Back to Blog posts

Dostoevsky wrote, “That's man's one privilege over all creation. Through error you come to the truth! I am a man because I err! You never reach any truth without making fourteen mistakes and very likely a hundred and fourteen. And a fine thing, too, in its way; but we can't even make mistakes on our own account! Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else’s.” Why is it better to go wrong in our own way rather than go right in someone else’s? What’s the meaning behind this quote? As usual, I’m gonna explore this idea through a dialogue. For weeks, a young student (S) had been having philosophical conversations with a teacher (T). The following is one of them. TT: I think it’s better to go wrong in your own way rather than go right in someone else’s. S: What? How? Isn’t it better to go the right way no matter how you get there? Like if you wanna go to the grocery store, isn’t it better to follow someone else’s directions and get there rather than go the wrong way on your own? T: What you’re saying sounds nice in theory, yes. If someone could just give you the right directions to wherever you wanted to go, it would save you a lot of time. But you must agree that someone could just as easily give you the wrong directions, which could make your trip to the grocery store longer than it otherwise would have been. S: Yeah that could happen. You have to know who to trust. And if you trust the right people, you’ll get to your destination faster than you would on your own. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. T: Okay, but how do you know who to trust? S: Well, you have to find someone who has a proven track record of saying the truth. If someone has not lied in the past, they are unlikely to lie in the present. T: But you have to admit, just because someone hasn’t lied or misled you in the past, it doesn’t mean they won’t lie or mislead you now. S: That’s true, but the probability of them misleading you is lower. T: Yes, I get where you’re coming from in a practical sense, but I’m trying to show you something you’re not seeing. So someone gives you a piece of knowledge right now, how do you know whether to trust it or not? S: If I know the person who’s giving me the piece of knowledge has a proven track record of not lying, I will trust it. But if I don’t know their track record, I won’t trust them. T: Ok, so imagine this. Let’s say you have a grandpa whose 90 years old and has never lied to you or misled you once in your life. And unbeknownst to you, he has a sudden malfunction in his brain, and he says to you, “if you jump off this cliff, you’ll make a million dollars.” Are you going to believe that claim because of his track record? S: Of course not. T: Exactly. So you’re not choosing to trust someone based off of their track record. And now we’re back to the critical point: how do you know whether to trust a piece of knowledge or not? S: Hmm… I guess I use my own knowledge and experience to assess whether I can trust someone. T: But that brings us back to the same problem: now how do you know if you can trust your own knowledge? S: I guess if my knowledge was right in the past, then I can trust it. T: But we just talked about this. Just because your knowledge worked in the past that doesn’t mean it will work now. S: You’re right, but it’s not like I can choose not to act on my own knowledge and past experience. I have no choice. I have to act based on the sum total of my life experiences. So I have to act on my knowledge, whether it is true or not! How can I act in any other way? T: No exactly, you’re right! You have no choice but to act on your own knowledge at any point in time. Even when you’re getting directions from someone else, you’re deciding whether to trust them or not based on your own knowledge. Right? S: Yeah. So what are you trying to say? T: I’m saying the problem is not about trust like you originally thought. Trust is irrelevant. You have no choice but to act on your own knowledge. So the real problem is whether or not your knowledge gets better or worse over time. Do you agree? S: Hmm.. yeah, I do actually agree. So how does our knowledge get better over time? T: Let’s think about this together. Imagine that all your life all you’ve ever seen are red apples. You’d probably believe that all apples are red, because you’ve never seen anything that suggests otherwise. And as you see more and more red apples, this belief remains constant. But one day you come across a complete anomaly: a green

apple. This anomaly falsifies your belief that all apples are red. And now you’re confronted with a choice: do you update your knowledge or not? Do you tell yourself that apples are not only red? Do you tell yourself they can be green and maybe even other colours too? Or do you ignore the anomaly? Do you tell yourself you hallucinated it? Or do you tell yourself that it wasn’t even an apple? S: Obviously I accept that apples can be other colours too! Why wouldn’t I? T: Well what if we were talking about something other than apples? Imagine that you’re in a marriage with someone for 10 years, and you find evidence that they may be cheating on you. That evidence is an anomaly: it contradicts everything you believed about your spouse. Will you welcome that anomaly into your life with all of its implications? Or will you ignore it? S: Hmm… you’re right. That is a lot harder to answer. Honestly, I don’t know what I would do in that situation. T: Yeah, it’s a lot harder isn’t it? So the improvement of your knowledge depends on how open you are to anomaly. S: You keep using that word: anomaly. What does that mean? T: An anomaly is anything that falsifies or contradicts your own knowledge. So the green apple, for example, is an anomaly because you believed all apples were red. But if you believed apples were red and green, it would not be an anomaly. S: Ok, that makes sense. So what does it mean to be open to anomaly? T: When something falsifies your knowledge, do you accept it or ignore it? In other words, can you admit to being wrong? If you can, you are open to anomaly. So do you see how this all relates to the original question? S: To be honest with you, I forgot what we were talking about in the first place. T: Ha, that’s okay! It happens. In the beginning, I said I think it’s better to go wrong in your own way than go right in someone else’s. S: Oh yeah! So how does that relate to what you just said? T: Well, we both agreed that one of the main problems in life is whether or not your knowledge improves over time. S: We did. T: And what conclusion did we come to? How does your knowledge improve over time? S: I guess the answer comes back to what you originally said: your knowledge improves when you’re willing to go wrong in your own way. But you have to walk your own path and be willing to admit when you’re wrong. You have to be willing to confront your errors instead of ignoring them. T: So it looks like we’re in agreement. --- In Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote, “To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else’s,” and I explored the meaning behind this idea through a dialogue. To walk your own path is to realize that you are always acting on your own knowledge. Even when you’re getting directions from someone else, you choose to take their advice based on your own understanding of the world. And when you realize that all of your actions always come back to your own knowledge in some form, and you decide to take responsibility for that, and you decide not to blame anyone else for your actions, then you’re walking your own path. But to go wrong in your own way means that you realize that, at some point, you will come across an anomaly. And this anomaly will falsify or contradict your knowledge. And if you admit to being wrong, if you don’t ignore the anomaly, if you face your errors head on, then as Dostoevsky said, your errors can move you closer to the truth. As always, this is just my opinion and understanding of Dostoevsky’s words, not advice. Feel free to use this information however you like, and if you have a different take on Dostoevsky’s words, I’d love to hear your perspective. Tight Lines. TT.