some uses of this discovery
the discovery is essence
he says in chapter 9 -
'my scepticism at last has touched rock bottom,
and my doubt has found honourable rest in the
absolutely indubitable'
here he defines essence as the object of intuition
and goes on to say that each essence is defined by
instant apprehension
the first thing to note here is that it is clear that
for Santayana scepticism is - as it was for Descartes -
a means to an end - the end being certainty
it is methodological scepticism at base
cut away the opposition (dogmatism) and then move
into the palace (certainty)
what I have attempted to argue is that such a view
is a negative scepticism
a scepticism about what is not
I argue it is possible to have a positive scepticism
one where the end - a sceptical view of the world -
is effectively - the ground of our understanding
it's as if - we learn that we in fact begin with
scepticism -
that the non-sceptical claim to knowledge is the
mistake - the error of our ways
there are moments in Santayana when one gets a
sense that he saw this
however - this discovery of essence - I don't
think is one of them
however - it is worth looking at - he does have
some true insights - that come out of this idea
in chapter 10 -
he sets about showing that his essence is not
that of the Platonists or the empiricists
and much is said of essence -
so what is essence for Santayana?
let me give an example
he says (p.91) -
'Suppose for instance that I see yellow, that my eyes
are open, and that there is a buttercup before me; my
intuition (not properly the essence "yellow" which is
the datum) is then called a sensation. If again I see
yellow with my eyes closed, the intuition is called an
idea or a dream - although often in what is called an
idea no yellow appears, but only words. If yet again
I see yellow with my eyes open, but there is no buttercup,
the intuition is called a hallucination.'
the point being?
there are various ways of stating it
one way is to say that a physicalist account of the
experience is not incompatible with a mentalist account
(does anyone use the term 'mentalist' anymore?) perhaps
'sensationalist' might be more modern
there are other possibilities - perhaps a pragmatist
- i.e. behaviourist account
what Santayana is getting at is - I think - that we
have various languages for describing what we experience
and they are finally all valid
this is a radical view - and one I agree with and argue for
it is I think an argument of positive scepticism
the problem for Santayana though
is his 'indubitable' - his essence -
if such is the instant apprehension
the question - what is it the instant apprehension of?
surely it's something - at the very least
but then what are we talking about?
I suspect his essence is existence
and by essence here he means existence in some kind
of pure - inarticulate state
the ground on which all our concepts imaginations
delusions - whatever - rest
the problem is - if you are going to say it's something
if it can't be described - where is its existence?
is it just an assertion -
with no basis at all?
to my mind Santayana just missed it
forget talk of essence
just speak instead of - yes - the unknown
my basic point is this - the object of knowledge
is the unknown
it is the unknown that all our 'knowledge' is directed
at - is a response to
it is precisely because there is no essence
or should I say knowable essence
that the possibility of interpretation exists - is real
what we begin with is the unknown
what we respond to is the unknown
our knowledge is always a possible account of what
we do not know
or as Santayana says at the end of chapter 10 -
and I think this goes some way to the point -
'so that, for instance, alternative systems of religion
or science, if not taken literally, may equally well
express the actual operation of things measured by
different organs or from different centres.'
