much depends on how you characterize the unknown
like what sort of ontological status you give it -
and then whatever you say - it can be fairly asked -
well how do you know the unknown is such and such?
isn't the point of it that it is - unknown?
so what are we talking about here - can't be
characterized?
Kant's answer was interesting
he argued what we face is to be characterized as
the phenomenal - that which is presented
to ask what is behind it
is to ask to know - that which is not presented
to consciousness
and that for Kant is what the unknown is
he went further though
and really saw it as a reality - a dimension
and this unknown dimension - the noumenon -
became for him the source of freedom and God
now I wouldn't quite go down that track
though I think his answer to the question -
what is the unknown - as - that which is not
given in experience - is eminently sensible
but still you could ask - why the unknown at
all whatever status you give it?
now my thought here is that the unknown only
comes into the picture because of the nature
of consciousness
and a quick answer here is to say the fundamental
characteristic of consciousness is reflection
and to say this doesn't prejudge the standard
mind-body problem
for whatever theory you have of mind - you recognize
that consciousness reflects on the world and on its
own contents
now one of the things that happens when we reflect
is we look for an account of what is presented to us
we look for explanation or foundation to what we
experience
such is not presented - it is not there -
hence theoretical thinking - and all the theoretical
entities that come with it (i.e. - substance - electrons
- the unconscious - historical process - God)
now all I am really trying to say here is that in the
first instance reflection reveals the unknown - i.e.-
there is something I don't know
and that understanding only comes about because I
reflect on what is presented to consciousness
as pointed out Kant gave the unknown - an ontological
status - for Kant it is a real dimension of reality
I prefer a much less elaborate account
and really a more straight out logical account -
the unknown as - what - is not known
this leaves the question of what - as undecided -
(unlike Kant who did define it)
and it strikes me that in a metaphysical sense -
this is quite appropriate
(otherwise you would have to claim you know it)
in general - though I'm just saying as conscious
beings
we are in a sense - conscious - not just of what
is before us but what is not
and I think as soon as we reflect - we are in
the realm of the unknown
we reflect - we conceive - theorize - speculate -
in order to transform what we don't know -
to knowledge -
and this knowledge is always an attempt to explain
what is before us
the world we live in
now in my view these conceptions - be they philosophical
- (like what I'm doing here) scientific - religious -
imaginative - artistic
are without any foundation -
we may chose to believe i.e. - the story of science -
the philosophy of Spinoza - the teachings of the Buddha -
as fundamental
as the foundation
but when any of these systems are put to test
finally
they end up at some end point of faith in - the empirical
method - the geometrical method or revelation - or whatever
there is nothing wrong with faith - but be clear what it is -
just a decision to stop
either that -
or keep an open mind
in general - my scepticism is primarily in relation to
theoretical knowledge
which is just any account or underpinning of the world as
presented to consciousness
for any theory about the world or any aspect of it is a
free creation of consciousness
this is not in any way to devalue any such endeavour
rather to just understand its epistemological and
ontological status
and also - it is important to understand the necessity
of such
we must theorize on many levels just simply to enable
our survival -
seen this way there is no choice about it
I think that how one conceives the world - that is how
you think about yourself and the world determines how
you will feel - and how you feel will determine how you act
so it is the most crucial of human activities
I don't think we ever come to the end of such a quest
or endeavour
I know for some that is regarded as a source of
insecurity but as I have put forward earlier -
I see it as the source of our freedom -
and in a very real way why we have survived
it is the reason for adaptability - and most
importantly creativity
human consciousness is essentially a searchlight
in the darkness -
and while it might rest here - or there -
there is never one view that encapsulates
everything
OK - so why one theoretical explanation rather
than another?
why i.e. - does it strike me that Spinoza's
metaphysics is has more truth in it than say
Hegel's?
well it's a big question
and I'm not avoiding it in saying that to some
extent that is a question I deal with in
the study of Spinoza
to be quite honest I don't have an easy answer
when I first read Spinoza I was struck by his
intellectual power - the simple beauty of his
conception and its breath taking comprehensiveness
later when I understood it better and in the context
of metaphysical debate - I was impressed by his
solutions to some fundamental problems
i.e. - the cosmological problem - the mind-body
problem
so for me Spinoza's has been a source of true
intellectual joy
the need or desire for such I'm sure must be part of
the motivation
and just on motivation - I see the question of one's
motivation to be no different to the
metaphysical problem of the nature of it all
that is it cannot be isolated as some kind of cause
outside of the main game
to understand the world (in a Spinozistic sense)
is to understand yourself
in our day and age - largely due to the self-centered
metaphysics of Descartes and Berkeley - the prevailing
sentiment is - if you understand yourself - you
understand the world
or - you understand yourself - but the world doesn't
understand you
(Socrates might well have had something to do with
all this)
also
in this connection - usually truth rears its ugly head
i.e. - why do I believe what I believe? - because I
think it's the truth
the simple fact is - the truth is not there - out there -
to be discovered
as some kind of touch stone for theory
one's conception of the world - one's metaphysics is
one's theory of truth
the point being truth is a function of theory -
not independent of it
e.g. - an empiricist concept of truth - i.e. a statement
is true if it is verifiable - is true if true - not because
verifiability is observable - but rather because it is a
theorem based on empiricist presuppositions concerning the
epistemological status of observation statements
one's concept of truth is embedded in one's view of the world
Spinoza's system of thought could well be regarded as the
best example of such a view
however it is true - Spinoza did not regard truth in this way
(he did not regard his own system as one possible account
of the world - he believed and argued - that he'd nailed it -
and being a sceptic - even about my scepticism - I take his
argument very seriously)
