Trust: Who or What Might Support Us?

6. Trust in Philosophy

87 s i x Trust in Philosophy What is the relevance of trust for philosophy as it is practiced in our century? The question is not often thematized, but it is answered, at least implicitly, by the philosophical praxis, and especially by all teachers who introduce beginning students into the ongoing history of the worldwide realm called philosophy. To become acquainted with this realm, one needs not only intelligence, passion, and a good deal of stubborn courage, but also a lot of trust. Indeed, novice philosophers are not yet capable of philosophically justifying a correct judgment about the competence of their teachers. They risk being disappointed. They might have followed the advice of friends, magazines, former students, or high school teachers, but instead of relying on thoroughly probed arguments and unshakeable insights, they rely on their own trust in the opinions of their advisors. Because a bad start can cause a disastrous manner of thinking, they might have prepared their choice of the best available (and affordable) guidance very carefully, but a good deal of trust must have completed the ensemble of reasons that led to their decision. 88 Trust in Philosophy and Religion Are well-formed and advanced philosophers so well-established and rationally certified in their philosophical practice that they have reached complete independence? This is the case, if they have personally demonstrated not only their self-discovered theses and arguments , but also the arguments and conclusions on which they rely without having them fully probed and found obvious. However, this condition seems too difficult. Show me one philosopher whose oeuvre proves everything it affirms. Or, if you think it sufficient that philosophers prove only the correctness of their method, show me one who has been able to do this. All philosophers borrow from predecessors or from certain opinions, convictions, dogmas, or beliefs that, in their surroundings or the inner circle of their specialty, are generally considered true, even if rigorous proofs are lacking. Insofar as I have been able to study the arguments that support some of the classics of philosophy—such as the works of Plato, Descartes, Spinoza , Kant, and Hegel—their admirable unfolding contains several fundamental affirmations whose plausibility or beauty has not been certified by irrefutable proof. Despite their originality and impressive coherence, those works testify to their authors’ trust in positions that had to be critically checked and transformed or rejected by thinkers of later times. Besides much trust in the philosophy of selected predecessors, most philosophers show also trust and belief in some dominant ethos of their own space and time, even if this ethos radically differs from the beliefs that dominate other places or epochs. Not only in politics or economy, but also in philosophy, many participants act as if endless and massive repetitions of popular hypotheses (often called axioms) make these hypotheses true, even if no one has been able to prove their rational validity. An example of this state of affairs is the (nowadays) almost uncontested affirmation of the moral and legal validity of “human rights,” which, during the last two centuries, has become a central part of the moral and social ideology of the West. I have not found any noncircular proof for this doctrine, but no philosopher would want or dare to deny it as foundational for contemporary ethics. Another ex- Trust in Philosophy 89 ample is the general and uncontested belief in the existence and most fundamental relevance of God’s existence, which, for two millennia dominated the European civilization until its slow decline between the fifteenth and the twentieth centuries. We may state that trust is a basic constituent of any philosophy, and especially of its ethical part, where it comes closest to the existential needs of human life. Notwithstanding this state of affairs, however, the standard initiation of new members into the philosophical realm ignores or rejects the necessity of trust in the name of a dogma according to which autonomy of individual thinking is the distinctive shibboleth of authentic philosophy. Think on your own! Do not believe what they—your parents, teachers, heroes, churches, or traditions—tell you. Each person has the capacity, the right, and the duty to examine, criticize, discover, and declare the truth independently . Emancipation, independence, autonomy—often called freedom—are the norm. “You yourself must decide what counts. Do not—like medieval believers—sheepishly follow theological powers that claim to...