nothing given exists
Santayana begins here with the argument that scepticism
is the doubting or denying ofthe existence of any object
everything he says turns on the meaning of existence
and he says to say something exists is to designate
such being as is in flux - determined by external
relations - and jostled by irrelevant events
further - it is only a name - a pointing out -
as if by gesture - what the word designates
in habits of speech
the object itself is indefinable but may be described
more particularly - by using other indicatives and
indefinable name
the whole realm of being might be described more
fully in physics and psychology
OK
the sceptic doubts
why is this in general?
can we say experience presents substantially -
but falls away to the insubstantial?
so - doubt from existential and epistemological
disappointment -
this is not a prelude to an argument for angst -
it strikes me as rather an argument about realism
in general a sceptic is a realist
and what I am trying to get to here is that it is
questionable to tie scepticism so closely to existence
such an argument - to doubt existence - as I think
Santayana is hinting at - is really the result of an
unfortunate reductio ad absurdum - i.e. - it can be
said if you take the sceptical view to its logical
(or a logical) conclusion you can end up doubting
existence - Descartes is really responsible for
these excesses
but if the sceptic is a realist is it existence
that is doubted?
I don't think so -
scepticism - is really about our explanations of -
what exists
a thorough going sceptic will take the view that
any descriptions of any thing - should
be - held in doubt
that is to say at the level of explanation -
one suspends judgement
the reality of living defeats such intellectual
purity at every turn - nevertheless there is
place and reason for the reflection that leads
to such a view
and such an outlook may well prove very useful
in the twists and turns of living - so it is not
without practical import
now we may conclude as a consequence of such an
outlook that - there is no definite description
of that which exists - and by implication say that
existence is - in terms of such - unknown
this though is a far cry from being a nihilist -
(if one can actually exist!)
for what is being doubted is not existence or
existents but comprehensive or final description
Santayana goes on to argue against the idea that
immediate experience is what we can depend on -
the data - of the senses
and I think he's right to question this view
but again I wonder about his argument - he seems
to think that such a view (sense data) is a view
about what exists
and my point is the same - the sense data argument
is an argument about explanation
that is the sense data theory is an explanation
of 'experience' - it is not - experience
- it is a theoretical reduction of experience
he goes on to suggest that we should confine our
use of the term 'existence' to the facts and events
of physical science - and see our experiences as
just stepping stones to such
OK
there is a lot of straight forward common sense here
if you want to know i.e. - about what caused what -
no sense in turning to a magical explanation
(different of course if you are a writer of magical
fiction and you are writing a story)
the world view of physical science will give you the
tools to sort it out
but if on the other hand you are wondering about
what such a world view is founded on
that is you are looking for an explanation of the
explanation - do not be surprised if it
is not as straightforward or as precise as A caused B
so you may come to the view that for certain practical
purposes it works to proceed with scientific explanation -
and you may i.e. - end up regarding the basic principles
of physics as being essentially arbitrary - and finally
perhaps not that much different to i.e. - 'the laws of
magic' (if we can speak of such)
the facts are never in doubt - only our descriptions
