Ben Taylor
9/29/14
Western Philosophy Paper 1
The Role of Epistemic Humility in Life and Philosophy
What is the definition of true knowledge or wisdom? Why should we pursue it?
How can we pursue it? Such are the questions that define philosophy, a field whose Latin
name literally translates to “the brotherly love of knowledge.” Thus, it is predictable that
two of the most prestigious philosophers of the West, Socrates and Rene Descartes, have
pondered these questions deeply. They commonly believe that the acquisition of
knowledge and wisdom in life is paramount. Yet to them, this is a strenuous and difficult
task for most people due to one attribute that is required, an attribute that each of these
philosophers value tremendously as a foundation of philosophy: epistemic humility. This
epistemic humility is the essence of true wisdom to Socrates of ancient Greece. To him, if
it were a trait held by all, epistemic humility would allow for society to be just, to grow in
value, and to flourish. Rene Descartes, while meditating in his dressing gown by the fire
at home in 17th century France, determined that epistemic humility is the means with
which one can accrue knowledge and wisdom. I, alive and well today, agree with many
aspects of Socrates’ and Descartes’ value of epistemic humility. I believe it is an essential
trait in leading a good life, and an essential trait for philosophy. Epistemic humility
creates room in the mind for new ideas, a willingness to be taught and to learn, and it
provides a means with which one can check his or herself in decision-making so that the
optimal decision can be made. But before I explain how I have reached my conclusions
on the importance of epistemic humility in life and philosophy, let us first delve into the
value of epistemic humility through the lens of Socrates and Descartes.
When Socrates voiced his “Apology” to the judges of Athens before his
conviction of impiety and corrupting the youth, it was evident that he did not see
epistemic humility in many of his contemporaries. In fact, through his philosophical
travels and discussions, he found that that of all the people he encountered, he himself
was the only one who possessed true epistemic humility. Due to this, the Oracle at Delphi
proclaimed “no man wiser” than Socrates (Plato, 6). Because he possessed epistemic
humility (and evidently only that kind of humility), he had seen great things come of it in
his daily life. One of the major improvements in life that he found with epistemic
humility was that he was somewhat liberated from fear, especially of the ultimate fear of
death. He logically explains how his epistemic humility leads him to not be overcome
with fear in his life in the following excerpt from the “Apology:”
“For this fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being the
appearance of knowing the unknown; since no one knows whether death, which they in
their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. Is there not here
conceit of knowledge, which is a disgraceful sort of ignorance? And this is the point in
which, as I think, I am superior to men in general, and in which I might perhaps fancy
myself wiser than other men- that whereas I know but little of the world below, I do not
suppose that I know.” (Plato, 14)
On the same vein, he hints at the notion that since his epistemic humility does not allow
for paranoia or excessive fear of death, he can live life unhindered and be a truly “good”
man. In his words, this liberated, good man “ought not to calculate the chance of living or
dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrongacting the part of a good man or bad.” (Plato, 13) Ultimately though, Socrates believes
that epistemic humility is most valuable because it allows one to prioritize the important
things in life, which in his words entails, “not [taking] thought for your persons or
properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul…that
from [this] virtue come money and every other good thing of man.” (Plato, 15) With
these benefits of epistemic humility, it is hard to argue with Socrates that it is not a
beneficial trait for a good life. Up to this point, though, it is not enough to merely
elucidate the benefits of epistemic humility. That would leave his argument incomplete.
No, there must also be observable negative consequences of the absence of epistemic
humility for Socrates’ endorsement of epistemic humility to be truly credible.
