Where we are now in the history of ideas ... and a question

[PseuTonym]

Question: does the status quo of accumulated conventional wisdom justify the root beliefs?

I emphasize the word “justify” in the above question, because the source of inspiration, and the train of thought that led to the thinking of some particular idea, and to the first formulation of that particular idea … are different from the justification. A machine or device that has been recently invented and patented doesn’t require justification. Provided that it is considered safe and useful, people might try to build it and observe what it does. Given that we don’t usually worry about unethical activities occurring inside of a desktop machine, the ends achieved by using the device are thought to justify the means.

“It is true because I believe that it is true, and others believe that it is true” … does that make sense? Some things simply have status as beliefs. We see this when circular reasoning arises: people forget that they are attempting to justify a claim from the point of view of somebody who isn’t already convinced that the claim is true.

The conventional wisdom is a byproduct of a historical process. According to Keynes, practical men – who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence – are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. However, those practical men don’t literally have dusty, old economics books on their bookshelves.

The transmission is in some respects more subtle, and in other respects more blatant. It is more blatant because people remember what they picked up from many voices and many sources, especially when they reinforce each other, or the voices are those of great powers. It is more subtle because there is something new under the Sun: a unique combination of ideas that wasn’t studied carefully on the printed page before it became the status quo of conventional wisdom.

It is possible for some alleged belief to be a mere pretext, but when root beliefs are applied sincerely to arrive at various individual claims that are part of the status quo of accumulated conventional wisdom, the direction of justification is from the root beliefs to the conventional wisdom. Does it make any sense to go in the other direction? Is it possible to appeal to the conventional wisdom to justify the root beliefs that – in philosophical discussion – are used as a basis to justify the conventional wisdom?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

What is the usage of the word “justify”?

Seems to have different meanings in different contexts.

Are we applying one meaning from one context to a different context?

 

[ynotzap]

Question: does the status quo of accumulated conventional wisdom justify the root beliefs?

I emphasize the word “justify” in the above question, because the source of inspiration, and the train of thought that led to the thinking of some particular idea, and to the first formulation of that particular idea … are different from the justification. A machine or device that has been recently invented and patented doesn’t require justification. Provided that it is considered safe and useful, people might try to build it and observe what it does. Given that we don’t usually worry about unethical activities occurring inside of a desktop machine, the ends achieved by using the device are thought to justify the means.

If the status quo of accumulated conventional wisdom is in accord with right reasoning then the root beliefs are justified, justification comes from being in accord with right reasoning. If the ends achieved are in accord with truth and right reasoning they are justified. One has to understand what is meant by conventional wisdom, is it based on collective opinion, is it utilitarian, is it expediency for example, what constitutes the wisdom? Things are neither moral or immoral, ethics concern human conduct regarding what is right or wrong in moral choices, things are indifferent to morality.