Hi and welcome to all!A wise man once said, "reading and writing is the business of philosophy." In its humble beginnings, the Western philosophical tradition began in the market place, where all could share their thoughts verbally. It was not long, however, before thinkers began writing treatises that often went against widely accepted worldviews. "Common sense" simply would not do. While many things seemed self-evident to most people, philosophers persisted further.
While we have come a long way since the time of Thales (600 BCE), philosophy lives on as a discipline whose stock-and-trade consists of critically examining life's most basic questions: What exists? What constitutes true knowledge? What is good? What is beautiful? These matters have given rise to a variety of responses over the course of history. Many theories were forgotten, and others were simply accepted as self-evident. While it is perhaps undesirable to spend our lives juggling between "-isms", we nevertheless wrestle with tough questions when our experiences do not fit our basic worldview. The philosopher, one might add, will go as far as questioning his own experience.
While knowledge grows with experience, the lens by which we view the world give shape to these experiences, and how we understand them. Thus, Kant rightly points out that while experience is a necessary condition for knowledge (for to postulate in a world beyond human experience is nonsense), it does not follow that the latter results from experience. This, in turn, leaves the critical thinker with the painful task of organizing his thoughts from empirical data in order to create that which is most desired: a unified picture of the world drawn from an otherwise meaningless universe.
I hope this blog provides us with the kind of intellectual fuel that pushes us forward in our inquiry for truth, reality, beauty and meaning. While we are all very well acquainted with such ideas, talking about them is what makes them interesting. As such, philosophical discourse reveals the intellectual difficulties that arise from what would otherwise appear as "common sense." With that thought, I leave you with a quote:
"It is indeed a great gift of God, to possess right, or (as they now call it) plain common sense. But this common sense must be shown practically, by well-considered and reasonable thoughts and words, not by appealing to it as an oracle, when no rational justification can be advanced. To appeal to common sense, when insight and science fail, and no sooner-this is one of the subtle discoveries of modern times, by means of which the most superficial ranter can safely enter the lists with the most thorough thinker, and hold his own. But as long as a particle of insight remains, no one would think of having recourse to this subterfuge." (Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics)
May the peace of that which is called God be with you.
Camardicus
19 comments:
Carlo, how are you... it's been a while.
Interesting to read your thoughts... although I enjoy the odd philsophical chat, I find it more difficult these days to find meaning in them (ironic that it's within the philosophical community where meaning seems to be sought after with the most intensity), this not to say I don't find any joy in the discussion.
A question:
Is it possible that no knowledge can be found through experience? For even a thought, a reflection, a time of solitude that often gives one a perspective they didn't have before could be considered knowledge. However, that depends on the definition of knowledge... and then that will take books to discover.
Hope you're well and pray that the one that is God is near your heart these days.
It would be great to hang sometime!!
It is just like you to open up a can of worms. I hope you plan on fishing!
Hey, Dave!
So great to hear from you. I understand that it can be a bit of a pain (or bore!) to read the kind of stuff coming from philosophy students. I'm afraid I have been plagued with the same disease real philosophers suffer from: using common words and changing them to suit their over-arching systems.
As for knowledge, I believe that it comes with experience but that it does not derive simply from raw sense-experience. Following Kant, I believe that the mind shapes the raw data into what can be called human experience. All of this to say is that we are not passive receptors of data, but capable of organizing the plurality of events into a unified picture. I don't doubt that we learn through experience.
As for calling myself "a bit of a skeptic", I only mean to say that I am willing to question some (of what many might consider) the most ridiculous things. This is not for the sake of believing nothing, however, but in order to remain open to different possibilities. In other words, I try to keep an open mind.
Forgive my jargon... and thanks for keeping me grounded! We should get together sometime. My brother suggested that I attend mid-week studies. As soon as my semester is done (approx. 1 month) I'll come out of my little shell. If anything, even getting together for coffee sounds great!
Blessings!
Camardicus
P.S. I use "that which is called" to refer to God primarily because He (or She -- haha) is much greater than my ideas. I would not want to reduce God to my own limited capacity. Although images and doctrines are ways of speaking meaningfully about God, I do not want to end up worshipping the idols that I might make of Him. (I hope that's not too heterodox!)
