Introduction.
Knowing as a privileged representation of reality and logic.
The question about knowing leads us
back to the slippery state of our consciousness. That isn’t properly understood
just as there is uncertainty about reality. But that need not act as a barrier
to ponder such a question although a conclusion may prove to be elusive. It
also brings into focus the differing offing’s in terms of eastern and western
cultures.
The huge volume of writings in
connection with the subject means I must take a highly subjective selection to
support discussions. Progressively the rational way of thinking gathered steam
beginning with the first known formal system of logic developed by Aristotle of
practical syllogisms.
It was given impetus by the
enlightenment philosophers. They likened the mind to a mirror of reflected
reality from privileged sensory perceptions. Hence, a belief tool root that
specialised knowledge could only be discerned through philosophy, under the
heading of epistemology. However, in tandem, with epistemological
considerations, one cannot ignore the role of new discoveries in the overall
scheme of things that largely lay outside of this paper except for a minor
insertion, since they had a material impact on the subsequent philosophical
thought thereafter.
Brief history of epistemology
In the west the principal exponent
of epistemology was John Locke, followed
by René Descartes. These
schools of thinking could be roughly divided into the empiricists such as John
Locke, David Hume, and George Berkeley and the rationalists such
as René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz. In a
religious sense the debate became engrossed as to how far one can go in terms
of seeking reasonable evidence or justifications in support of one’s beliefs.
They debated such questions as
whether knowing came from sensory experience or mostly did it involve
rational enquiry. Kant subsequently proposed his transcendental idealism.
As the east meets the west Buddhism
increasingly becomes of interest to those in the west. The general attraction
was it takes nothing on faith for granted and doesn’t like metaphysical
speculations. The ultimate reality, according to Buddha is Nirvana, a
changeless existence of a dimension beyond the sensory experiences. It is
outside of the laws of physical and mental phenomena that make up our existence.
Karma provides a natural and universal law in respect to the moral and
psychological causes and effects. So there is bad, good and neutral. There are
various stages of the steps to be taken in the path to enlightenment.
In Hindu a physical universe of
sense-perception existence is not considered reality, rather it is the Brahman-
the Infinite Being or in other references: Cosmic Mind, Universal
Consciousness or Absolute. The universe and mind are finite manifestations of
the Universal Mind and our worldly interactions are linked to this Ultimate
Reality which is the basis of our consciousness.
Both of these references are
inadequate of course and here are links to more comprehensive narratives.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-india/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sriharsa/
The traditional views of knowing tied
to epistemology began to be questioned in the west and were eventually
abandoned, spearheaded by Richard Rorty in his ‘Philosophy and the Mirror of
Nature’.
In a nutshell he contends we must
reference such things as only useful tools and not as ends unto themselves.
Hence philosophical enquiring can call upon these analytical tools, intuition
and the expanded narrative to continue to make possible insightful commentary.
A philosopher’s guide to Knowing.
Therefore, having established an
appropriate basis on which to provide a more modern narrative I will continue
in that spirit to attempt to shed some light on the subject.
What I thought might be an interesting
approach to facilitate discussion would be to consider a starting point as our
birth. From there I aim to invite discussions on intuitive thinking and
materialism, to talks about ‘being in the world’ from ancient Greece to
modernity.
I will seek to demonstrate our life
experiences and cry out for an existential ‘why’ and therein the thirst for
knowledge as in ‘how we know’ must always be a work in progress. That ongoing
work in progress will be a mixture of intuitive and learned knowledge, but
predominantly just a reflection of being in the world and the existential
narrative that entails. Within my conclusion I believe there is ample scope for
the rational, mystical and contemplative way of knowing to be seen ultimately
as all being inextricably entwined. That would encapsulate both eastern
and western cultures.
The miracle of birth
Not only might we say birth is
miraculous but life itself and that one has reached such a point of one’s
evolutionary journey that we have the privilege of asking that question ‘how do
we know’. For anyone witnessing a new born there is that jubilant moment as new
life enters the world, an amalgam of joy, relief or grief when trauma
ensues.
