Absolutization - The Source of Dogma, Repression, and Conflict - Robert M. Ellis

Absolutization - The Source of Dogma, Repression, and Conflict - Robert M. Ellis

Philosophy

Absolutization - The Source of Dogma, Repression, and Conflict - Robert M. Ellis

Robert M. Ellis [+-]
Middle Way Society
Robert M Ellis has a Ph.D. in Philosophy and a Cambridge BA in Oriental Studies and Theology. Originally from a Christian background, he spent about 20 years practising Buddhism, including as a member of the Triratna Order. However, he now describes himself as a Middle Way practitioner without exclusive loyalty to any one religious tradition. Over the last 20 years he has developed Middle Way Philosophy, initially in his Ph.D. thesis. This is best described as a practical and integrative philosophical approach, incorporating many elements not only from Buddhism but also from psychology, neuroscience, and other aspects of Western thought. In 2013 he founded the Middle Way Society (www.middlewaysociety.org) to develop and apply Middle Way Philosophy beyond the limitations of the Buddhist tradition, both in theory and practice. Robert has earned a living for more than 20 years as a teacher and tutor of philosophy and related subjects. He has previously published both academic and introductory books about Middle Way Philosophy, and recently a parallel book on Christianity, ‘The Christian Middle Way’.

Description

a. Metaphysics Metaphysics is equivalent to absolutization because it involves claims about reality inaccessible to experience, so is discontinuous and dogmatic. Sceptical argument and philosophy of science offer tools that can help make some impression on it. Heidegger’s failed attempt to save it involved disguised sceptical argument. Merely philosophical arguments against it in logical positivism and postmodernism have failed, due to their lack of any systemic, embodied, or practical perspective. b. The Absoluteness of Deductive Logic Absolute deductive logic is believed in absolutizing thought to link together metaphysical claims in chains of certainty. Such logic was shown by Hume to be uninformative about the world. It can instead only be used critically to show inconsistency, whilst induction allows incremental justification of beliefs. Changing logical systems does not help with this, as it is the absoluteness of our interpretation of logic that is the problem. Absolutization tends to make us over-inflate logic’s usefulness in claims about fallacies, rationality or ‘reasons’ in the world. c. Foundationalism and Circularity In the absence of any justification for metaphysical claims in experience, metaphysical thinking employs foundationalism (dogmatic assertion of the truth of starting points). When challenged, it then uses circular and ad hoc arguments to substitute for experiential justification. Circular argument proliferates and creates reinforcing feedback loops. By projection, rationalists often accuse others of the very circularity they demonstrate themselves. d. Infinite Rationalization of Experience The philosophical content of metaphysical beliefs can be linked to the psychological defences of absolutization by the way that infinite scope allows endless rationalization. This is exemplified in ad hoc argument, and can be supported by cognitive dissonance theory. Its further implication is that metaphysical beliefs are impervious to observation, and thus also to probability. e. The Claim that Metaphysics is Inevitable The claim that metaphysics is inevitable depends on the complete abstraction of metaphysical claims from the embodied context of them being held by a person. We do constantly make background assumptions, but these can’t be described as beliefs until they become practically relevant in some way (though not necessarily explicit), when we can distinguish absolute from provisional ways of holding them. Absolutization is a problem because it is practically relevant, but most alleged inevitable background metaphysical beliefs are not. f. Inflation of Metaphysics and Logic Both metaphysics and absolute deductive logic are also over-estimated through inflation, being used as shortcut substitutes for more complex experiential phenomena. ‘Metaphysics’ substitutes for profundity of meaning in religious experience and art, whilst ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’ substitute for incrementally justified belief in science and education. The relativisation of these terms, on the other hand, robs us of minatory ways of referring to absolutes. Deductive logic is likewise inflated, to explain fallacious thinking that lacks justification due to absolutization of assumptions.

Notify A Colleague

Citation

Ellis, Robert. Philosophy. Absolutization - The Source of Dogma, Repression, and Conflict. Equinox eBooks Publishing, United Kingdom. p. 89-128 Oct 2022. ISBN 9781800502062. https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/view-chapter/?id=44327. Date accessed: 15 Jun 2024 doi: 10.1558/equinox.44327. Oct 2022

Dublin Core Metadata