The clearest real-life example of the consequences of lack of epistemic humility
on Socrates’ life is Meletus’ and Anytus’ capital charge of his impiety and intent to
corrupt. He speaks specifically of these accusers and the consequences of their lack of
epistemic humility by saying, “For [my accusers] do not like to confess that their
pretence of knowledge has been detected- which is the truth: and as they are numerous
and ambitious and energetic, and are all in battle array and have persuasive tongues, they
have filled your ears with their loud and inveterate calumnies.” (Plato, 9) Although the
context of this statement is in regards to their accusations toward him, it can be inferred
that he is also speaking of a greater risk that the absence of epistemic humility can pose
in individuals of high political power. This risk is that with “inveterate” and vocal leaders
comes infectious stagnancy and prejudice that is spread to a greater population,
characteristics which throughout history (the Nazis are likely the best example) have
harmed societies. Socrates also observed envy and stubborn pride as byproducts of the
absence of epistemic humility. He saw that, “because [the artisans] were good workmen,
they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them
overshadowed their wisdom.” (Plato, 8) He also speaks of the ease with which he was
vilified due to his nature of questioning the wisdom of prideful individuals merely to
improve them: “I certainly have many enemies, and this is what will be my destruction if
I am destroyed; of that I am certain; - not Meletus, nor yet Anytus, but the envy and
detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably
be the death of many more; there is no danger of my being the last of them.” (Plato, 13)
With these undesirable qualities and scenarios arising from individuals with no epistemic
humility, it makes sense that Socrates would value this trait as essential, and destructive if
it is absent. In the end, Socrates found the importance of epistemic humility through his
life experiences, both good and bad. Descartes, on the other hand, comes to find the
importance of epistemic humility through a very different method…by sitting by a fire,
and using epistemic humility to doubt and question the validity of his opinions and
experiences in the whole of his life.
Descartes was a man of science in the 17th century. He was thus a man who
valued truth in the purest and most empirical form. But at a certain point, he began to
question what was actually true and real in this universe, and whether it was even
possible to determine absolute truth and reality in the limits of human life. In his words,
“I was struck by the large number of falsehoods that I had accepted as true in my
childhood, and by the highly doubtful nature of the whole edifice that I had subsequently
based on them.” (Descartes, 12) So what was he to do? He had to find a way to determine
truth, what was certain, and what was real in the purest sense of the word.
This methodical search for absolute truth and reality is where Descartes finds the
importance of epistemic humility, because it is through this epistemic humility and
doubting that he reaches his ultimate conclusions on those matters. He begins his search
for absolute truth and reality with a somewhat extreme example of epistemic humility. He
“devotes [himself] sincerely and without reservation to the general demolition of [his]
opinions,” due to the logical point that, “Once the foundations of a building are
undermined, anything built on them collapses of its own accord.” (Descartes, 12)
Naturally, he begins with the human senses, as these are the means by which we
interact with our perceived reality. After significant thought on what could be doubtful
about the senses, he uses the experience of dreaming to conclude that they can indeed be
deceptive. He cites the very common experience of dreaming, and states that often his
dreams can be confused for waking life while within them, and thus “there are never any
sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep.”
(Descartes, 13) As a result, the senses can fail to discern reality quite easily. So with the
senses being called into doubt, he then moves deeper to search for absolute truth. He does
this by doubting his longstanding belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent
God that created and continuously molds the universe. He again goes to extreme
measures, and instead of merely doubting this God’s existence, he states that he “will
suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather
some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in
order to deceive me.” (Descartes, 15) This omnipotent deceiver perspective initially leads
him to conclude that there is nothing in this universe that can be deemed true or real in
the purest sense. After all, if an omnipotent deceiver existed, there is no way he, a mere
man, could ever know if he was being deceived or not. Thus, he would always be
deceived in every facet of perception. It is a terrifying thought, and somewhat of a
ludicrous one. However, he coaxes back hope for absolute truth or reality with further
contemplation.
Ultimately, Descartes finds that his existence is one of the absolute truths and
realities of the universe. He concludes this through methodical logic, first claiming that
for his senses to be deceived by an omnipotent deceiver, those senses must exist. And for
those senses to be senses, or tools with which one can perceive the world (whether real or
not), he must mentally process those sensory inputs into perceptions (Descartes, 16-18).
It is here that Descartes finds a subsidiary of this absolute truth and/or reality of existence
in the universe. This is that his thought, or sensory perceptions of the world that he lives
in, must exist. With this realization, he concludes, “I am, then, in the strictest sense only a
thing that thinks; that is, I am a mind, or intelligence, or intellect, or reason-words whose
meaning I have been ignorant until now.” (Descartes, 18) It is important to note that he
says that he was ignorant of those words “until now.” So what changed? What brought
him out of that ignorance? It was epistemic humility. It was the process of doubting that
led to the finding of an irrefutable truth in the universe, a fact that is impossible to
deceive. As such, there is evident value in this epistemic humility, a trait that makes the
securing of absolute truth a conceivable task.
