The problem facing all seekers of knowledge is this: How can we discover truths that are in no way beneficial or useful to us? (We may call this the pragmatist challenge.) It seems to follow from my own theory that humans can only perceive that which is useful to them. If this is true, how will the seeker of knowledge ever discover objective truths, i.e. truths that do not in any way relate to the seeker's interests? Of course, this commits the error of thinking that what benefits us cannot at the same time, fortuitously, be an objective truth. But even if we lay this version of the challenge aside, it still remains the case that truths that lie outside the realm of human interests will also remain outside our grasp.
The solution to this problem probably constitutes one of the most ingenious inventions in the history of humankind, one that may even rival the invention of knowing itself. (The reference is to Nietzsche's On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense, in which he talks about humans as the "clever beasts [who] invented knowing.")
Many have questioned the usefulness of this project.
click for image source
I'm better than you
In order to part with something valuable, you must get paid for it. This something may not only be a tradable good in the traditional sense, but also an idea, your free time, etc. If I spend my time memorizing the whole of the Iliad, I must in some way be compensated for my efforts. This is simply human nature, and you cannot get around it.
Now some governments attempt to solve financial crises by printing more money. Some individuals attempt to solve their personal financial crises by printing counterfeit money. Although when done by individuals this move is considered illegal, whereas when done by governments it is considered legal, it is essentially the same idea. So suppose an ancient philosopher-mathematician discovers some truth, say, of geometry. Now, however, he demands his reward. It is nowhere to be found: sex and riches and comfort and goods do not automatically flow to him who has discovered some truth. But if the philosopher has not been rewarded, how can he keep discovering truths? What's in it for him?
click for gif source
Here, then, enters this ingenious invention I talked about earlier: In order to be able to "purchase" many truths, philosophers have invented a kind of counterfeit coin with which they pay themselves, and they called it superiority. (I'm imagining all ancient seekers of knowledge to have been philosophers.) In this way they learned many truths—which is to say they abandoned many illusions—and what they got in return was the feeling of superiority. They gave something away (time; effort; bliss; etc.), and they got something in return (the feeling of superiority). Their superiority, however, was their own invention, and it remained something of a counterfeit, for it was only acknowledged as valid either by themselves or a small group of like-minded individuals.
Spiritual Superiority as an inferior coin
People customarily invent illusions in order to cope with life. Priests, for instance, may be said to have invented the concept of spiritual superiority, where all their meaningless activities in the monasteries are suffered because they are believed to purchase them a place in heaven. People in general have been fashioning illusions since time immemorial. Then how is this discovery of the seekers of knowledge that I mentioned above innovative? The answer will be made clear if we imagine a common man seeking knowledge. In exchange for truth A he invents some illusion B' that will help him cope with A. In exchange for truth B he invents illusion A'. In exchange for truth C he invents illusion D'. In exchange for truth D he invents illusion D'—well, one easily loses track. Asked which of his beliefs are truths and which are illusions, the common man will be at a loss to answer. The originality of the seeker of knowledge lies in his exchanging all illusions for one: that of superiority. At any given point, the seeker of knowledge knows that everything he believes is true, except for his belief in his own superiority. (He may say this, but of course he never genuinely doubts his superiority.) That way he can keep track of his lies. And, most importantly, other people know this too, so they can always trust the seeker of knowledge. That is how the philosopher has surpassed the priest. No one can make any headway in the realm of truth without inventing lies: and the philosopher has invented the greatest of them all, because it is the most harmless one and the most persistent.
click for image source
Superiority is not Intelligence
Superiority of course is often confused with intelligence, but the terms are not interchangeable. The atheist philosopher will readily admit that there are theologians who are very intelligent, perhaps even more intelligent than himself—but he will still believe himself to be superior even in those cases where he is less intelligent than the theologian. The same applies for moral standing, etc. No single trait can be identified with superiority. The term is thus ideally vague, lest anyone tries to question it.
