Yea, all of our stories are ultimately subjective and constructed. I think the furthest that reason can take us is the recognition of this fact. Or perhaps one step further - the recognition that, even though our stories are ultimately arbitrary, we need those stories to function anyway. I think this is a big factor in our current 'meaning crisis'.
The solution seems to be something like knowing that our story is just a story, but committing to it anyway - probably because it resonates with us on some deeper, more intuitive level.
I agree with you. I couldn't work out if I was missing something in his arguement. I've heard Strawson say, "Some people just aren't illusioned" but I think it is more accurate to say, "Some people figure out how to be less illusioned".
I've always thought that a large part of what people think of as "Enlightenment" is realising that all we can really do as humans is construct narratives in an attempt to understand that which we do not directly experience. Some people work this out at some point in their lives and it's revelatory. It changes instantly how you percieve the world and, if you have the stomach and the skills (lack of ego?) for the difficult introspection involved it changes forever how you view your "self". As you point out though, part of the revelation is that one can never be sure if one is just replacing one story with another, the evidence can only ever be subjective, one has to commit to living with uncertainty.
I know many people for which what I've just written would seem insane, they are absolutely committed to the stories they have about who they are, who others are and what the world is like. I'm not sure that every person has the capacity to see their narratives, perhaps it is something that has to have it's genesis in childhood and, unless nurtured, it never develops? I know that in my case I took the first steps towards understanding by to having to work out why my father acted the way he did.
Yea, all of our stories are ultimately subjective and constructed. I think the furthest that reason can take us is the recognition of this fact. Or perhaps one step further - the recognition that, even though our stories are ultimately arbitrary, we need those stories to function anyway. I think this is a big factor in our current 'meaning crisis'.
The solution seems to be something like knowing that our story is just a story, but committing to it anyway - probably because it resonates with us on some deeper, more intuitive level.
I agree with you. I couldn't work out if I was missing something in his arguement. I've heard Strawson say, "Some people just aren't illusioned" but I think it is more accurate to say, "Some people figure out how to be less illusioned".
I've always thought that a large part of what people think of as "Enlightenment" is realising that all we can really do as humans is construct narratives in an attempt to understand that which we do not directly experience. Some people work this out at some point in their lives and it's revelatory. It changes instantly how you percieve the world and, if you have the stomach and the skills (lack of ego?) for the difficult introspection involved it changes forever how you view your "self". As you point out though, part of the revelation is that one can never be sure if one is just replacing one story with another, the evidence can only ever be subjective, one has to commit to living with uncertainty.
I know many people for which what I've just written would seem insane, they are absolutely committed to the stories they have about who they are, who others are and what the world is like. I'm not sure that every person has the capacity to see their narratives, perhaps it is something that has to have it's genesis in childhood and, unless nurtured, it never develops? I know that in my case I took the first steps towards understanding by to having to work out why my father acted the way he did.