The Theory of Knowledge

[levinas12]

We know there is an extramental world because we are constantly receiving stimuli we cannot ignore.

It may be unpalatable but the fact is that we have direct knowledge only of our interior world. Just as we cannot get into another person’s mind we cannot get into a thing’s substance, essence, call it what you will - that to which its qualities belong. Kant was right in distinguishing between the noumenon and phenomenon as a counterblast to Hume’s “bundles of perceptions”, i.e. phenomenalism.

You seem to equate phenomena with noumena as if they are indistinguishable! Is a thing the sum of its qualities - or something more? It cannot exist without its qualities nor can its qualities exist without the possessor of those qualities. This is even more evident in the case of a person. Are you nothing more than the sum of your qualities? If so which quality enables you to make your decisions?

How do you know that you are receiving stimuli from the outside world if your direct knowledge is only of your interior world? Why can’t your interior world be coherent and consistent without there being an external world? Hume would ask Kant: “How do you know that there are noumena?” Hume would agree that there is order among the internal impressions/ideas but this doesn’t lead him to posit noumena.

Once you have a split between phenomenon and noumenon, you destabilize truth. You can never find out what’s going on. You can’t put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. That’s why I’m saying Being discloses itself to us as it is in itself - and it does this through “interested” perception - there is no hidden inaccessible noumenal dimension.

 

[tonyrey]

I need to go and look at the specific analysis from Quine you are referring to. Can you give me a cite here?

" As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries – not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits18b comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer’s gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise.** But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. **The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience."

ditext.com/quine/quine.html

 

[a_priori]

It’s quite simple: “I think, therefore I am”. Thank you, Descartes.

Descartes is one of my heros. But his Dualism was the path of least resistance. Dualism is for wimps.

 

[tonyrey]

• We know there is an extramental world because we are constantly receiving stimuli we cannot ignore.

Because the stimuli are too insistent to ignore! Pain, for example, demands immediate attention.

Why can’t your interior world be coherent and consistent without there being an external world?

Because there is constant interaction between the two. We manipulate objects with our decisions and we receive a response. We also send and receive messages from other persons. They could be fictional characters but they have a will of their own and often refuse to obey our commands and desires!

Hume would ask Kant: “How do you know that there are noumena?” Hume would agree that there is order among the internal impressions/ideas but this doesn’t lead him to posit noumena.

The order within is often disturbed by intrusions from without! It was such problems as his “bundles of impressions” that led Hume to retreat to the relative sanity of backgammon.

Once you have a split between phenomenon and noumenon, you destabilize truth. You can never find out what’s going on. You can’t put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.

Phenomena and noumena are so inextricably united they can never be split. Have you abandoned belief in substance or have you always believed it’s a myth?

That’s why I’m saying Being discloses itself to us as it is in itself - and it does this through “interested” perception - there is no hidden inaccessible noumenal dimension

“Being” is an abstraction inaccessible to the senses! You need to explain how we escape from our egocentric predicament. You also need to explain the relationship between an object and its qualities as well as that between the mind and the body. Your epistemological views seem to lead you to materialism…

 

[levinas12]

Your epistemological views seem to lead you to materialism…

I am not a materialist. I do not think that only matter exists. In fact, I am saying that it can’t be the case that only matter exists - if that were the case, then we could not account for the disclosure that makes possible knowledge of material objects. When I refer to the external world, or the everyday world, or simply the world “out there”, I do not mean the res extensa of Descartes, of enormous stretches of mindless matter. And I do not deny cogitans - just Descartes’ res cogitans - my cogitans is not a res but an activity of truthing - lighting up - a clearing in which all sorts of beings manifest themselves to us - it is a great mystery but it happens every day on every street.

Are there any phenomenologists “out there” who can come to my rescue here?

