On Not Picking Sides

 

Yesterday’s blog post was about how easy it is to pick the right side (when there are valid sides one ought to pick, that is, based on empiricism, rationality and logic). Straight after publishing it, I decided to compose a follow up, on the matter of not picking sides - that is, when it’s not so easy to justifiably land on one side or the other, or when the mere framing of sides is remiss. This is because there are areas of life, science, philosophy and human experience where “sides” simply don’t exist in any meaningful way - or, if they do, you only see them because you’ve drawn them yourself or been expediently influenced by the whims of others.

Regarding where sides don’t exist in any meaningful way, I think my paper on free will and determinism is a good example (see here). As a result of the ancient and ongoing debate on this subject, I’ve tried to liberate the reader from needing to pick a side. It’s not a ‘picking a side’ kind of matter.

Or take the question of consciousness. Try not to pick a side on the matter of whether it’s spiritual, an emergent property of matter, a fundamental aspect of the universe, or something we’ll never explain - liberate yourself with the comprehension that it’s all four.

Or take the nature of mathematics, and whether it is discovered or invented. Again, no need to pick a side - it is both (see my blog posts on the nature of mathematics here).

Or take the frequently insufferable philosophical debates about consequentialism and deontology. Both are key elements of moral philosophy if your landscape is broad and wide enough. Pitting them against each other is a bit like arguing whether your pet Rover is a dog or a mammal.

Often it takes stepping out of the divisive nature of religious, political, or ideological conflict to see the situation with a broader perspective. Which is why, for example, a historian studying the French Revolution through the lens of retrospection is unlikely to come down firmly on the monarchy’s decadence or the guillotine’s virtue. Or why a competent theoretical physicist wouldn’t even begin to pick a side in considering the apparent tension between quantum mechanics and general relativity, knowing there are many further discoveries to be made. Or why a balanced philosopher studying the Enlightenment is likely to observe the delicate trade-off between the advancement of reason and progress, and the sense that something precious can easily be lost or discarded through overly rigid black and white empiricism.

Those are just a few examples of the other side of the coin from yesterday’s blog post. The upshot is, while as I said yesterday it’s important to seek the truth to land on the correct side of propositions (and avoid the harms of the incorrect sides), it’s also important to understand that the more profound truths often live in a deeper open-endedness (often due to our own limitations as a species), and certainly transcendent of our conveniently invented oppositions. In those cases, there’s a quiet, assured wisdom and discernment in resisting the urge to pick a side.