Trickster,
As you know, language has its limitations. It is often misleading. Nevertheless, it is non-negotiable. It is not simply one of the best ways we communicate, but also the way we often arrive at truth. And so I suggest to anyone, as a mild skeptic, to take everything with a grain of salt and an ounce of sugar. Therefore, discern (lat. "to distinguish, to seperate") between what's whack and what's not. I leave you with an appropriate parable:
"The kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and caught fish of every kind; when it was full, they drew it ashore, sat down, and put the good into baskets but threw out the bad." (Matt. 13:47)
Go, and do likewise! (haha)
Camardicus
On your comment:
"As for knowledge, I believe that it comes with experience but that it does not derive simply from raw sense-experience. Following Kant, I believe that the mind shapes the raw data into what can be called human experience. All of this to say is that we are not passive receptors of data, but capable of organizing the plurality of events into a unified picture. I don't doubt that we learn through experience."
Are you saying that experience becomes knowledge only once we've put the pieces together in our minds (from Kant). I guess this could be true... but isn't this just breaking down the process.
If we 'learn throug our experience' I think we can safely call that knowledge. Or is knowledge something only neatly packed to represent coherent data?
Maybe I'm probing, but i'm curious.
Hey, Dave.
You hit the nail on the head when you say that it is "breaking down the process." That's exactly what many thinkers were out to do before Kant. Kant tried to really get down to the bottom of it. Thus, he was not simply interested in what we can know, but tried to get to the very structure by asking what were the necessary conditions for human knowledge.
Now, Kant didn't answer all our problems. Like any brilliant thinker, he gets weird on you on one point or another. I'm not swearing by him, but I found it enlightening how he connects reason with the senses: Our reason doesn't simple receive sense-data from the world of experience, but also has the active capacity to give shape to that experience.
As for your thoughts concerning "knowledge something only neatly packed to represent coherent data" I would say that this gets tricky. Think of Tolkien's world. It was coherent... middle-earth in one book is located in the same place as it was in the former book. The same can be said of the creatures in it. Hobbits are always small, with big feet...etc. It was consistent. However, while his story was coherent, it never happened.
From this it follows that you can have a perfectly coherent picture of something that might not exist! (i.e. unicorns, mermaids, demons). For this reason, I think we need more than just coherence for something to be knowledge. (I don't think you would disagree)
Think of two people whose parents were alcoholics: Person A later on becomes an alcoholic (presumably because his parent was one) and Person B because a complete abstainer (also presumably because of that one and same reason). How can you account for two completely different reactions?
While many factors definitely play into the process of character-shaping (after all, we're not all the same) I think we can say that "B" learned something that "A" didn't from that same experience.
And so, to say that we learn from experience may be a simplification of something deeper concerning the way we are hard-wired, and how the mind is an active agent in the "construction" of the character, the world...etc -- but not implying that we are gods or anything like that -- lol.
I'm not Kant expert or anything (haha -- imagine?!), but I do appreciate some of the little bits my mind actually takes in from his writings. As you can imagine, my worldview is a whole mix-mash of many -- and sometimes opposing -- views. I really don't pretend to have it all together, but I do try to keep an open mind to learn something new. On that note, thanks for picking at my brain! We'll keep in touch. Until then...
May "The One Who Is" bless you in all your endeavours.
Camardicus
Camardicus,
I challenge you to reread your last post and not come to the conclusion that YOU NEED A WOMAN. You have been spending way too much time with books and not with the opposite sex. I am going to need an english translator for that last posting of yours!
Trickster,
I suppose you're right... maybe I do need a woman. But then again, it wouldn't be right to be with a woman just because I needed her. Maybe I just need to meditate more.
The Artist Formerly Known As Carlo ©
Carlo why do you use 'Geist' -Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, when speaking of the guide light, ghost, spirit for which you seek help?
Hey, Dom.
Truth be told, I never really got into Hegel. I just always took to the word "Geist" for its mystical quality... it points to both spirit and mind.
I use it as it permits me to think of God as both a spiritual and intellectual guide (to say the very least). Now, the use of the term is not necessary, but it gives pizaz to my blog. :)
In any case, I'm really not implying a "Hegelian" understanding. I don't believe God is figuring Himself out in the course of human history -- that's too spooky for me. It would be interesting, however, to read more about Hegel. It would not be fair of me to just disregard what he had to say.
