Knowledge

is a significant subject for philosophy and life. In discussing issues with my friend, I'm forced to think about how much certitude we have about the things we believe. Certitude as distinct from certainty.

These are relatively arbitrary distinctions. I'm trying to see the difference between the feeling of being certain from the intellectual virtue of correctly identifying what one can and should assign certitude to. We have all had the experience of feeling absolutely certain about something, only to discover that it is false or, at least, seriously deficient. I'm assuming the ideal philosopher doesn't assert certitude, or at least an inappropriate degree of it, where it is wrong to do so.

And challenging someone who is experiencing overwhelming certainty is a delicate task. Your purpose, in the abstract, is help both you and your interlocutor to find the truth and, in the process, do so with an appropriate degree of certitude.

The proximate issue is his (as I see it) infatuation with anti-Catholic propaganda. There's enough material to cause the über-Catholic Pope to apologize for. So you don't need to dredge up marginal, dubious or speculative crap to make your point.


He has left me with a collection of papers relating to Hypatia. His theme seems to be: Cyril of Alexandria ordered the murder of Hypatia; the Church then declared him a saint; therefore the Church approves of murder most foul; and, furthermore, we should reject the Church as a teacher.

There's plenty more where that came from. But how to evaluate his confidence in this story without simply shifting to and fro? The Wikipedia article I linked to above seems sober enough for a reference point. No contemporary witness (ok, there was only one on this incident) charges Cyril with the murder. This witness is, furthermore, deeply disapproving of the murder and, by implication, of Cyril's perceived role in it. The trouble is, He doesn't actually specify what that role might have been, if any.

The charge that Cyril ordered the murder comes more than a century later from Damascius, according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia. How does a critical thinker evaluate this charge?

My friend rejects the First Century documents (forming most or all of the New Testament) as unreliable witnesses to the "Real Jesus" because they are based on hearsay and oral traditions. But on that basis how can he believe or assert anything about anyone in history? Certainly a late charge against Cyril that could not possibly be eye-witness testimony would be rejected on that basis. I'm more moderate in my expectations of what and how we should expect to learn from history. I would argue ignorance and uncertainty about the charge against Cyril until new, better evidence or arguments are brought forward.

But where does his certainty come from? And how to help him analyse and evaluate it?

And we haven't even gotten into the issue of what the relationship between Cyril's sainthood and his possible approval of murder were. Was he made a saint because of the murder of Hypatia or inspite of it? What evidence is there to evaluate for the critical thinker?

Oh well, lots to ponder. I'll read his papers and then give him a call. We should have a fine time arguing, uh, I mean discussing Hypatia and whatever else he comes up with. At least he is passionate about ideas. That I consider a potential virtue, once combined with critical thinking skills and some sound first principles.