22.07.2013 Views

Scientism and Values.pdf - Ludwig von Mises Institute

Scientism and Values.pdf - Ludwig von Mises Institute

Scientism and Values.pdf - Ludwig von Mises Institute

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

40 <strong>Scientism</strong> <strong>and</strong>. <strong>Values</strong><br />

nature would be looked on indifferently. But there are some facts<br />

that if allowed to exist might threaten the existence of a rational<br />

social order. Could a rational social order exist if no one was willing<br />

to risk his life to keep such facts from coming into existence?<br />

It is necessary in any reasonable examination of the problem of<br />

objectivity to consider the possibility that both Antigone <strong>and</strong><br />

Creon were trying to discover the m.eanings of the facts that they<br />

had before them <strong>and</strong> struggling to do what they felt necessary to<br />

establish <strong>and</strong> maintain a rational social order.<br />

But, it might be said, this is an ancient example <strong>and</strong> we have<br />

not faced in it the question of the, meaning of fact. We have to<br />

face this problem, so let us take a few samples of what has been<br />

said in the last fifty years or so on the question what facts are. We<br />

shall start with William James. James does not give us a definition,<br />

but he speaks of facts as hard, stubborn, irreducible. "The toughminded,"<br />

he says,<br />

are the men whose Alpha <strong>and</strong> Omega are facts. Behind the bare<br />

phenomenal facts ... there is nothing. When a rationalist insists that<br />

behind the facts there is the ground of facts, the possibility of facts,<br />

the tougher empiricists accuse him of taking the mere name <strong>and</strong><br />

nature of a fact <strong>and</strong> clapping it behind the fact as duplicate entity<br />

to make it possible ...19<br />

If we examine this statement seriously, we see that James refuses<br />

to try to account for facts before their appearance <strong>and</strong> after<br />

their appearance. James was doing essentially the same thing that<br />

men do now when they repeat the proposition of Descartes,20 "I<br />

think; therefore, I am," without considering that this formula,<br />

when used as an article of faith today, cries for expansion into the<br />

question: There was a time when I did not think; therefore if I<br />

believe what I am told about myself <strong>and</strong> the world, I was not.<br />

Now, I think; therefore, I am. I am approaching a state when<br />

again, if I believe what I am told, I shall not think; therefore I<br />

shall not be. But this is something coming from nothing <strong>and</strong> going<br />

into nothing. This is a miracle. And I am told not to believe in<br />

miracles. Is there anything that I can believe that makes sense?

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!