171. Realism and empathy

 If thought arises from action and interaction in the world, as argued in earlier in this blog, then it would be odd to doubt the existence of reality.[1] To renounce belief in it would be to renounce the origins of oneself. Here, Descartes gets turned around: not ‘I think therefore I am’ but ‘I am, therefore I think’. I, the world and others exist, and as a result I think.

However, the assumption of the existence of reality, taking it for granted, the absurdity of denying it, does not imply that we know it as it is, independently of our thought, or even what such knowledge would be, or what ‘independence of our thought’ would mean. We cannot simply step out of our conceptualizations of the world.

However, occasionally, and with great effort and trouble, fundamental concepts of the world can be shifted. One example is the radically counter-intuitive notions in modern physics and cosmology, which work only because they are formulated in mathematics, not ordinary language. My efforts to see through what I call an ‘object bias’ in thought and language, earlier in this blog, are another example.

Another argument for the existence of reality is that without it one cannot make sense of evolution. Evolution requires a selection environment that exists more or less independently from the forms of life that are selected for fitness, indeed the notion of ‘fitness’ would not make sense without it.

As noted by Braver, for similar reasons it does not make sense to doubt the existence of other people or empathy, the possibility of some understanding of what others feel and think. However, the very word ‘empathy’ misleadingly suggests that selves pre-exist before they interact.

We develop a sense of identity by inference from what we see other people do or say, and by trying to look at ourselves from their perspective. Without empathy we could hardly develop ourselves. It is precarious to be an autist.

In sum, reality and empathy are to be taken for granted. David Hume already recognized that humanity is based on custom, habit and empathy.

In this blog I have paid much attention to the notion of trust: what it means, its viability, its basis, and its limits (items 68-73). I argued that empathy is crucial for it: the ability to view one’s actions from the perspective of the other.

Rational self-interest of the autonomous individual, as assumed in economic theory, is self-defeating. For life, to be a self, one needs socialization and that requires empathy, with a non-rational foundation in feelings and perceptions (Braver, p. 170). Wittgenstein saw that trust must come before suspicion (Braver, p. 166).

How would the economy look from this perspective? Soon in this blog I will start a long series on that: on economics and on markets.

---

[1] Here, as before, I employ Lee Braver, 2012, Groundless grounds; A study of Wittgenstein and Heidegger, MIT Press.