*Richard Feynman’s observation that “If you know that you are not sure,
you have a chance to improve the situation” frames uncertainty as a
productive starting point, a form of scientific humility that opens the door to
deeper understanding. Within the domain of scientific inquiry, this attitude is
invaluable. It signals openness to revision, a willingness to question
assumptions, and the intellectual flexibility that drives discovery. In
science, acknowledging uncertainty about the world is not weakness but
strength, for it creates the conditions for progress.
However, when examined through other philosophical lenses, particularly
existentialism and the Mahabharata, uncertainty does not always appear as a
virtue. Instead, it can represent a weakening of will and an obstacle to
authentic action. Here, the distinction between “not knowing” and “being
unsure” becomes crucial. To admit ignorance is an act of intellectual honesty
that can ignite deliberate seeking. But to confess that one is “not sure” about
oneself or one’s commitments reflects a deeper existential instability, a
reluctance to claim responsibility and a failure to stand firmly in freedom.
Existentialist thinkers such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre argue
that human freedom demands a fierce clarity of self-awareness. Authenticity, in
this tradition, depends on the individual’s willingness to confront their
condition directly, without hiding behind ambiguity. Sartre warns against bad
faith, the tendency to evade
responsibility by clinging to vague or uncertain attitudes. From this
perspective, being “not sure” is not a virtue, but it is a refusal to fully own
one’s freedom. It signals hesitation to embrace either knowledge or ignorance
decisively. Ignorance can propel inquiry, but uncertainty about oneself leads
only to paralysis. Clarity, even the clarity of one’s ignorance, is essential
for courage and meaningful action.
This distinction emerges vividly in the Mahabharata, particularly in
Arjuna’s crisis on the battlefield. Arjuna does not falter because he lacks information,
but he falters because he becomes unsure of himself. His doubt is not mere
ignorance but an emotional and existential confusion that robs him of the will
to act. Krishna does not praise Arjuna for acknowledging uncertainty. Instead,
he challenges him to rise above this fog of doubt. For Krishna, uncertainty is
a **tamasic state, where one that obscures dharma, corrupts resolve,
and clouds judgment. True growth comes not from lingering in hesitation but
from disciplined inquiry followed by decisive action. It is the transformation
of Arjuna’s uncertainty into clarity and not the uncertainty itself, that
enables moral and spiritual progress.
Both existentialism and the Mahabharata converge on a critical insight, whereby
the real danger lies not in ignorance but in self-doubt. Ignorance can awaken
the desire to learn but self-doubt weakens the will to seek. History and modern
life offer striking illustrations of this principle.
Marie Curie ventured into the invisible world of radioactivity not because
she doubted herself, but because she trusted the steadiness of her purpose.
Nelson Mandela faced the vast uncertainty of a nation in transition not from
existential wavering, but from an unshakeable sense of identity and mission.
Similarly, Steve Jobs and Elon Musk, often celebrated for their audacity, did
not act from existential confusion. Jobs reshaped personal computing from a
near-monastic clarity about design and purpose. Musk pursued electric mobility
and interplanetary ambition from a resolute conviction that these were the
problems he was meant to confront. Their bold ventures were not products of
self-doubt but of self-knowledge. The unknown invited them only because they
already knew where they stood.
Rajendra Chola’s reign (1014–1044) offers a vivid historical parallel. His
audacious naval expeditions, from Southeast Asia to the banks of the Ganges, did
not arise from confusion about identity. They flowed from an unwavering sense
of duty, lineage, and destiny. His conquests were not acts of a man trying to
find himself, but they were expressions of one who already knew. Anchored in
clarity, he extended the Chola realm across oceans, demonstrating that great
ventures arise not from existential uncertainty but from inner conviction.
In both science and statecraft, the courage to face the unknown does not
arise from confusion about the self but from conviction within it. These lives
remind us that exploration, whether of matter or of justice, begins with an
inward anchoring.
Whilst Feynman’s statement concerns epistemic uncertainty about the world,
the critique here points toward existential uncertainty about the self.
Scientific inquiry may benefit from the former, but human action and moral
responsibility cannot be built upon the latter.
On the other hand, both existentialism and the Mahabharata insist that one
must know where one stands before stepping into the unknown. The impetus to
discover does not arise from being unsure but from the confidence that one can
confront what one does not yet know.
Feynman is right when he says that the mind must remain uncertain about the
world, for scientific discovery thrives on questioning, revision, and doubt.
Yet the self must not remain uncertain about itself, for meaningful action
demands inner clarity.
Science advances through doubt, the self-advances through clarity. Feynman’s
uncertainty is a tool, not a worldview, while self-knowledge is the foundation
upon which responsibility and courage rest. Both are necessary, and when seen
in their proper place, they do not contradict but complete one another,
allowing us to face the unknown with both intellectual humility and existential
steadiness.
Cheers.
ravivarmmankkanniappan@0946171120253.0567° N, 101.5851° E
*Richard Feynman (1918–1988) was a brilliant, unconventional
physicist whose work transformed quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.
A Nobel laureate, charismatic teacher, wartime researcher, and early visionary
in nanotechnology and quantum computing, he charmed the world with curiosity, humour,
and a knack for making physics come alive. Somehow, almost by accident, he also
lived like an existentialist and a Gita-style Karma yogi, facing life’s
uncertainties with playfulness and purpose, proving that one can achieve
philosophical enlightenment without ever reading a single sacred text.
**tamasic refers to one of the three gunas (qualities of nature) in
Hindu philosophy and this guna is associated with qualities such as darkness,
ignorance, delusion, inertia, stupidity and indifference
No comments:
Post a Comment