 

[Touchstone]

I am not a materialist. I do not think that only matter exists. In fact, I am saying that it can’t be the case that only matter exists - if that were the case, then we could not account for the disclosure that makes possible knowledge of material objects. When I refer to the external world, or the everyday world, or simply the world “out there”, I do not mean the res extensa of Descartes, of enormous stretches of mindless matter. And I do not deny cogitans - just Descartes’ res cogitans - my cogitans is not a res but an activity of truthing - lighting up - a clearing in which all sorts of beings manifest themselves to us - it is a great mystery but it happens every day on every street.

Are there any phenomenologists “out there” who can come to my rescue here?

I think tonyrey’s right. You have a good handle on some hard to untangle issues like the externality of percepts, and have overcome the basic stranglehold of superstition that grips so many on this forum here regarding the primacy of extramental existence, the basic embrace that since the self doesn’t “feel the self thinking” that one really is disembodied in some (quasi-)dualistic way.

That’s good, but as it is, it looks quite haphazard; disciplined and clear to begin with, and then you run right into your own, other superstitions, apparently, what you suppose is the problem of disclosure. And it leaves you straddling, sort of driving down the middle of the road, rational discipline going one way, and brute intuition going the other.

Tonyrey knows what lane he’s driving in at least – it’s intution come hell or high water.

From what I can see, you have the basic paradigm down and heuristics in order but have abruptly stopped, refusing to go where that same disciplined approach will take you if are going to be consistent throughout. And I’ve only read just the bits you’ve provided in this thread (which I liked), but it definitely looks like another case of “just because” or “I just know”. Better to just carry on in tonyrey’s Lane of Intuition if that’s the way it ends, up, no?

-TS

 

[Betterave]

" As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries – not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits18b
ditext.com/quine/quine.html

Okay; so there we have some dogmas from Quine about ‘physical objects’; now: what is ‘science’? Is that another irreducible posit in respect of some other ill-defined situation or other?

But back to ‘physical objects’: how was it determined that ‘physical objects’ are “irreducible posits”/“conceptual imports”? Imports from where? Posited by whom?

Presumably this whole story, whatever it actually is supposed to mean, is just another myth, and that includes the myth about its “epistemological superiority” (which, of course, is just one more mythical ‘posit’ ‘conveniently’ ‘imported’ from somewhere or other).

 

[Betterave]

The only way we can distinguish between physical reality and dreams or hallucinations is by the consistency and regularity of the stimuli - not by any “inside knowledge” of the outside world.

You are supposing that we actually distinguish between dreams and reality by means of an inference from “consistency and regularity of stimuli.” Problem is, no such inference actually occurs when we make these distinctions. You posit such inferences as a convenient myth that is supposed to make your worldview make sense. But such positing is arbitrary and groundless.

 

[lemondiesel]

Very few people today accept that conclusion. The battlefield is now occupied by
materialists and dualists, i.e. those who believe matter is the primary reality and those who recognise the reality of both mind and matter. My point is that - like charity - knowledge begins at home, not in particles which lack insight but in persons who are conscious of themselves and the world. To put matter before mind is to put the cart before the horse - or, more precisely, the machine before its operator.

Could one, as a dualist, claim that this reality of mind coincides with physical time? Maybe even say something crazy like space is distance as time is mind?

OP: when dealing with the idea of knowledge, we must remember how complex our knowledge is. It is based on our perception through the senses, and our interpretations. To illustrate, imagine yourself learning math. However, you can only learn one number and one problem/solution each year. Over time you learn these concepts and numbers as they apply to reality. You will eventually pass this on to your offspring, and they will use it while adding to it.

Animals are biological machines, yet one found a way to become the most dominate. Such a being must be able to understand this reality in order to take full advantage.

Yes my viewpoint implies nonconscious matter produced a way to perceive its surroundings

 

[tonyrey]

• Your epistemological views seem to lead you to materialism…*

Precisely!

When I refer to the external world, or the everyday world, or simply the world “out there”, I do not mean the res extensa of Descartes, of enormous stretches of mindless matter. And I do not deny cogitans - just Descartes’ res cogitans - my cogitans is not a res but an activity of truthing - lighting up - a clearing in which all sorts of beings manifest themselves to us - it is a great mystery but it happens every day on every street.