Best,
Camardicus
great cartoon to go with the blog... nice seeing you in person the other night...
you'll enjoy this!!
http://exagorazo.blogspot.com/
the most recent blog on G.K. Chesterton
Hey, Dave.
It was nice seeing you in person too. It was a while. I probably wouldn't recognize your kids anymore!
I checked out the blog you suggested. It was quite interesting. It brings to light just how ridiculous skepticism can be. It must be said, then, that I do not consider myself the kind of skeptic who is unwilling to believe in anything.
As you can imagine, skepticism came along in many forms in the history of thought. The kind I suggest is one that can allow a person to think beyond everything one has every been taught, but not necessarily go against it all.
When I ask if something is true, I go to my sources (i.e. Tradition, other thinkers). If what they say IS true, I care to know WHY, and not simply be happy with the fact that they said so. Furthermore, I think that one should never be afraid to bring corrections to ideas IFF they are false or can be simplified.
Thus, I believe that we should all have a HEALTHY dose of skepticism; the kind of doubt that pushes us toward truth, not away from it. Thanks for your thought! :)
Camardicus
Hi Carlo, I just found out about your blog. By the way, I think it's brilliant.
Questions concerning this post; wouldn’t the sum of all experiences of all persons concerned by an event be considered knowledge of that event? Would it still be incomplete because it was not perceived from every angle? Then, would the sum of all perceptions possible, from all points of reference, be considered knowledge?
Concerning your argument on the “coherent” quality of knowledge; you simply applied that characteristic of knowledge to a tangent of the experience rather than to the experience itself. Perhaps I can’t know middle earth, but, I have a coherent picture (and perhaps knowledge) of Tolkien’s vision of it.
Also, in your example with two persons diverging behaviour after similar experience, you ignore other factors influencing behaviour. For example, the individuals personal resources (strength, discipline, etc) can be factors. In this sense, there can be knowledge and still see differences in the behaviour exhibited.
As a final question, what do you suppose are the practical implications? In other words, is this a problem worth solving?
Sandro
Hey, Sandro.
Thanks for visiting the blog and for your feedback. You're already bombarding me with interesting questions. I'll process this a little more over the next few days and attempt to give you my thoughts (I'll try to be brief -- haha).
Soon... soon...
Camardicus
Sandro,
Let me try to answer your questions. Unfortunately, I can't be too brief:
Wouldn’t the sum of all experiences of all persons concerned by an event be considered knowledge of that event?
I would say yes. Intersubjective knowledge, I think, is reliable although not infallible. For one, the fact that most people will experience something in a similar way (i.e. walking outside in -40°C) will yield some kind of useful knowledge concerning that experience.
On the other hand, intersubjective knowledge can get tricky. We all know too well about how we all thought the earth was flat, when it turned out to be otherwise (simple example, sure, but there are other ways of doing science that may one day overthrow our current theories). Needless to say, we can always learn something about our experiences, even though we may be mistaken on certain aspects of it.
Would it still be incomplete because it was not perceived from every angle?
Well, knowledge is always incomplete. If it were otherwise, I suppose that we'd be incapable of learning anything, really. But on a more practical level, this would mean approaching a subject or an area of research with the best possible tools (existing and those we would have to create) and the involvement of as many specialists as possible.
Therefore, as an example, it would only make sense to not simply include astronomers, physicists and engineers, but also astronauts when furthering our research concerning a planet, such as Mars. Now, how many angles are there, really? We may never know if we do not start with simple and complex questions. In that sense, we can see how human understanding is universal and ongoing.
Then, would the sum of all perceptions possible, from all points of reference, be considered knowledge?
From what I have expressed above, the sum of all perceptions are sure to yield knowledge (at least some). Nevertheless, I do think that perceptions alone are blind if not guided by reason (I'm Kantian that way).
Perceptions can be quite simple. Take again the example of the perception of the world as a flat surface. Sure, a person's perception of an extended flat surface does not in itself suggest that the whole world is flat.
That misconception was very much due to the stretching of man's imagination. This only confirms to us how reason plays a part in processing our perceptions, and then calls it knowledge. Good science is important, right?
Concerning your argument on the “coherent” quality of knowledge; you simply applied that characteristic of knowledge to a tangent of the experience rather than to the experience itself. Perhaps I can’t know middle earth, but, I have a coherent picture (and perhaps knowledge) of Tolkien’s vision of it.
