the discovery of essence
here Santayana begins with the idea that scepticism is
intellectually liberating - his take on this is that
loss of faith leadsto possibility - he gives the example
of the Indians who deny the existence of the world - and
this has lead to an ontology that includes the miraculous
and the monstrous - i.e. - the Arabian Nights - yes indeed -
perhaps even Quine would have sympathy with this view -
doubt leads to possibility true - but how are we to
understand this - does it mean i.e. -that perhaps a very
ontologically tight fisted world - one Oakam would look at
approvingly - is suddenly invaded with a multitude of
entities - and is thus entirely transformed - and for that
matter - is never stable - for there are always more
ontological immigrants waiting at the door - waiting on
the next liberating thought - such a notion does give
substance to the bones of scepticism true - the idea is -
if you doubt you can allow -
Santayana wants then to say it follows that if we
understand our intuitions as illusions we can then entertain
the illusion without succumbing to it - the illusion and
all its possibilities - is in his view - the essence - or
just what is - which he thinks is - the essence - and so you
can on this view - via scepticism get to a plane of certitude -
the certainty - of the illusion -
I understand the benefit Santayana sees in sceptical
thinking - the fact that it does - or can open one up
to the possibilities of life - but aren't these
possibilities - possibilities of thought? - really
thinking does not - in itself change the world - what
exists (though of course the consequence of thought -
action may lead to transformations) - what changes -
or can - is how one sees -
I am loathe to jump to the conclusion that - all is
illusion - and that we can be certain about this -
logically speaking is such an idea not equivalent to -
all is real and we can be certain about it? - the point
being - what is gained by such an assertion? - perhaps
a sense of sceptical security - more a psychological
than logical result? - so I guess I am saying I fail
to see where talk of essence achieves anything - and
for my mind the point of scepticism is just that while
we may understand such notions as intuition and
essence - the point is that a sceptical mind operates
with the understanding that 'I don't know' - and really
nothing needs to be added to this - it is a position -
that specifically does not require foundation
