The Story of Philosophy

An empiricist, a rationalist, a pragmatist, a transcendentalist and a sceptic together visited Nose Hill Park in Calgary one day, and stopped to look at the downtown skyline.

“Look at that,” said the sceptic.
“Beautiful,” said the empiricist.
“Lovely,” said the rationalist.
“Wonderful,” said the pragmatist.
“Terrific,” said the transcendentalist.
“See the Calgary Tower building? It has no foundation,” said the sceptic.
“What to you mean?” asked the empiricist.
“I belong to the We-Don’t-Believe-the-Calgary-Tower-Has-A-Foundation Society. We don’t believe it has a foundation.”
“Preposterous,” said the empiricist, and the rest agreed.
“What makes you say that?” asked the rationalist.
“I’ve never experienced it. I have no foundation for believing the foundation exists,” said the sceptic.
“Well, let’s go down and take a look at it, shall we?” said the empiricist. “You can see it, feel it, and walk inside of it yourself. Then you will know it has a foundation.”
“Waste of time,” said the sceptic. “Since it isn’t there. And even if you say it is, will I see it exactly as you see it, is my sense of touch exactly like yours? Will my personal experience of walking in it be identical as yours?”
“Sure,” said the empiricist.
“Are you red green colour blind?” asked the sceptic.
“No.”
“I am. Is your sense of touch identical to mine?” asked the sceptic.
“I can’t be sure,” said the empiricist.
“And so we simply can’t be sure your experience will be the same as mine. That’s my point; everyone’s so-called interaction with the real world is different so how can we be sure that what we think is really there at all? Where is the certainty to me that it exists when I’ve never experienced it and everyone else’s experience is different. They’ve simply had some personal sensory-data input. Nothing unites all those different experiences into any certain whole. It’s just your jumble of sensations versus my different jumble of sensations. But that wouldn’t be enough to prove a real foundation is actually there.”

The empiricist had no answer.

“Excuse me,” said the rationalist, “but I believe you’re forgetting something.”
“What?” replied the sceptic.
“You would agree that there are all kinds of buildings?”
“Yes.”
“And that all those different kinds all have had, in your past experience, foundations which connect them to the ground?”
“Yes. That’s what foundations do, connect buildings to the ground.”
“And you have said the Calgary Tower is a building?”
“Yes, I did,” said the sceptic.
“Well, said the rationalist, if all buildings have foundations and the Calgary Tower is a building, then the Calgary Tower, my friend, has a foundation.” The empiricist slapped the rationalist on the back and said, “Way to go!”
“Fine try,” said the sceptic. “In fact,” he continued, “I’m now convinced not all buildings have foundations as I once did. Thank you for clarifying that for me.”
“Excuse me?” said the rationalist once again. “You can’t just change the definition of a building like that to suit yourself.”
“I didn’t,” said the sceptic smartly. “You did all the work for me. You see, you and I were incorrect when we blindly agreed that all buildings have foundations. I didn’t realize how inconsistent I was in my own thinking, but you have helped me. You said yourself there are all kinds of buildings and neither you nor I have seen them all. Now we have both seen one that has no foundation and can know for certain that not all buildings have foundations. Your logic simply doesn’t work because it makes an assumption in the premise that all building have foundations, but that is the very thing it tries to prove. You can’t assume to be true the thing you are trying to prove. That’s begging the question, my friend, and proves nothing.”

The rationalist did not respond.

“You guys are nuts,” said the pragmatist.
“Why do you say that?” asked the sceptic.
“Because, just a minute ago you all looked down and saw the Tower and appreciated the city skyline for what it is. Who cares about your stupid little argument about foundations? The Tower is certainly there for all of us to see. Am I right?”
“Yes,” they each replied.
“And so it is what it is for whoever cares to see it and you know what? That’s all that really counts. You all enjoy how it looks and that matters. You can all identify it as Calgary when you see it and that matters. That’s all I’m saying.”
The sceptic was quick to respond with “But I never said I enjoyed how it looks. In fact, I hate the way that tower confuses the skyline with its odd architecture so it holds no aesthetic value to me. And since I’ve never used the skyline to identify Calgary, I use a map, It’s not so valuable as a placeholder. Besides who says that it matters that it’s’ there for whoever cares to see it’ as you have said? Who are you to tell us what matters? We’ll decide for ourselves. Who called you the boss of us in what matters?”
“Nobody.”
“Then kindly keep your opinions to yourself and stop imposing them on me.”

The pragmatist had no response.

“You’re being a little hypocritical aren’t you?” asked the transcendentalist.
“How so?”
“Well, you seemed to have consensus at first about what a building was. Now you have your own definition. I wonder if you would be willing to consider the errors of your own ways?”
“Certainly. If you see any, go ahead.”
“It occurs to me, “continued the transcendentalist, “that there is something you take for granted when you view the building. Look at it again.” Each of them including the sceptic looked toward the Tower in the skyline. “Say again what do you and your society believe about the Calgary Tower?”
“That it is a building downtown that does not have a foundation.”
“There. You did it again.”
“Did what?”
“Refuted yourself.”
“I did not.”
“Yes you did. By your own words you refute yourself.”
“Excuse my silly ignorance,” replied the sceptic sarcastically, “but please explain how I did that?”
“Ok. On how many sides of a building is a building a building?”
“On all of its sides.”
“And does a building have more than one side?”
“Of course.”
“Tell me again why you don’t believe the Tower has a foundation?”
“Because I have never experienced it and cannot experience it.”
“And how many sides of the Tower are you experiencing now?”

The sceptic was silent for a moment.

“One,” said the sceptic.
“Given your own criteria about the Towers foundation, that it cannot exist because you cannot experience it, what do you say about all the other sides of the building?”
“That they can not exist because I cannot experience them. I can only ever experience one side.”
“And you agree a building cannot have only one side.”
“Right.”
“So what is a building with only one side?”
“Not a building.”
“And since you only see one side of the Tower, and that it has no other sides, what is the Tower you see?”
“Not a building.”
“And so by your own definitions you refute yourself. You cannot know what you know, therefore your own reasons for not believing in the foundation cannot be justified. It is real in and of itself as presupposed in your own thinking whereby you conceive of it as a building, even those parts of it you do not experience. What parts can you not see?”
“The other side and the foundation.”
“And the inside, and parts of the top, and parts under railings and parts too small to see from here. So you must either presuppose that it has a foundation or not know that it is a building at all. What say you?”
“That it is a building with a foundation.”