The Quest for Certainty: A Critique from Pragmatism and Heidegger

John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Martin Heidegger are among the prominent critics of René Descartes' Cartesian epistemology. They argue that the quest for certainty is fundamentally flawed and undermines our cognitive and emotional capabilities. This article explores the reasons behind the critique of the quest for certainty and its implications.

The Opponents of Certainty

The quest for certainty has been a central theme in the works of philosophers like John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Martin Heidegger, who share a common concern with the Cartesian approach to knowledge. While Descartes emphasized the importance of doubt and the quest for indubitable truth, Dewey argues that this quest is inherently flawed.

A Need for Uncertainty in Reasoning and Creativity

Dewey's Perspective: Dewey criticizes the Cartesian pursuit of certainty, emphasizing that such a quest inhibits reflection, reasoning, imagination, and creativity. He argues that relying on certainty leads to wishful, absolute, and superstitious thinking. Such thinking can result in foundational justifications, dogmas, moral distancing, and even bigotry.

Scientific Backing: Neurobiological studies and research on stress and anxiety provide empirical evidence for the strength and prevalence of the quest for certainty. These studies suggest that the pursuit of absolute certainty can hinder our ability to learn and adapt, potentially causing more suffering than historical plagues.

Historical and Philosophical Context

Descartes’ Influence: The founder of modern philosophy, René Descartes, serves as a primary target for Dewey. Descartes encouraged seeking a foundation of knowledge that is absolutely certain, a stance that has dominated philosophical thinking for centuries. Dewey argues that Descartes' "spectator theory of knowledge," which models humans as perceivers and knowers, oversimplified human existence.

Heidegger's Perspective: Martin Heidegger also critiques Cartesian dualism by emphasizing that humans exist as actors, not merely as knowers. This perspective suggests that the focus on objectivity as accurate representation is misguided. Dewey believes that the centuries-long debate about the relationship between mind and world (empiricism versus idealism) is a pseudo-problem, a topic that has merely created endless philosophical ping-pong.

Alternatives to the Quest for Certainty

Dewey's Pragmatism: Dewey's pragmatism encourages a fallibilist approach to knowledge. Unlike skeptics who question all beliefs at once, Dewey argues that any belief can and should be revised or abandoned in light of new experiences. This approach is more pragmatic and adaptive, allowing for continuous learning and growth.

Toulmin and Modern Philosophy: For a deep dive into this subject, Stephen Toulmin's books "Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity" and "Return to Reason" provide historical and philosophical grounding. Another valuable resource is a Scientific American interview with Robert Burton, who discusses the scientific aspects of the certainty bias.

Bau Lotto's Perspective: Beau Lotto's talk provides additional insights on the topic, explaining how the quest for certainty can be detrimental to our cognitive and emotional well-being.

Conclusion

The quest for certainty, although seemingly noble, is fundamentally flawed. Philosophers like Dewey and Heidegger argue that it hinders our cognitive and emotional capabilities, leading to wishful, absolute, and superstitious thinking. By embracing a fallibilist and pragmatic approach, we can achieve a more adaptive and continuous understanding of the world.

References: Dewey, J. (1929). Abram Flexner: Memoir of a Friend. Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and Time. Toulmin, S. (1991). Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. Toulmin, S. (1990). Return to Reason. Bernstein, R. J. (1983). Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Scientific American (2008). The Certainty Bias: A Potentially Dangerous Mental Flaw.