An appeal to mystery is not convincing in this context!

Are there any phenomenologists “out there” who can come to my rescue here?

We shall see. I take it that you reject the substance of mind as well as matter…

 

[tonyrey]

Okay; so there we have some dogmas from Quine about ‘physical objects’; now: what is ‘science’? Is that another irreducible posit in respect of some other ill-defined situation or other?

Quine was revealing the weakness of the dogmas of empiricism. Do you subscribe to them?

But back to ‘physical objects’: how was it determined that ‘physical objects’ are “irreducible posits”/“conceptual imports”? Imports from where? Posited by whom?

By human beings in their thought processes.

Presumably this whole story, whatever it actually is supposed to mean, is just another myth, and that includes the myth about its “epistemological superiority” (which, of course, is just one more mythical ‘posit’ ‘conveniently’ ‘imported’ from somewhere or other).

Can you offer an alternative - or are you just a sceptic without a theory of knowledge?

 

[tonyrey]

The only way we can distinguish between physical reality and dreams or hallucinations is by the consistency and regularity of the stimuli - not by any “inside knowledge” of the outside world.

It is not a conscious inference. How do you explain the way we distinguish reality?

You posit such inferences as a convenient myth that is supposed to make your worldview make sense. But such positing is arbitrary and groundless.

Please justify your statements and provide an alternative epistemology - not a worldview if you wish to be accurate.

 

[tonyrey]

*Very few people today accept that conclusion. The battlefield is now occupied by
materialists and dualists, i.e. those who believe matter is the primary reality and those who recognise the reality of both mind and matter. My point is that - like charity - knowledge begins at home, not in particles which lack insight but in persons who are conscious of themselves and the world. To put matter before mind is to put the cart before the horse - or, more precisely, the machine before its operator.
*

There is plenty of evidence that the mind is not limited in time or space. We are capable of hindsight and foresight as well insight into facts like infinity.

OP: when dealing with the idea of knowledge, we must remember how complex our knowledge is. It is based on our perception through the senses, and our interpretations. To illustrate, imagine yourself learning math. However, you can only learn one number and one problem/solution each year.

It think that’s an exaggeration!

Animals are biological machines, yet one found a way to become the most dominate. Such a being must be able to understand this reality in order to take full advantage.

Are we no more than biological machines? Do we need to understand abstract truths about reality in order to dominate? Is domination our fundamental purpose in life?

Yes my viewpoint implies nonconscious matter produced a way to perceive its surroundings

I’m afraid that is an act of faith which I find most unconvincing. For me consciousness and rationality are irreductible aspects of reality which are abundantly evident in the order, complexity, richness, value, beauty and glory of existence…

 

[levinas12]

So the mind knows reality directly in the sense that it possesses the exact same form that’s in reality. In other words, the “two things” are in fact (formally) one, identical. Same form; different matter.

I like this - with your emphasis on “same form that’s in reality”, We are directly aware of the form of the extramental object. We do not have to infer. We do not have to posit. We do not have to make a mental construct. We do not have to make a consistency check.

However, “same form but different matter” could be misunderstood and lead to an epistemological problem. In Aristotle, the matter is what individuates the form. But what about perceiving individuals as individuals? For example, perceiving that apple over there on the table? And this problem becomes acute when we perceive persons. There is no Aristotelian form of a person - e.g., John Doe is not an instantiation of a Form of John Doe, as if there could be other instantiations of John Doe. A person is a singularity that cannot be captured by species/genus. This is why a person is a who, not a what. I think the medievals alluded to this by talking about “incommunicability”.

 

[tonyrey]

We are directly aware of the form of the extramental object. We do not have to infer. We do not have to posit. We do not have to make a mental construct. We do not have to make a consistency check.

You seem to be equating the form of the object with the object. What precisely do you mean by “form”? Its qualities?

