Something that’s been on my mind for years is this article:
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-have-fun
Especially the part at the end, where Graeber inserts a Taoist story:
Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling on a bridge over the River Hao, when the former observed, “See how the minnows dart between the rocks! Such is the happiness of fishes.”
“You not being a fish,” said Huizi, “how can you possibly know what makes fish happy?”
“And you not being I,” said Zhuangzi, “how can you know that I don’t know what makes fish happy?”
“If I, not being you, cannot know what you know,” replied Huizi, “does it not follow from that very fact that you, not being a fish, cannot know what makes fish happy?”
“Let us go back,” said Zhuangzi, “to your original question. You asked me how I knew what makes fish happy. The very fact you asked shows that you knew I knew—as I did know, from my own feelings on this bridge.”
Graeber’s take:
“The anecdote is usually taken as a confrontation between two irreconcilable approaches to the world: the logician versus the mystic. But if that’s true, then why did Zhuangzi, who wrote it down, show himself to be defeated by his logician friend?
After thinking about the story for years, it struck me that this was the entire point. By all accounts, Zhuangzi and Huizi were the best of friends. They liked to spend hours arguing like this. Surely, that was what Zhuangzi was really getting at.
… [Graeber speaking for Zhuangzi:] the very fact that you felt compelled to try to beat me in an argument, and were so happy to be able to do so, shows that the premise you were arguing must be false.”
Graeber then concludes that Zhuangzi was right in the end. He presents this take as a fresh, controversial one, probably because he is expecting his readership to sympathize with Huizi. However, I’ve found it generally accepted that in this story Zhuangzi “wins a point” for the mystics.
If it isn’t a decisive win because this is exactly how mystics like to leave things, undecided. That is, they don’t like to win at all. They prefer to get everyone confused about whether winning is a thing that can even happen. They like that a rationalist can walk away from an exchange like that, believing the matter to be settled when it hasn’t been settled, and couldn’t be settled, and never will be settled. Or at least that’s how it seems to me.
I would like to believe that fish can be happy. I would like to believe as well that we can know that they can be happy, and that they are. Some say that no man is an island. People like me worry whether or not there’s anyone who isn’t an island. It really does feel hopeless sometimes.
During the Age of Reason, educated people were being won over by all the progress that was being made. It seemed inevitable that eventually we’d figure everything out, finish mathematics, physics, and the rest, and then be able to kick back and rule over the earth, crowned by our own certainty. These days it seems a lot less clear. We’re being so overwhelmed by data that knowledge seems more likely to enslave us than the other way around. Is there a good ending still in sight?
One thing that worries me a lot about truth and logic and progress, is whether or not these things will lead us to where we want to go. From the rationalist’s perspective, these are virtues. Truth is inherently valuable because when you know what’s true you can make better decisions. You can use logic to optimize these decisions, and logic can also lead you to deduce the truth. Lastly, you can make progress and reshape reality to be more beneficial.
But what ends up happening is that you only get pieces of the truth. There is always more that you’re missing. Often a good decision based on sound logic turns out to be a bad decision based on sound logic. Progressing a thing often means the regression of something else that was overlooked. It’s very confounding.
Sometimes it is better to believe the wrong thing, the incorrect thing, trust the lie, believe the liar. Sometimes it just happens that way. The person who doesn’t understand is led to where they want to go by a series of misunderstandings that somehow all cancel each other out in the perfect way. And the person who understands everything that’s going on winds up totally devastated. It happens all the time. There are intuitive people, or wise people, or lucky people, who somehow hit the high note which consistently eludes the other people.
Whether or not fish can be happy, life feels somehow more pleasant if one believes they can be. Science may one day prove beyond a doubt that fish can’t be happy, that true knowledge is impossible, that free will does not exist. Yet what would that do for us. What if the truth turns out to be unusable and unpleasant.
This is the kind of thing that keeps me up at night.