The danger facing all Intellectual Progress
If you demanded a practical gain for every truth learned, you would not get very far. Even the truths of science only rarely have instantaneous practical application, and even when they have a future-application the application can rarely be foreseen at or before the moment of discovery. At or before the moment of discovery, you simply marvel at the possibility or fact of the discovery itself—which is to say that you marvel at your superiority, at the respect and admiration and accolades fellow scientists will grant you, at the prospect that you may win a Nobel prize, etc. So you would not get very far in your quest for truth if you demanded a real practical reward for every intellectual victory attained. So you invent a fake coin—the one I here call superiority—with which you reward yourself for every intellectual achievement, no matter how puny and practically ineffectual. You have thus outwitted Nature herself.
From this, however, it follows that the people or attitudes that are most dangerous to intellectual progress are the ones that question the superiority of the seekers of truth (philosophers, scientists, etc.). Many do not realize that the whole edifice of modern science and thought stands on the intellectuals' belief in their superiority (how else are they to fuel such meaningless endeavors?) If society prizes the achievements of science and thought, they will do well to grant the seeker of knowledge this one premise. Some practical reward will also go a long way toward enlivening the knowledge-seeker's enterprise.
We can't burst the ego-bubble without bringing down the whole intellectual edifice.
Not to be misunderstood
There remains some room for misunderstanding. When I refer to the belief in superiority as an illusion, I mean that in a very particular sense. I mean it in the same sense that the government declares the counterfeiter's money to be counterfeit. A person may not simply decide to invent a currency that only he himself recognizes, and claim that it has any real value. Similarly, superiority is a very flimsy concept when it goes unrecognized by the majority of the people. Even those who recognize it would probably not make any sacrifices (in a hypothetical scenario) for a genius whose status they do acknowledge, so the recognition becomes flimsier still—a recognition in word rather than in deed, rather similar to the recognition the English grant their Queen.
In general, the belief in superiority is an illusion because it shares many similarities with the illusions that inhabit many people's private mythology—their inaccessibility, lack of authority, the fact that they are seldom shared publicly, the fact that comparable beliefs are present in every person, which is to say that the particular belief of every person is contradicted by the belief of every other person, etc. It is, secondly, an illusion for the reason that it is meant to be an answer to the question How can we discover truths that are in no way beneficial or useful to us? The answer is, By inventing something that has no real practical significance, but which is thought to have one. That is, by inventing superiority. One may reply by saying that the belief in superiority does have practical benefits, for it helps a person live, since without it he would surely perish. However, this belief was only required in the first place in order to justify the tremendous expense that is the seeking of knowledge—if one really cared about one's survival, one would simply not have sought knowledge! (Knowledge, that is, that has no practical benefit.)
Summary
- Although all pleasant activities are capable of self-justification, nothing that is painful may justify itself.
- Because knowledge is not always pleasant, it cannot always justify itself, and must reach outwards.
- But knowledge sometimes has no beneficial practical effect (i.e. it cannot reach outwards).
- Therefore, in those cases, we must invent such a beneficial practical effect.—Such an invention has indeed taken place: it is the self-fueling belief in one's superiority.
Curtain
Here I tried to delve a little bit into a kind of just-so psychology about how people may have circumnavigated the theory of use in order to allow for more sustained and "useless" action.
This completes the 15th installment of the Meaning of Life series. In case you missed the other episodes:
Part 14: Wasted Beauty!
Part 13: The Survival Instinct - Does it Exist?
Part 12: What's the Use?
Part 11: Words VS Actions
Part 10: Mothers and Egos!
Part 9: Can People Share Ownership of the Same Body?
Part 8: Against Subjectivism - Is Everything Relative?
Part 7: The Value-Laden View of Life
Part 6: I Am Therefore I Harm
Part 5: Nietzsche vs Christianity: Are Christians Nihilists?
Part 4: Can we desire death?
Part 3: Are nihilists being honest when they say life has no value?
Part 2: Does death make life meaningless?
Part 1: Is it possible to be a nihilist?
I'll see you in the next episode, where I will continue exploring my theory of Use, one of the three theories in the book that explain how life may appear meaningful or meaningless to us. Specifically, in the next episode, I will ask how the theory of use might help us define the genius.
Upvote if you liked this, and follow for more like this!
Come join us on Discord! https://discord.gg/7qyarFD