This is going to be hard to word but I'll do my best. Basically I'm wondering if it is an evolutionary trait to have uncertainty of knowledge, and/or if the currently most evolved form of thinking is to simply admit we cannot know certain things.
For clarification, I'm talking about non-empirical issues. Things like morality, purpose, God/explanation of the universe etc. Basically the big questions that divide everyone.
If you look at animals, they have a lot of certainty. They have a way of life, and pretty much never change it or question it. It never crosses their minds that they are doing things the wrong way.
If you look at less intelligent humans, they tend to imitate animals moreso than other humans. Simple-mindedness, narrow-mindedness, ignorance, irrationality are all properties of unintelligence. Generally, these type of people are less likely to entertain the idea that they're beliefs are wrong, and they often hold their beliefs for poorer reasons (eg. they were raised with them).
Also, their lesser minds consider less factors when deciding these beliefs, meaning that they acknowledge less areas where they can go wrong. However, the more factors you consider, or the more complex your reasoning becomes, the more things you have to be correct on. Intelligent people are more likely to realise that their beliefs are wrong because they're intelligent enough to realise it.
The most intelligent piece of philosophy I ever did was when I first started my degree. I said to myself 'thousands and thousands of people throuthout history have contemplated these questions at the same depth as you have, do you really think that out of all those people you're going to be the one with the correct answers to all the big questions?'.
As I develop as a philosopher I start to consider more and more factors in my philosophy, but I acknowledge that means there is more areas I could be wrong on. I'm starting to wonder if the most evolved form of thinking is to consider so many factors in your thinking that you consider it too improbable that you're right on all of them and that it's pointless to believe you'll attain the answers to the big questions in life.
What do you guys think? It sounds a bit like a blog but I am actually arguing the point (although I am only pondering it) that perhaps the highest level of thinking is to realise how limited our thinking is.
For clarification, I'm talking about non-empirical issues. Things like morality, purpose, God/explanation of the universe etc. Basically the big questions that divide everyone.
If you look at animals, they have a lot of certainty. They have a way of life, and pretty much never change it or question it. It never crosses their minds that they are doing things the wrong way.
If you look at less intelligent humans, they tend to imitate animals moreso than other humans. Simple-mindedness, narrow-mindedness, ignorance, irrationality are all properties of unintelligence. Generally, these type of people are less likely to entertain the idea that they're beliefs are wrong, and they often hold their beliefs for poorer reasons (eg. they were raised with them).
Also, their lesser minds consider less factors when deciding these beliefs, meaning that they acknowledge less areas where they can go wrong. However, the more factors you consider, or the more complex your reasoning becomes, the more things you have to be correct on. Intelligent people are more likely to realise that their beliefs are wrong because they're intelligent enough to realise it.
The most intelligent piece of philosophy I ever did was when I first started my degree. I said to myself 'thousands and thousands of people throuthout history have contemplated these questions at the same depth as you have, do you really think that out of all those people you're going to be the one with the correct answers to all the big questions?'.
As I develop as a philosopher I start to consider more and more factors in my philosophy, but I acknowledge that means there is more areas I could be wrong on. I'm starting to wonder if the most evolved form of thinking is to consider so many factors in your thinking that you consider it too improbable that you're right on all of them and that it's pointless to believe you'll attain the answers to the big questions in life.
What do you guys think? It sounds a bit like a blog but I am actually arguing the point (although I am only pondering it) that perhaps the highest level of thinking is to realise how limited our thinking is.