 

[tonyrey]

We are directly aware of the form of the extramental object. We do not have to infer. We do not have to posit. We do not have to make a mental construct. We do not have to make a consistency check.

I should have asked how you are directly aware of an object? Do you bypass the senses?

 

[levinas12]

I should have asked how you are directly aware of an object? Do you bypass the senses?

I don’t bypass the senses. To quote St. Thomas Aquinas, the senses (and the phantasmata) are the id quo intelligitur, and the physical object is the id quod intelligitur (S.T. Ia, 5,2). How are we directly aware of an object? Because that’s the starting point. And you have to have a starting point no matter what your epistemological position is. Ours is that disclosure is the starting point. Without being directly aware of the external object, you can never get to it (look at what happened to Hume). Remember that Hume’s consistency checks exploded at the end of his book.

 

[levinas12]

You seem to be equating the form of the object with the object. What precisely do you mean by “form”? Its qualities?

Now this is the question of the hour. I really meant not just the form, but the form/matter (substance), and the act of existing (the “esse”). In other words, the concrete physical object, i.e. that apple over there on the table. We are not first aware of the essence, the form without the matter, out there in some Platonic heaven, And we are not first aware of the concept in our minds. We are first aware of the particular thing out there in the world - not just its qualities. In this awareness, we are aware of the “what” and the “that” of the thing. In Aristotelian terms, we are aware of the existing primary substance, the concrete thing (matter and form together).

I can see where my use of “form” here could be misleading. I really meant not just the form, but the form/matter (the substance), and the act of existence (the “esse”). Good catch.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t bypass the senses. To quote St. Thomas Aquinas, the senses (and the phantasmata) are the id quo intelligitur, and the physical object is the id quod intelligitur (S.T. Ia, 5,2).

Yes the “senses”, i.e. what our senses communicate to us not what stimulates our senses. We don’t interpret the qualities of objects themselves but those qualities as they appear to us. No two individuals interpret the appearance of an object in precisely the same way.

How are we directly aware of an object?

Because that’s the starting point. And you have to have a starting point no matter what your epistemological position is. Ours is that disclosure is the starting point.

How precisely is the disclosure effected? There must be some (presumably physical) mechanism at work.

Without being directly aware of the external object, you can never get to it (look at what happened to Hume).

We can never get to an object in the sense that we know it as it really is. The closest we can get to it is conceptually, i.e. by formulating the laws of nature and the ways in which it corresponds to those laws. The success of science is due to our ability to predict **how **objects behave, not what they are.

All reality is mysterious. We don’t know how atomic particles or the quanta of energy exist. Even though we have direct knowledge of our mental activity we don’t know ourselves as God knows us. As Jesus said, we are in the world but not of the world…

Remember that Hume’s consistency checks exploded at the end of his book.

Hume was right in concluding that he couldn’t discover the self but he was wrong in assuming the self doesn’t exist! He was presumptuous in believing the human mind can plumb the depths of being. We don’t know what - apart from God’s power - sustains us nor what makes us what we are, i.e. individual persons. For all its success science is superficial because it doesn’t get to the very heart of things. Philosophy and theology take us further but not to the ultimate causes - which are manifestations of divine Love.

 

[lemondiesel]

There is plenty of evidence that the mind is not limited in time or space. We are capable of hindsight and foresight as well insight into facts like infinity.

Good point, how did we obtain such a talent?

It think that’s an exaggeration!

I was making the point that if you want to learn mathematics, you don’t just open up a calculus book and start reading; you start small and build your way up. How are the other areas of science different?

For me consciousness and rationality are irreductible aspects of reality which are abundantly evident in the order, complexity, richness,

Do you think it’s always been like this, from the very beginning?

value, beauty and glory of existence…

Does the universe even hold any value without existence? Hypothetically, if there were, let’s say, over a million other planets with complex Life with at least one other cognitive speaking being, would Life still be valuable? I’m definitely not going to disagree about beauty and glory though!