The Peril of First Principles

Last updated on: December 23, 2014 at 6:01 pm by willduquette

The Peril of First Principles 2014-12-23T18:01:41-05:00 willduquette

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It was in college that I first learned the peril of reasoning from first principles.

Rene Descartes, frustrated with the decadent tradition of scholastic philosophy (which admittedly was in serious straits in his day) decided to reboot philosophy altogether. Spurning that which went before, he started over; and he decided to proceed by trying to identify that first principle or principles about which he could not help but be absolutely certain. About every proposition he said, in effect, “If in doubt, throw it out. For now. If it turns out to be true, we’ll reason our way back to it later.” It isn’t that he disbelieved the ideas he threw out; but he was trying to find the rockbottom foundation of rational thought, those things that could not possibly be doubted. On that foundation, he intended to build a clear and distinct structure of rational thought about which there could be no dispute.

As everyone knows, the first principle he eventually settled on was cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore I am. He built quite a structure of thought on that one slender point; but he didn’t end all dispute. Others disputed his choice of starting point, and picked a different first principle, and got to a different place; and eventually philosophers began to embrace all manner of absurd conclusions, any one of which should have indicated that their premises were mistaken. The sticking point for me, back in college, was David Hume; if I believe Hume, then I can only know what my senses tell me, and I can’t trust my senses, and so I can’t really know anything for sure. This is nothing more than highly sophisticated hogwash. (I am probably not being entirely fair to Hume; his position is probably somewhat more subtle. He’s still wrong.)

The problem here, I think is that reasoning about the world from first principles as a way to understand it is a fundamentally flawed procedure—because the world is a complicated place, and your set of first principles is almost certainly going to leave out something important. Let me give some examples.

Mathematics is the realm of human reason and logic par excellence. In no other field are the endeavors of deduction and proof more highly developed, more certain, or less controversial. Mathematical reason proceeds from first principles to conclusions; but even in mathematics, such reasoning is limited.

In the early 20th century, various mathematicians (notably Bertrand Russell) attempted to come up with a set of axioms and postulates (i.e., first principles) from which all of number theory could be derived. They called this property “completeness”: given this specific set of principles, you should (given time) be able to prove any statement in the field of number theory. And then Kurt Gödel proved that this effort was fruitless: for any given set of principles, there were going to be true statements of number theory within the range of those principles that could not be proven only from those principles.

The point is that even in one subfield of mathematics, that most rigorous of disciplines, human reason is limited, and reasoning from a particular set of principles is guaranteed to leave things out.

This is not to say that first principles are not important; they are. Cogito ergo sum is certainly true. But human knowledge is not limited to statements of indisputable universal truth. We have many sources of knowledge, and not least the world around us. I doubt I need to spend any time proving that the world around us is an important source of knowledge, not when the fruits of science and technology are all around us.

Descartes chose to pretend that he didn’t really know what he knew perfectly well from direct experience of the world; and that’s why he went astray, philosophically. Aristotle, by contrast, took the world around him as a given. And though he had his first principles, such as the law of non-contradiction, he made use of both principles and experience—and in so doing, he and his followers avoided many of the classic problems of modern philosophy.

Many of Aristotle’s ideas are worth rediscovering, in my view; and we’ll be visiting a number of them as I work through Thomas Aquinas’ Compendium Theologiae. Stay tuned!

Deep Thoughts from the Doghouse

Previous Post

April 16, 2014

Fr. Robert Barron on Bart Ehrman

Next Post

April 17, 2014 Happy Triduum!

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Admin App o' the Morning Ask the Dogmat Believing Thomas Bits of Fiction Blasts from the Past Bootstrapping the Interior Life Catholic Mom Christian Living Deep Thoughts from the Doghouse Dominicana Evangelii Gaudium Interviews It Was A Dark and Stormy Night Links to This and That Lumen Fidei Meme Watch On Writing Operation Gratitude Pedant Errant Photography Quill Random Barkings S'Mary's World Shakers of Salt Software Development The Dog Whistler The Dogmat Sez Third Orders Thomas Aquinas Uncategorized Vikings at Dinos Woof Guide to Cinema Woof Guide to History Woof Guide to Literature Woof Guide to Obscure Catholic Music Woof Guide to Philosophy Woof Guide to Popular Music Woof Guide to Technology Woof Guide to Theology Words I Wish I'd Written Works For Me

Select a Month September 2016 August 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who first witnessed the empty tomb after Jesus' resurrection?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Mary Magdalene Andrew Nicodemus John