Personally, there is much that I agree with Socrates and Descartes on the value of
epistemic humility. Through their supportive arguments, and their searches for truth and
certainties in a truly vast universe, it is clear that there are benefits of having this trait,
and significant consequences of not having it. However, I think that the way that Socrates
expressed his thoughts on epistemic humility somewhat lacked overall humility, and that
this did not necessarily help his judges empathize with him, given his circumstances. I
also think that Descartes may have been a tad extreme in the way he reached his
conclusions on the importance of epistemic humility in his search for truth. I don’t think
that everyone must dig so deeply in a search for truth to understand that epistemic
humility is a good thing. But ultimately, the ends, or the conclusions made through the
musings of each of these philosophers, justifies the means, or the process of them coming
to their respective conclusions. So why should I agree with them? What in my life makes
me think that epistemic humility is valuable?
I value epistemic humility as a trait necessary for a good life and for the practice
of philosophy because it clears space in the mind for new and innovative ideas and it
allows for self-improvement, and it gives one a system to check his or herself to make the
sure the best decision is made when multiple decisions are possible. Epistemic humility
gives the mind room to absorb and process the thoughts and novel perceptions of others
like a dry sponge. Continuing the sponge analogy, a lack of epistemic humility leaves the
mind like a sponge that has already soaked up all it can, unable to do any more than just
to spew its stagnant contents out again. What is the worth in that? That is not the job of a
sponge. Much is the same with the mind. The mind is not meant to simply spew things
out of it and not have room to take in new perspectives. Instead, the mind’s core function
is to be influenced, to be shaped by others, to soak things up. Only then can one do what
makes us human, which is to be, as Descartes put it, “a thing that doubts, understands,
affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling, and also imagines and has sensory perceptions.”
(Descartes, 19) Without the adoption of at least some thoughts or perceptions that is not
one’s own, there is nothing to actually think about. Would that not cause existence to
cease in the metaphorical sense? After all, Descartes claims to have found that the one
absolute truth of the universe is that one exists only because one thinks (Descartes, 18).
Ultimately, for one to understand, to have a valuable existence, one must be able to take
in the perspectives of others, and not close one’s self off to those perspectives by not
having epistemic humility. Only then can one have a broad range of perspectives to refer
to while discerning for his or her self the truths or falsehoods in life, which is the ultimate
goal of philosophy.
Epistemic humility is also integral to proper decision-making. When I say
“proper” decision making, I mean the unbiased analysis of all options or scenarios so that
one can arrive at the most logical and appropriate decision. For a pop-culture plug, think
of Spock from Star Trek. Obviously this type of decision-making is not necessarily
applicable in all circumstances, especially ones involving significant emotional context.
However, in most professional environments, environments in which most people spend
a significant portion of their waking life, this decision-making method is most applicable
and useful. For example, two years ago, I had a severe respiratory problem. It went on for
months, and in one instance, I coughed up blood. I went to many doctors, but none of
them seemed to know what was wrong, and all of their treatment methods did not seem to
work. Finally, I went to a pulmonologist in a very reputable hospital about an hour from
my home. I told him my problem, and then he did something that I had not seen a doctor
do thus far. He told me that in order for him to give me the best treatment and for me to
finally get an answer to what was the cause of my illness, he needed to consult with his
pulmonologist colleagues and determine the best course of action. He then sent me home.
I felt very frustrated the whole way, thinking that this would be just another dead-end
doctor. But the follow-up visit proved otherwise, and after consulting with his colleagues,
he set me on a treatment plan that involved sinus surgery. I was surprised, but I was
willing to try anything. After the surgery, I felt much better, and I have not had a problem
since. Today, while looking back and writing this paper, I can see the role epistemic
humility played in making me a healthy individual once again. That doctor suspended all
pride, acknowledged the limits of his own knowledge, and asked for the perspectives of
the other pulmonologists in his hospital before he made a decision for me that ultimately
cured me of my illness. In this circumstance, and likely in countless other circumstances
like the one I experienced, epistemic humility led to the optimal decision being made
even though many decisions were possible.
In the end, it is clear that epistemic humility is valuable for life and philosophy.
Socrates of ancient Greece saw it as the core of wisdom, and the benefactor of society
and societal values. Descartes of 17th century France believed epistemic humility to be
the most vital tool with which one can traverse the mind and the universe to find absolute
truths. I, with a little less lofty perspective, see it as a trait essential for personal
improvement, a trait that opens the mind to new perspectives that aid one in finding truth,
and a trait that allows one to make proper decisions that will benefit the self and others.
But, there are still questions to be answered about this valuable trait. Is there a limit to the
value of epistemic humility? Is there such thing as having too much of it? These are
questions for another time, but they are ones that should be answered for the value of
epistemic humility to be truly comprehended.