"We have therefore wanted to say that all our intuition is nothing but the representation of appearance; that the things that we intuit are not in themselves what we intuit them to be, nor are their relations so constituted in themselves as they appear to us; and that if we remove our own subject or even only the subjective constitution of the senses in general, then all constitution, all relations of objects in space and time, indeed space and time themselves would disappear, and as appearances they cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may be the case with objects in themselves and abstracted from all this receptivity of our sensibility remains entirely unknown to us. We are acquainted with nothing except our way of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us, and which therefore does not necessarily pertain to every being, though to be sure it pertains to every human being. We are concerned solely with this. Space and time are its pure forms, sensation in general its matter. We can cognize only the former a priori, i.e., prior to all actual perception, and they are therefore called pure intuition; the latter, however, is that in our cognition that is responsible for its being called a posteriori cognition, i.e., empirical intuition. The former adheres to our sensibility absolutely necessarily, whatever sort of sensations we may have; the latter can be very different."
- Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
In a recent online discussion, I got to talk about epistemology. My views (for the most part) mirror Immanuel Kant's- that reality is a human construct.... My friend disagreed. I will post both of our responses for you enjoyment. Comment below! I'm interested in your preference between the two or some other view (if that's even possible).
The initial question...
Rus: What would you say is your epistemology? Would you say you can only believe things that are observable, testable, verifiable facts or logical building on those facts? So that the scientific method is the only means to truth, aside from human rationality or formal logic?
Me: Let's take into account what belief is, how strong it is, and what power it holds. Belief is an inclination that motivates individuals on specific courses of action. Some can be very strong, and shattered by very little. Some are wavering and subject to contrary opinions predicated on "stronger" evidence. Also, beliefs can only do certain things. Some beliefs have a strong influence on an individual, others do not. We cannot simply apply objects or concepts to our supposed beliefs- that is incredibly inadequate. We must describe strength, scope, and flexibility- all on an individual basis. Furthermore, we cannot assume that there is anything inherent to our beliefs. They are like liquid, constantly forming and reforming. This is epistemology. It is by no means simple, and measuring it is very theoretical.
I will set some standards: 1-10.
Strength of belief:
Observe the following:
Also, I don't expect anyone to adhere to anything that is not scientific or reasonable.
Understand that there is no truth, not really. It is a human construct. All we have is our perception of it which is as amorphous as the makeup of our beliefs. However, that is not to say that existence is futile. We are capable of ascertaining common threads of truth- phenomenal truths (as Kant would say). We should attempt to compile a helpful working knowledge whenever we can, but it is merely the product of perception, not some overarching "truth".
I still think that since our only way to ascertain information is through a multitude of human minds, "truth" is flexible. The human mind is limited and often deceived; therefore, truth, its product, is limited and often deceived as well. If this is not the case, we will probably never know because we can only ascertain truth through our minds.
With this in mind, I think that the scientific method is best for ascertaining truth. Other ways are epistemic, but they aren't as reliable.
Rus: This is very informing. It was good that you decided to address epistemology in your post, because that seems to be one of the fundamental differences in our understandings. You said "Belief is an inclination that motivates individuals on specific courses of action." That, even in itself, is something I would disagree on. I would define belief not as an inclination, but as a perception of what the world is. The distinction is important, because perceptions can be objectively true or false (even if it is difficult to determine which a particular belief might be) and inclinations are merely drives within humans that often have no inherent basis in reality, like you said. One may be experiencing a certain inclination as a result of a specific belief, but this is only the effect of a person's perception, not the belief itself. Or, similarly, one could hold a belief that has no significant influence on one's actions at all. I would agree with you that the earth is spherical (or slightly oblong, like an egg) and that it orbits around the sun (not rotates), as well as that the universe is basically comprised of a curved "fabric" of space-time and that there are eight or nine planets orbiting our sun, along with Pluto, the asteroid belt, and other assorted junk. This is how I perceive the universe, which may or may not be wrong. However, I would argue that these beliefs have no direct influence on my life and the actions I take at all. If someone asks me about what I believe about the universe, I will probably answer as I just have; in this sense, the beliefs may be said to "influence" my actions. It may also produce a sense of wonder or interest in how I look at the world, which may cause me be behave in a way that is less jaded. However, this "influence" is not the defining aspect of my belief, nor does it have a direct effect on my living. These are only a secondary aspects, and the belief itself is more a matter of perception. My belief about the universe is the picture I have of it in my head, and the influences come out of that belief.
Or, to give a more concrete example, I may believe that there are cookies in a cabinet in my kitchen. This may cause me to go to the cabinet in search of those cookies, but, again, that is not what really defines my belief. My inclination to go to the cabinet would be my liking of cookies, which is a subjective opinion. Other people may not like them, and the idea that cookies are good to eat has no inherent basis in reality. The inclination is affected by my beliefs, such as that there are, in fact, cookies in the cabinet and that cookies are not too unhealthy to be eaten. But these beliefs are pictures or perceptions of objective reality, and when I get to the cabinet I will be either gratified or disappointed, because my belief must be either true or false. In the same way, I would describe all beliefs as perceptions of the objective world, which may be either true or false. They are the pictures we have in our heads, and pictures must be OF something. Determining the truth is determining how accurate these pictures are by comparing them to the world outside our minds and seeing how closely they line up or where they fail to correspond to one another.
