In philosophy, there are four paths to knowledge: simple seeing, empiricism, dialectic, and authority. Simple seeing is the act of perceiving an item of knowledge through direct or nearly direct experiences of them such as a tree or a conversation. Empiricism is basically science and while it is not always clearly defined, we may be satisfied here to say that it is the study of truths concerning the visible world through reasoning and through the study of observable phenomena in a controlled environment (this is the ideal, mind you, there are forms of empiricism in which we cannot control the environment but the subject matter and the general approach is the same). Dialectic is the study of truths beyond the visible world through the careful and intense use of logic. Finally, authority is the reliance on another for knowledge which we either cannot obtain on our own or simply do not have the time for. Each of these paths are equally legitimate provided that they are used in logically relevant ways in search for the knowledge which it is appropriate to each.
For starters, simple seeing is basically our semi-direct experience of reality through our senses, our emotions, and our intuition. The thing that most distinguishes simple seeing from empiricism most is that simple seeing involves no analysis. The purpose of simple seeing is to provide us with raw data about reality and the level to which we can trust that data varies with the complexity and clarity with which we experience as well as other factors which may indicate whether or not we are in our right mind. This raw data is then used for two purposes: to provide a basis for speculation using empiricism and dialectics and to allow us to function in the world. The sensory form of simple seeing is the one with which we in our modern culture most readily acknowledge and understand and it is quite simply our experience of the physical world. Our ability to perceive reality through our emotions is much more complicated and is very rarely thought of as a means of obtaining knowledge and when it is, it is typically viewed as something that is apart from reason, a belief held by both anti-sentimentalists and romantics which vulgarizes reason and emotions alike. In truth, our emotions give us insight into moral and spiritual reality (given that humans are rational beings, and any view that denies this must also deny the logical arguments it uses to reach its conclusions, and also given that non-physical truths exist, and if they do not then there is no point in arguing with me is there?) although they do require analysis to determine natural responses (which should be trust) from conditioned responses (which should not be trusted). Finally, our intuition is the most reliable form of simple seeing and it consists of our most basic assumptions about reality such as our belief in the laws of logic, basic moral truths (this is different from our emotions in that it is limited to the most basic moral judgements and our knowledge of the very existence of moral truths whereas our emotions may reach any level of complexity), our own existence, and the lower forms of mathematics. In short, our intuitive knowledge is that which we cannot conceive of as being false.
The field of empiricism, on the other hand, is much more complex difficult to define. Once again, empiricism is basically another word for science and for the most part it is distinguished by the use of tests and observations in a controlled environment on the methodological side and a focus on the physical world and that which has a lower existence than us when it comes to subject matter. I say “that which has a lower existence than us” instead of just stopping at “the physical world” because empiricism does study the human mind through psychology so it is not completely limited to the physical universe but the mind is still distinct from the self so it is also below us on the metaphysical ladder. Many people believe that empiricism is the only trustworthy path to knowledge yet this is a gross exaggeration of the real value of empiricism. For starters, unless one has walked through each step of an experiment he is relying on authority, not empiricism, as a path to knowledge and as such most of the time when non-scientists talk about “what we know through science” what they are actually talking about is the secular consensus which they have accepted on authority. Additionally, the history of science is often not one of refinements but rather is filled with theories that were completely discarded. Finally, there is the limit to what science can study, a limit that means empiricism can never make judgements about morality, spirituality, or even its own validity.
Yet as difficult to pin down as empiricism is, dialects is even more troublesome. Dialectics is philosophical reasoning and it is distinctive from empiricism mainly in that it is based more on speculation than on tests. There are different methods to dialectics but what it comes down to is analyzing the available data; defining one’s assumptions, conclusions, and terms; checking those assumptions and conclusions for logical contradictions; and the use of thought experiments. Dialectics is also much less limited than empiricism in that it extends to every aspect of reality. Naturally, there are certain physical questions which dialectics should not be used to answer but there are others, such as those concerning the origin of the universe, which are intimately connected to deeper metaphysical questions. On such issues it is sometimes appropriate for dialectics to yield to empiricism but only when there are strong empirical and dialectical arguments against the standing philosophical theory.
Finally, we have before us the matter of authority. You might have concluded earlier that our ultimate source of all knowledge is simple seeing since it includes not only physical information but also our sense of reason and moral values. However, when it comes down to it, we must accept the claims of our experiences on authority and not only that but we have no way at all to test the validity of this claim to authority. Claims to authority made by individuals are usually fairly easy to test as long as the appropriate information is available and claims made by a culture (such as those on matters of history or ethics) can be evaluated by looking to see what other cultures have to say on the subject and through empirical or dialectical analysis but this is not the case with the most basic authoritative claims. How can you logical evaluate the claim that logic exists? On the other hand, despite many attempts by skeptics, no one has ever succeeded in living out any philosophy that denies these basic claims or even in truly believing such a worldview. Skeptics argue with logic, nihilists kill themselves at despair which has no place in a world without values, the history of philosophy is littered with the corpses of belief systems attempting to deny this ultimate authority. In short, the only alternative to an acceptance the authoritative claims of reason, morality, and the senses is literally nothing.
And now there is a lesson for us Christians to draw from all this. While it is impossible for the nothingness philosophy that opposes human reason to raise any substantial argument, there is still the question of consistency. After all, reason is perfect by nature and as such it cannot be something that arises within us but rather if we are rational creatures then it must be something that we reflect like a mirror. But if we are not created being and are instead simply accidents of nature then how could this be the case? Ultimately, we must be created by God for us to be truly rational creatures. What this also means is that God has actively revealed truth to us and as such any conception of Him must view Him as one who deeply cares about us and is determined to reveal Himself and all His knowledge to us. This not only suggests Christianity as the most likely true path due to the constant intervention of God as displayed in biblical history but also gives us a new way in which to view those interventions. What it tells us of is a King gleeful to share with us a deep and abiding understanding of beauty, love, Himself, and even us.
No comments:
Post a Comment