‘objectivity’ will be met with a similar response. And do not mistake this description of all objectivity as subjectively perceived as the insinuation that there is no objectivity. I am not divorced from my inescapable sum perception. Humans do inescapably perceive objectivity. I do not deny it. It does exist:
“There is no objective truth” as a statement is impossible because it asserts an objective truth. The perception of many things as objective is an intractable part of my given. I’m merely interested in digging deeper than “objectivity”. No disagreement was ever settled because one side claimed “Well, yeah but ya see I’m the objectively true person here.” and the other person conceded “Oh of course sorry I forgot about that!” You need more than the mere word “objectivity”. You need inescapable perception, and you need to be able to describe other peoples’ inescapable perceptions to them. Objectivity, if it is inescapably perceived, is an indication of correctness akin to a principle self-affirming itself, but neither are by themselves sufficient. While my Standard will be ‘Objective’, it will be far far MORE than that!
What I will argue in the remainder of this work is based on a recognition of perception as the foundation, perception as the perceived foundation. Not perception as the “objectively true”, unfalsifiable foundation, rid itself of the perception of relativism–but perception as the inescapable foundation. Put another way, perception is the foundation I cannot help but consider most descriptively accurate after cultivation of a belief in all other foundations. If that doesn’t make sense, it will soon. Perception is the thing you cannot help but do. I will present the concept that from your very own perspective you do have access to certain beliefs and values and underlying ways to assess said beliefs and values, whether or not you’re consciously, intentionally aware of it. The introspection I recount in the next essays will establish a standard we cannot help but perceive. This perspective is merely given, by virtue of perceiving existence as a Human. It is a standard you merely perceive to have, whether or not you like it or acknowledge it. You would have it in all the different possible worlds, as long as you are still you in certain relevant perceived ways. We cannot escape it. It will always be there regardless of which environment we find ourselves in, and whichever environment we cultivate. It’s simply the standard we perceive tied to our very self, most justified from the perspective of that self, and thus, we wouldn’t prefer having any other standard. With perception as our rosetta stone, capable of describing in equal terms all things, we will set our sights on a standard we cannot help but perceive to orient and frame our existence.
We have slain the mighty Basilisk of Relativism, perceiving it as inescapably irrelevant just as it perceived all things as inescapably relative. But make no mistake, the Basilisk’s gaze alone does not kill. Why else would the Basilisk have sharp teeth? The Basilisk was paralyzed in place by its own gaze, but it is we who have delivered the final blow. We still actively deliberately killed it while its power only neutralized itself. We still needed to inescapably perceive the ascetic ideal as not preferred. Let us mourn those whose passion it previously devoured.
Certainty as a psychological state has been revived, renewed to be perceived again as inescapable. Not for all things, but for certain things. Certain not of everything, but possibly certain of everything. Knowing what it takes to be psychologically certain is half the battle to achieving such a thing, and now we have achieved it. This I inescapably perceived anyways... Consult the color of grass if you disagree.
We have now gained the ability to be passionate–all that is needed is an inescapable perception of “passion for a given thing” to be justified–but how do we know what to be passionate for? What comes after killing the Basilisk? What passion shall we justify? What kingdom shall we build atop this hill? What is inescapably perceived as ‘justified’?: I cannot help but perceive myself to be Human. And in that Humanity I cannot help but perceive a standard.