One usually can observe the present
emotional bonding to the mother (assumed in the absence of trauma within or
outside the womb) just as the seeing eye of the infant adjusts instinctively to
being in the world.
It doesn’t seem to me we can say much
more about that as I am not persuaded of a mind that is a blank template to
receive sensory impressions that translates into knowing. Rather I think the
infant has basic instinctive feelings and over time one might reasonably infer
a mother's love for the child is innate, although not to be assumed given
trauma of one kind or another.
Of course such a phenomenon of
sensory perceptions may be integral to ongoing existence, along with other
factors in line with the Seeing Eye.
Abstract thinking and learning –by
rational theory or intuition?
Within
this context one can talk about the idea of knowing that is intuitive and in
that sense, it is in common with all mystics, to offer the opportunity of
sharing in those gifts to the extent we choose to exercise our freedom. But
that is not to say we have mystical experiences which we can rationally refer
to at any time or that mysticism is a method to potentially override other
valid methods of acquiring future valuable knowledge.
Rather we
might feel energized to allow us to gain new knowledge without the restraint or
imposition of ideologies presupposing necessary outcomes. A way of quiet
reflection.
One can
find mysticism as embraced by the Australian aborigines. This is
resplendent in the origins of mysticism thought to reside in
their dream-time creation where all living things were believed to be
made co-dependent and reactive to one another in one inseparable land
Turning to intuitively learning and
talking about an abstract subject such as maths, one student might already see
the answer intuitively without being able to articulate reasoning. That student
might fail the test because of that inability to explain how that learned
methodology calculates the correct result. Yet both approaches arrive at the
same answer. Harking back to Descartes we find the idea of calculus came to him
while following a fly buzzing around in the room around midday- since he was
very fond of sleeping in and just thinking. He rather obviously could
articulate both but the idea first arose intuitively and its subsequent
equations followed on.
Scientific contribution to knowledge
and knowing.
Newton was
the first of the great Scientists to show the larger scale laws of science are
indeed universal laws that effect everything. For Newton and many of his
contemporaries GOD was the architect of it all. Newton even went on to say God
was a "hands on” architect who might interfere from "time to
time". John Gibbon- Science A History -1543-2001.
Those that
followed included Linnaeus expanded the botanical horizons by
providing descriptions of 7,700 species of plants and most species of animal
known in Europe then. Linnaeus's belief was that man belonged in the
same genus as the apes, a belief validated in the 98 % correlation
between the DNA of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas.
It was only because of Linnaeus’s fear of incurring the wrath of the
theologians that "Homo Sapiens" sit in unique and isolated splendor
as the sole member of a genus.
Linnaeus
believed his work was uncovering GOD's handiwork, but made no room for
evolution.
Turning to
Charles Darwin we can see a good deal of Darwin’s theory of evolution by
natural selection remains in place today and his theory is generally accepted within
modern theology except for fundamentalist sectors who loosely describe
themselves as “Creationists”. It also prompted more interest in Pantheism in
which GOD is seen to be in all things as creation continues.
In 1905 Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity was published.
The foundation stone was the constancy of the speed of light and it was the
only absolute truth that nothing exceeds the speed of light. By the
time he developed his theory, there was experimental evidence that the measured
speed of light is just about always the same, irrespective of how the person
undertaking the measuring is moving.
He went on
to develop the general theory of relativity, which was of concern for
many: was everything relative?
In the earlier part of the 20th
century just about all of the famous physicists — Einstein, Niels
Bohr, Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg were
debating the philosophical issues associated with their discoveries in
relativity and quantum mechanics. Einstein's contribution was by way of his
original thesis with such diverse references as neo-Kantianism,
conventionalism and logical empiricism.
Materialism
One might argue that debates by the
materialists, ‘there can only be a rational basis in itself’, is just an
expression of their own intuitive thinking, i.e. it is true in relation to the
material neuronal world that is the subject of their study. Like a cave dweller
or occupier of a windowless room conducting an elaborate study of everything
within his occupied space, who can only talk about what is in the room, but not
the outside world which can’t yet be seen.
