Why I Lack A Coherent Worldview (Part 4: Of Specificity, Pragmatism, Choice, and Final Remarks)

Consider specificity. To hold beliefs at all we must rely on inherently ambiguous concepts. How do you define "truth"? What does it mean for something to be "true"? One might mean that true statements correspond to reality (i.e., the Correspondence Theory of Truth), but that's circular. Plus, what is "reality"? If we can't clearly define these terms, then we likely can't clearly define concepts such as "false," "objectivity," "probability," and so on.

I don't mean that "truth" is meaningless, nonexistent, or "relative" (whatever that means), but simply ambiguous and circular. Such ambiguity demonstrates limits of analytical philosophy. Humans want the universe to be remarkably less ambiguous than it is. We can form many guidelines for epistemological discourse but few formulaic rules. Objectivity is more intuitive than formulaic (this does not mean objectivity is not rational; rationality and intuition are not mutually exclusive [e.g., rationality maybe subconscious]). The world's incredibly detailed complexity force us to ignore some details, some of which maybe crucial to forming true beliefs. We have no choice but to generalize in answering most questions of reality's nature.

Consider pragmatism, specifically regarding objectivity. Objectivity is not always useful and sometimes counter-productive. For instance, optimism, which is rarely realistic, often motivates achievement of goals and improves personal happiness. In extreme situations, a "noble lie" maybe necessary to protect society's welfare (e.g., keeping battle plans secret while under attack). There are other examples but the general idea is obvious.
Consider Choice. You might not have a choice in what you believe or value. I personally don't believe freewill exists, but that's for another post.
Final Remarks. No doubt, I missed some crucial points, but I primarily intended to convey general ideas and didn't feel like writing a dissertation for each blog post.

The general ideas are these: you can't be consistent about everything, there are sometimes pragmatic reasons for being inconsistent, values are unknowable, faith is unavoidable in judging the empirical world, specificity has practical limits in increasing objectivity, and objectivity is not always practical. The main conclusion of these general ideas is that a coherent worldview is unattainable and impractical (by "practical," I mean tending to accomplish a certain goal).

By "coherent," I refer to a consistent worldview with full explanatory power.

There are degrees of coherence with some views such as that of libertarians being significantly more coherent than others. Coherence, in itself, however, is not a strength. If anything, too much coherence is a weakness since it is likely incorrect and impractical. A coherent worldview maybe completely wrong and counterproductive.

The following are unavoidable constraints on objectivity:

1. I don't know how objective I am, but am highly confident that most are not nearly as objective as they think. While there are degrees of objectivity, objectivity itself is rare in issues beyond the most basic commonsense. At best, I can hope to become more objective by questioning my beliefs and listening to what critics say.
2. I'm sure some of my beliefs are incorrect including some I'm sure of.
3. I'm sure some of my beliefs are contradictory.
4. I'm sure some of my beliefs will change.
5. I'm sure I have a huge cognitive blindspot of which I'm completely unaware.
   

The above constraints apply to everyone.