A Shared "Solution" to a Problem Basic to Both Epistemology and Political Theory

 

A couple of hundred years into the Common Era, a skeptical philosopher named Sextus Empiricus wrote this:

Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is trustworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.

This claim that a "vicious circle" or "wheel" is utterly destructive of human claims to knowledge was popularized in the late 16th Century by another important skeptic, the essayist, Michel de Montaigne. As famously paraphrased by (one of my old grad school professors) Roderick Chisholm in 1973, Montaigne's "Problem of the Criterion," was this: 

To know whether things really are as they seem to be, we must have a procedure for distinguishing appearances that are true from appearances that are false. But to know whether our procedure is a good procedure, we have to know whether it really succeeds in distinguishing appearances that are true from appearances that are false. And we cannot know whether it does really succeed unless we already know which appearances are true and which ones are false. And so we are caught in a circle. 

For example, in order to have faith in anything like Descartes' trust that "clear and distinct"  ideas can be trusted, we must have prior knowledge that the clear and distinct notions are always true. But to know THAT, we'd have to already know some truths. And the skeptical claim is that we can't know any truths without first having some procedure by which to test beliefs. So, in order to get the method, we need to have access to some truths, but in order to get the truths, we first need a trustworthy method.#  

Why bring any of this up in a blog devoted to political theory? Well, it seems to me there is a closely analogous problem for political authority. It too has been around forever, but it was made famous by Carl Schmitt in the 1920s. Here, the question isn't What do we really know? but rather What really has the force of law?  

 

In this arena, we can also find those who, like Descartes, believe that we must get the procedure--or method--right to be comfortable with the authority (rather than the truth) of the edict. So, a proceduralist will be inclined to say that we don't have a legitimate law unless all the correct procedures, starting with the constitution if there is one, have been carefully followed. But the decisionist (like the particularist in epistemology) will be quick to point out that a decision about the authority of the constitution (and/or other "norms" relied on) will then have to be assumed. After all, what makes this constitution so special? If it's claimed that the right procedures were followed when it was enacted, what made those procedures the "right" ones? 

So, Schmitt and other decisionists held that at some point there will be no alternative but to confess that a decision simply had to be made. On this view, ultimately, nothing but decision-makers and their decisions have any real force.## And, among epistemologists, Chisholm--although he maintained that any solution to the problem of the criterion must assume what it seeks to prove--was a "particularist," feeling (as I do) that we just do know certain commonsense things.###

I think we can put the analogy this way: 

• Rejection of Normative Primacy

1. Both Schmitt and Chisholm challenge the idea that a universal, abstract system (be it legal norms or epistemological criteria) can be established in a vacuum. They argue that such a system is, in fact, dependent on prior, foundational acts or beliefs.

• The "What" Precedes the "How"

1. Pursuant to Schmitt's Decisionism, the sovereign's decision on the "state of exception" comes first. This decision is not based on existing law; it creates the legal order. The content of the law (the "how") is a result of the sovereign's ability to act and establish order (the "what"). As Schmitt famously stated, "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception." The decision thus takes precedence over the norm of law.
2. According to Chisholm's Particularism, the epistemologist begins by identifying what we know (the "what") and then uses those instances of knowledge to formulate a general theory of how we know (the "how"). He argues against the "methodist" position, which insists on first defining the criteria for knowledge before claiming to know anything. Chisholm's particularist approach starts with the immediate, undeniable experience of knowing and uses it as the bedrock for all subsequent theorizing.

To this bushel of striking similarities, we probably can add that there are particular "goods" associated with appropriate moves in both epistemic and political realms. Whether each is an intrinsic good or both are only instrumental (likely prudential) valuess, need not be investigated here. But it does seem clear that it's somehow better both (i) to have beliefs that are true; and (ii) to obey only those ostensible governmental commands that are legitimate.

With all this going for our analogy, one may wonder why it has received so little attention before now. (No doubt it will be assumed by my devoted readers that this must be attributed to the unmatched brilliance of the blogger. But, alas, I don't think that's the reason.) I believe it's because there are also crucial differences between particularism and decisionism as solutions to their respective criterion crises.

First, while only one of the solutions is essentially about individual knowledge, they are both inextricably connected with it...and only particularism gives any assistance on that front. What I mean is this: Even if you have settled on decisionism as the basis for legal legitimacy, you will need to know just whose decision is the one to attend to. Suppose a dozen individuals or groups are claiming to be the appropriate deciders: it doesn't seem like the belief that it's this one rather than that one doesn't seem much like "I am" or "2 + 2 = 4." With particularism, we have our "intuitions" regarding what seems true to guide us, but there may not be any reliable ones in the political realm. In a word, while it makes sense to be comfortable that "These are my hands" is true just because it seems to be, it seems we need criteria for settling on an appropriate decider.

Second, some of us may feel there is an additional "good" in play when it comes to political decision-making. (I certainly do.) It involves a recognition of the intrinsic value of self-government. Because of that factor, an autocratic decision--legitimate or not--must always lack what authentic democracy can provide. I suppose Cartesians may hold that what can only be provided by God's banishment of deceiving demons or dreams, is equally important. But that is a matter that remains within the same epistemic wheel. The value provided by real democracy seems to me irrespective of whether or not only democracy can give a polity "legitimate authority."

Another way of putting this is that while the decisionist approach may be thought to provide a solution to the problem of legitimacy, it does nothing for any goals involving other sorts of values. (And this is even if we ignore justice, as I am inclined to do myself). The value of democracy, in my view, is not that it provides a more legitimate basis for law a role that, arguably, can--perhaps even must if Schmittians are right--be filled by a singular, founding decision, but that it provides the additional intrinsic good of self-governance, of most people getting what they want, when the wants of each person are treated equally. And that is something that decisionism cannot do.

********

#Obviously, this isn't the place for a detailed discussion of the problem of the criterion. But for those interested in the issue, I recommend a terrific paper by (another old Professor of mine) James Van Cleve called "Foundationalism, Epistemic Principles, and the Cartesian Circle" (1979).

##Schmitt actually backed away a bit from his earlier, strict decisionism in the mid-thirties. In his On the Three Types of Juristic Thought he argued that legal theory depends on "concrete order"; i.e, that something like social practices, institutions,or normal situations must underlie applicable decisions, making them not purely extrinsic to all norms. However, his view remained antithetical to Hans Kelsen's picture, according to which every legitimate edict must ultimately be deriveable from what Kelsen called a Grundnorm or ultimate rule.

###My own views on the purely epistemological matters discussed here can be found in this paper.