doubt and dogma
Santayana in this chapter takes the view that nature
is in some sense the true reality
dogma he regards as accepted opinion - really a fantasy
of explanation
'what kills spontaneous fictions... is the angry voice
of some contrary fancy'
'Nature, silently making fools of us all our lives,
never would bring us to our senses; but the maddest
assertions of the mind may do so, when they challenge
one another'
scepticism is a suspicion of error about facts
because a sceptic's assertions may be well grounded -
scepticism is a form of belief
dogma cannot be abandoned only revised
hence all scepticism rests on some dogmatic presupposition
intelligence is veridical
the need to believe something does not justify any
particular belief
given all the above -
how does 'nature' as Santayana describes reality - or what
is fundamental - speak to human beings?
it's all well and good to say it is there - but how is it
knowable on this view?
the impression I have is that Santayana takes the view -
what we have in knowledge is just dogma and it's conflict -
the possibility - inevitability of a conflict of fantasies
over what - nature? - we may as well say - x - i.e. -
whatever it is -
scepticism he says is a suspicion of error regarding facts -
but what is the origin of this suspicion - there seems at
this stage no reason to think it has anything to do with truth
- isn't it just different dogmas clashing?
you may presume a truth at the bottom of all this - but so
far no particular reason to do so
what is a fact on this view but a reigning dogma?
and the sceptic is just one who has an opinion that is not
the same as the one he challenges
Santayana says a sceptic's opinions may be well grounded -
how could this be possible - well grounded on what?
is not scepticism on this view just the conflict of difference
- conflicting dogmas - opinions?
we will need to wait for further elucidations of his thought
before jumping to any firm conclusions
so far I wonder if Santayana is just proposing a kind of
Hobbesian reality of a war of dogma against dogma - with
a detached sovereign - who may be watching - but has no
impact on events
this is not a criticism
(it may be just the true picture)
but is it an argument really for anything?
we begin as it were with conflict - can it be resolved and
does scepticism have a positive role here?
and is a fact something different from dogma - if so how do
we know it?
and he speaks of nature - as the touchstone but here again -
can we understand it outside of what he calls dogma?
I tend to think that outside of opinion what we have -
the only objective description of what is beyond description -
is the unknown
now the question - what is this - an objective reality -
or a subjective reality?
my answer is that at this point - we have gone beyond
such categories
and the answer is - fair and square - without any tricks -
unknown
we'll see