I agree with you on this. There, I was simply (and perhaps simplistically) referring to the coherence theory/criterion of truth, and how we simply cannot base all of knowledge on it. While coherence (viz. internal logic) is necessary, it is nevertheless insufficient for science. The Tolkien example was intended to illustrate that point.
While this may be useless for the scientist to hear, it must be said that the correspondence theory/criterion of truth makes all the difference for the way we understand the world.
Which is to say that you can have an imaginary world, which is still logically consistent. Somewhere along the lines, our facts must correspond to some kind of sober experience (i.e. using quantitative methods).
Now, if we're talking about Tolkien, Star Wars, or any other type of fiction or story-telling, correspondence is not really a big deal in the scientific sense (no one's actually looking for this middle-earth, right?). Nevertheless, I do appreciate imaginary constructions found in fiction books.
X-Men stories, for example, tell us a great deal about what it means to be human, regardless of the fact that there is no evidence that can attest to the existence of such fantastic creatures. Therefore, I agree that there is knowledge, even in fiction.
Also, in your example with two persons diverging behaviour after similar experience, you ignore other factors influencing behaviour...
I agree with your assessment. Yet, this example was intended to explain one particular point I made regarding the idea that we all learn from experience. I agree that we learn from experience, but I stressed on the importance of understanding those experiences.
The factors that I didn't mention (which you kindly pointed out) actually furthered the point that we cannot jump to conclusions. Sometimes, there are no shortcuts when assessing something, such as comparing Person A and Person B. There are definitely many factors we either ignore, or simply miss.
As a final question, what do you suppose are the practical implications? In other words, is this a problem worth solving?
Ah, yes... the million dollar question. I'd be a real low-life to say that philosophy is all that matters. I must admit that I love the discipline for its own sake -- no secret there.
Nevertheless, such inquiries are not simply "problems", but are ways of thinking through the way we do science, politics and everyday work. Technological progress, for example, starts with ideas. Now, this in no way suggests that human knowledge is restricted to the discipline of philosophy.
Questions concerning human knowledge and experience belong to all of us, to share and use. Moreover, this discussion alone has raised some interesting examples that, I think, are quite recent and practical. As a businessman, I would not put a whole lot into the philosophy budget. Yet, every major company has a philosophy.
Therefore, I wouldn't stress so much on every philosophical question as much as I would try to find ways to use them as springboards for practical living.
Think of the example of a batter in the batting-cage, who uses this funny looking plank of wood for practice. The device is much heavier than the bat he'll use during the play, thus enabling him to hit hard with a lighter stick. Likewise, abstract questions serve practical ones, in everyday living.
Any thoughts?
Best,
Camardicus
Hi Carlo,
I’m very much enjoying your blog. I think it serves the goal you set for it to be fuel for intellectual thought. Well done.
Also, thanks for the response to my comments. In reality, I agree with what you on all point. I consider myself to be a “Sceptic Lite” as well.
I KNOW the value of philosophy. As someone interested in science, I value the contributions of philosophers. It is truly the universal science, inextricably linked to all others.
My only issue with the philosophical community is the allowances it makes for zealots who take theories to extremes. Sceptics who refuse knowledge of any kind are an example of smart people being stupid. Those discussions serve no purpose. In business, we would consider them weakness in our value chain and re-allocate the resources to activities of superior return on intellectual investment ;-)
Anyhow, my questions were really just to illustrate my approach to philosophy. That is, to remember that the practical limits are always well within the theoretical limits.
I hope you’re enjoying the early goings of summer. Intellectual pursuits are great, but so is the beach.
Take care,
Sandro
Sandro,
Thank you for your thoughts. I really appreciate your comments, questions and feedback. One thing you said made a lot of sense:
"I hope you’re enjoying the early goings of summer. Intellectual pursuits are great, but so is the beach."
That was really deep, man! (haha). I'm really happy I got the last semester done. Since then, I've had the chance to get together with friends more, spend time with family and other little things that make me happy. I tell you, there's nothing better than just chillin' and enjoying the evening breeze. It was nice bumping into you at Dunkin' Donuts tonight. Feel free to put your two-sense into what I post. I'm self-critical and careful in my writing, but I could always use some sober realism and intelligent remarks.
Best,
Camardicus
Carlo what matters is that I love you. Peace
Biagg
Post a Comment