You also say that there is no truth, because all we have is our perceptions, which I think is a very important point. Even if all we have is our amorphous perceptions, that does not mean that there is no objective world out there which we may fail to perceive. To say that all supposed truth is ultimately unverifiable because human perception is fallible is one thing; that would simply mean that people are subject to the possibility of being wrong a lot of the time. To say that there is no truth, or that truth is the result of our own minds' creation, is another.
In a recent online discussion, I got to talk about epistemology. My views (for the most part) mirror Immanuel Kant's- that reality is a human construct.... My friend disagreed. I will post both of our responses for you enjoyment. Comment below! I'm interested in your preference between the two or some other view (if that's even possible).
The initial question...
Rus: What would you say is your epistemology? Would you say you can only believe things that are observable, testable, verifiable facts or logical building on those facts? So that the scientific method is the only means to truth, aside from human rationality or formal logic?
Me: Let's take into account what belief is, how strong it is, and what power it holds. Belief is an inclination that motivates individuals on specific courses of action. Some can be very strong, and shattered by very little. Some are wavering and subject to contrary opinions predicated on "stronger" evidence. Also, beliefs can only do certain things. Some beliefs have a strong influence on an individual, others do not. We cannot simply apply objects or concepts to our supposed beliefs- that is incredibly inadequate. We must describe strength, scope, and flexibility- all on an individual basis. Furthermore, we cannot assume that there is anything inherent to our beliefs. They are like liquid, constantly forming and reforming. This is epistemology. It is by no means simple, and measuring it is very theoretical.
I will set some standards: 1-10.
Strength of belief:
- 1- a slight inclination that is very subject to change
- 10- a belief that is so strong, so ingrained within me that I don't think I'll ever loose it.
- 1- occasionally influences my life in small ways.
- 10- has a profound effect on everything I say and do, constantly.
Observe the following:
- Earth is spherical and rotates around the sun. S:10 I:2
- Love is a bitch, but I'll find it eventually and live a happier life because of it. S:4 I:7
Also, I don't expect anyone to adhere to anything that is not scientific or reasonable.
Understand that there is no truth, not really. It is a human construct. All we have is our perception of it which is as amorphous as the makeup of our beliefs. However, that is not to say that existence is futile. We are capable of ascertaining common threads of truth- phenomenal truths (as Kant would say). We should attempt to compile a helpful working knowledge whenever we can, but it is merely the product of perception, not some overarching "truth".
I still think that since our only way to ascertain information is through a multitude of human minds, "truth" is flexible. The human mind is limited and often deceived; therefore, truth, its product, is limited and often deceived as well. If this is not the case, we will probably never know because we can only ascertain truth through our minds.
With this in mind, I think that the scientific method is best for ascertaining truth. Other ways are epistemic, but they aren't as reliable.
Rus: This is very informing. It was good that you decided to address epistemology in your post, because that seems to be one of the fundamental differences in our understandings. You said "Belief is an inclination that motivates individuals on specific courses of action." That, even in itself, is something I would disagree on. I would define belief not as an inclination, but as a perception of what the world is. The distinction is important, because perceptions can be objectively true or false (even if it is difficult to determine which a particular belief might be) and inclinations are merely drives within humans that often have no inherent basis in reality, like you said. One may be experiencing a certain inclination as a result of a specific belief, but this is only the effect of a person's perception, not the belief itself. Or, similarly, one could hold a belief that has no significant influence on one's actions at all. I would agree with you that the earth is spherical (or slightly oblong, like an egg) and that it orbits around the sun (not rotates), as well as that the universe is basically comprised of a curved "fabric" of space-time and that there are eight or nine planets orbiting our sun, along with Pluto, the asteroid belt, and other assorted junk. This is how I perceive the universe, which may or may not be wrong. However, I would argue that these beliefs have no direct influence on my life and the actions I take at all. If someone asks me about what I believe about the universe, I will probably answer as I just have; in this sense, the beliefs may be said to "influence" my actions. It may also produce a sense of wonder or interest in how I look at the world, which may cause me be behave in a way that is less jaded. However, this "influence" is not the defining aspect of my belief, nor does it have a direct effect on my living. These are only a secondary aspects, and the belief itself is more a matter of perception. My belief about the universe is the picture I have of it in my head, and the influences come out of that belief.
Or, to give a more concrete example, I may believe that there are cookies in a cabinet in my kitchen. This may cause me to go to the cabinet in search of those cookies, but, again, that is not what really defines my belief. My inclination to go to the cabinet would be my liking of cookies, which is a subjective opinion. Other people may not like them, and the idea that cookies are good to eat has no inherent basis in reality. The inclination is affected by my beliefs, such as that there are, in fact, cookies in the cabinet and that cookies are not too unhealthy to be eaten. But these beliefs are pictures or perceptions of objective reality, and when I get to the cabinet I will be either gratified or disappointed, because my belief must be either true or false. In the same way, I would describe all beliefs as perceptions of the objective world, which may be either true or false. They are the pictures we have in our heads, and pictures must be OF something. Determining the truth is determining how accurate these pictures are by comparing them to the world outside our minds and seeing how closely they line up or where they fail to correspond to one another.
You also say that there is no truth, because all we have is our perceptions, which I think is a very important point. Even if all we have is our amorphous perceptions, that does not mean that there is no objective world out there which we may fail to perceive. To say that all supposed truth is ultimately unverifiable because human perception is fallible is one thing; that would simply mean that people are subject to the possibility of being wrong a lot of the time. To say that there is no truth, or that truth is the result of our own minds' creation, is another.
Who do you think is right?
