The First Principle

by Robert J. Romano

December 9th, 2004

Plato holds, in The Republic, that the first principle is the good, which is unexplainable as a principle, as it is transcendent, and thus beyond human explanation, but it is the cause of knowledge and the truth.  Thus, the capacity to contain intellect in the first place, and all that is conceivably intelligible (i.e. everything I might come to know) both arise from the good, according to Plato.  Potentially, this is the result of the Creator, who in Perfection conceived of the Universe in its vast expanse, and by Providence is ultimately responsible for everything being in the first place.  Under this principle, faith is required to believe that we are all here for a reason, which is just, and that perhaps it is incumbent upon the very presence of our existence to discover this reason and to pursue it with vigor.  But, what if that reason was to pursue the truth?

        And where would that lead us?

        Within the confines of our own perception, of course, it is true that we are ultimately responsible for our own existence during our mortal lives.  We govern our day-to-day affairs to the best of our abilities, or at least with the bare minimum of our abilities if we care not to try too hard to function.  Either way, we are capable of making observations, of discerning truth from falsehood, and in fact are incapable of escaping reason, as is proven by Descartes in Part IV of his Meditations in Discourse on Method.  He first rejected all the reasonings he had taken to be demonstrations to be false, and then pretended that all he had ever known was not any more true than the illusions of his dreams.  Even stripped away of all his knowledge of the truth, however, he then noticed that while he wanted to think that everything was indeed false, that this was in the final analysis an impossible exercise to comprehend.  “[I]t necessarily had to be the case that I, who was thinking this, was something.  And noticing this truth – I think therefore I am – was so firm and so assured that all the most extravagant suppositions of the skeptics were incapable of shaking it, I judged that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of philosophy I was seeking.” (18) Is the purpose of life, then, to pursue the truth, to, through the mental faculties of our reason, discover knowledge?

        If so, then Descartes certainly took advantage of this pursuit in studies ranging from mathematics and the sciences to philosophy.

        What good is knowledge, though? Is it favorable? How does the truth serve justice? Is it right? If knowledge serves mankind, and therefore the truth is the right path in a moral sense, and knowledge serves the self, and therefore the truth is the prudent path in a practical sense, then are morality and prudence, respective of their positions in any given circumstance, always opposing values? Are rights and interests always at odds? Decidedly not.

        For if the truth leads both to ideas of morality and prudence, then it could be taken that in fact truth is the first principle, and not the good.  For while knowledge not put to any application could be stated to be neutral in a moral sense, once activated for the good of all mankind, it is right, and once utilized for the interests of the self, it is expedient.  We are dependent upon our reason to discern the truth in the first place in order to not only determine what is true and false, but also what is right and wrong, and what is in our interests and not.  Without our capability to reason, to determine the truth, and to retain knowledge, notions such as right and wrong, favorable and unfavorable, would be meaningless, and in fact would be non-existent unless there is a God, or the good, that is not only capable of knowing the truth and practicing justice, but is also responsible for these and all things being in the first place.  And even then, the conceptions of justice for this higher being would inherently also have to rely on the truth in the first place.  But how could we know what a hypothetical deity would need to reason? If “the good” is responsible for there being a universe, the ability to know, and all that is knowable, it would first have to know it existed in the first place.  It too would require reason, and the ability to discern the truth, whether or not it intended to do good. 

        Why then are knowledge and the truth the first principle for Descartes, while Plato maintains that the capacity to learn the truth and all that we can capably know is dependent upon the good? The answer to this question may perhaps be that Descartes was a realist, while Plato was an idealist.  Idealistically, there is a Creator who put us all here for some very good reason, but realistically, there’s no way to be certain that this is true.  What is then ironic is that while Descartes can only be certain of his own existence in the original position, he then uses the virtue of his existence (i.e. his ability to think) to justify a belief in God, or the good.  For even if one can only be certain of his or her existence, one might seek some justification for that act, and lead to the conclusion that there is some good reason for being.  Descartes stated, “It follows from this that our ideas or notions, being real things and coming from God, cannot, in all that is clear and distinct in them, be anything but true.” (21) Because the good has the capability to reason, it too must be the case that we share this quality with our Creator. 

        But is it because we have the capability to reason that we believe in a Creator, or that because the Creator has the capability to reason that so do we? Or both? These are rhetorical questions to which there is an answer, but it is not knowable in the original position known as the human condition.  In any event, in order to be logical, we must assume that the ability to recognize the truth would be the first principle by which all observations can possibly be made and retained in the form of knowledge.  If so, Descartes’ first principle: “I think therefore I am…” must be true.  One could not tell the difference between air, fire, water, and earth, let alone right from wrong, without the ability to make observations in the first place.  Our faculty of reason is indeed our ability to discern the truth.  If we accept reason as being the first power, then truth must be its first principle.

        Would the sole pursuit of truth on one’s own inevitably lead to justice?

        What if a person were the last person alive? What sense would there be in justice? Right and wrong? Good and evil? Would that person create a fantasy so that there would be a place for justice? And would it be real?

        If not, then justice is dependent upon human relations with one another, and not simply on an abstract sense of right and wrong without any experience.  One would have to know how one would like to be treated, and perhaps establish as a principle that he or she would treat others in the same way, in order for a conception of justice to hold any truth as a principle.  Abstract knowledge, without experience, renders justice insignificant, or at least unknowable.  There are no circumstances by which to apply any rules of behavior or morality without there being a need to do so.  It is not merely our reason which determines what is right or wrong, though we are clearly dependent upon our mental faculties to do so.  In fact, it is our objective interactions with our fellow human beings that render our sense of what justice is.  And so, we can safely state that the last person alive might be very happy with the truth and have no need for justice in the practical sense, but if he or she did not believe in justice, would that person be happy?

        In other words, could that person find a reason to live without justice? If not, would truth on its own be a sufficient principle to justify one’s existence? Or, would there need to be a plurality of principles dependent upon truth?

        If so, I propose these, since we are not alone in this world, we can communicate and interact with one another, and there is in fact a society in which we all live, and we all wonder about how best to describe its inherent qualities and our way of life, which is unique.  Nationally speaking, if the state is to be anything like the person, then there needs to be a plurality of principles which guide its inception and expansion.  This is the very foundation for social contract theory.  We cannot live forever in the philosopher’s cave, and question the powers that be to always hold ill motive and intent.  The philosopher’s fallacy is to withdraw from politics, and instead to believe that he or she lacks freedom, and that society is tyrannical.  In the real world, we know that in fact we live in freedom, and we cannot be deprived of our rights without due process of law.

        Things are not always what they seem, but sometimes they are.  I believe that America is unique in this regard, and I believe she lives up to certain principles which are true in the first place, and just in the second.   Each is prioritized over the other such that once the first principle is satisfied, we move on to the next:

        The framework for a just society should be guided by the pursuit of the truth of what is right and wrong, just as the formula for an expeditious existence must be guided by the pursuit of the truth of what is in one’s own interests.  Whether one chooses morality or prudence, rights or interests, he or she will always be guided by reason, the ability to discern the truth.  If one is free and lives in a free society, and is both wise and moral, perhaps actions taken and ideas presented will serve ends which are both right for all and expeditious for the self.  Perhaps, one could find the virtue in prudence, and the wisdom of morality.  As in a free society, both our rights and interests are to be protected under law because both are at stake.  There is necessarily a contract between the individual and the whole of society, a pact of steel, to take up arms in the defense of freedom, and an agreement based on trust not to use one’s liberty to intrude upon another’s.  A free society defines its security based upon how well the life and liberty of the individual is protected from within and without.