I was reading about the concept of the validity of knowledge in Indian Philosophy. There are a group of people who would say validity is intrinsic, which means you have access to it along with the knowledge. The knowledge is self-validating. There is another set of people who would say it has to be validated by extrinsic (exterior) means; it is not self-validating (the arguments are not so simple as I put it here). So, within these two positions, my question and reflection was what the validation procedure for me.
My gut feeling is like extreme conservatives would be taking a self -validating position. The text for self-validation could be their holy books or anything they consider holy. People who think science is everything may consider science as the text of self-validation. People who are relativists may say everything need to be validated outside. Extreme liberals may fit in this category. People who are 100% on one side may be extremely rare in this world, but still there are people who fit into the extremes of both sides.
As a Christian and Catholic, Bible is the holy book for me. It is the inspired word of God written by inspired authors (I am not a theologian to give exact theology). But is Bible self-validated in all levels? With respect to the aspects of faith, it is self-validated. With respect to history, with respect to science, it can’t be accepted to self-validated. The validity is to be checked based on the historical and scientific facts. Even with regard to the matters of faith, interpretations do happen. So there might be the use of self-validity from some perspectives and external-validation from other perspectives. The same could be applied for any of the core-beliefs of our life.
Post-truth world might be going to one extreme, where truth is not judged by the correspondence with facts, but the emotions/feelings that was able to generate in us. Advertising used to use this strategy before; but it became more systematic with neuro-marketing.
In today’s world, there is no point of advising others on what is valid and invalid. Taking an extremist view is like running away from reality. But we should be able to find a balance for ourselves which is valid for the growth and peaceful co-existence of humanity and creation. The choices I take shouldn’t impinge on the freedom of others to choose. As social beings, some amount of confusion on the decision of validity-invalidity is bound to happen. I think living and dialoguing with the situation is a better option than going for absolute validity principles.
We are open-books and closed-books combined. We need affirmation from within and from outside. We need validation from within for some aspects and from outside for others. Let’s us find our own balance.