scepticism and animal faith
there is no first principle of criticism
some thoughts -
Santayana clearly takes the view that the function
of philosophy is critical
that is what is left of facts - the facts of empirical
science once you strip away the presuppositions -
the uncritical assumptions - and he sees Kantian
Transcendalists as those who have used sceptical methods
to foist unskeptical presuppositions on to or
under the facts
if we begin as he says - we can only do so -
'in the middle' - there are no first principles to begin
with or from - for they are logically of the same status
as any other sticks of metaphysical furniture - what can
we do - where to go - what is the task?
it's a good question - and yes he is right here we do only
begin where we begin ('begin the begine'?) - yes
well we describe what we see - where we are - we describe -
map out the territory -
and yes - inevitably - we paint a picture
as to other pictures - i.e. - the old masters -
of empiricism and transcendental idealism
what can we do?
what do we do?
yes question - investigate - look for what you might
call first principles - check for consistency
but just pictures in a gallery actual and possible
a possible infinity of first principles - if that is how
you want to go
the sceptic points to the arbitrariness of any description
sees between the frames - to the wall - the blank
on which it all hangs -
to the unknown
to what purpose?
I think the purpose is the result of such an inquiry
it shows the freedom of interpretation beyond the obvious
which we must describe - to begin with
(so we define the world - to begin the question of
definition)
anyway
what this points to - leads to - is the unknown
'in medias res'
the scepticism I argue for here is not just
methodological - Socratic
it is God forbid - substantial
and this the source of freedom -
the nature of consciousness