Being in the world – the journey
continues
Of course we can say it is no less
important to apply the same principles of rational discernment to intuitive
knowledge. We see remnants of early awakenings to our limitations in respect to
defining what knowledge is and in the beginnings of phenomenology in
the ancient Athenian Greek context.
Beginning with Socrates and his
disciple Theaetetus, there is recording a series of refutations as to what
knowledge is not, to be identified as perception, from beliefs or from sensory
perceptions or logic. Finally, no credible answer can be found and that
conclusion is accepted.
The framework from which to talk
about knowledge and its importance was also a key issue for Plato who
introduced the idea of living the good life, which involves a virtuous life. So
far so good. So, to lead the good life one needs knowledge or more to the point
to acquire knowledge. But what is that knowledge and when we have it how do we
apply it?
Herein we quickly run into trouble as
his approach overlooks the distinction between the knowing and the knowing how-
integral to the knowing. In practice Plato believed that youth needed to serve
an apprenticeship under somebody who was virtuous to learn how to live in that
manner on attaining adulthood. That seems like a good idea, but instructing
someone about living a virtuous life doesn’t mean they will elect to take that
advice.
You cannot say categorically that
virtue arises out of knowledge, even though instructing one on the advantages
of being a good person has merit.
Aristotle's approach was amplified within his Nicomachean Ethics, attempting to liken the application of virtuous knowledge as in ethics to a scientific skill, a set of rules or criteria. He does however broach the idea of phenomenology which was of interest to Heidegger and others. He also compiled the first formal paper on meta-physics, a term used then to describe our state of being outside of physics whose ideas remain firmly etched into our societal framework.
His ideas
remained virtually unchallenged for over a thousand years, remaining relevant
in the Christian, Muslim and Jewish religions from a religious philosophical
perspective.
Aristotle
was a major influence on the Abrahamic Religions, particularly during the 12th &
13th century when they became available in Latin. He
was also a major Influence on Aquinas (1225-74) in respect to his idea
that knowledge is gained from the reports of the senses.
Starting
out with Kierkegaard we have his idea of being that we know to be in balance in
the world and avoid falling into despair. The later period existential thinking
started to question the validity of talking about subjects and objects. As
a side issue, the anxiety arising from living today under Coved 19 could find
no better source than to turn to Kierkegaard, who turned anxiety into a
positive that enables one to seek a deeper understanding of who we are as in
the self and to lift ourselves out of despair.
Heidegger
talked about a way of being through a latch key idea to open the door into the
world. In other words we don’t have to think about opening the latch key in the
world for most things which reasonably can be attributed to outside of our
consciousness as they become instinctive. That involves dealing with all of the
equipment that makes up the materialistic world we inhabit, except when we run
into to a problem outside the fields of normality. When that happens, the
importance of being one ones authentic self then emerges. Alternatively we can
retreat to imitate conformity as being in the world.
Jean Paul Sartre was profoundly
influenced by Heidegger and talked about the idea that existence precedes
essence as in essence representing who we are - encapsulating the radical idea
of freedom as he sees it.
Thus we
can say that being in the world is something that mostly is not at the
conscious level except when we encounter a deficit outside of normality or
shared public practices.
Individual
interactions will all be different as there is inherent freedom, presupposing
there are no boundaries, other than those we choose to impose on ourselves.
Those experiences will change according to what we endure in the world.
That
means, in humility, we can turn to the ancient myths, allegorical references
and stories that help shine a light on understanding how to live within needing
to rationally explain what is ineffable. It means we can accommodate easily
both east and western ideas on living and be respectful of their different ways
of being. Ultimately they all rest on the idea of having an unconditional
commitment to a cause. That defines the reason we live and ensures we have the
courage to deal with the how and whatever fate has in store for us.
Conclusion
How we
know these things comes from our life experiences
that cry out for an existential ‘why’ and therein the thirst for knowledge. How
we know is a necessary work in progress in finding meaning to our existence.
That in turn will be a mixture of intuitive and learned knowledge, but
predominantly just a reflection of being in the world which in itself will be
its best representation. Within my conclusion I believe there is ample scope
for the rational, mystical and contemplative way of knowing to be seen
ultimately as all being inextricably entwined
No comments:
Post a Comment