the thing is this
to define substance (as Spinoza does) one must know it - or know of it
the definition is fine tuning - characterization
now the question
given that we are with substance speaking of everything - the totality
the question is - where does this notion come from - originate?
OK we think - and we think about
we think about what?
what we are aware of - what we see - what we experience -
are we aware of the totality?
in a logical sense - yes
the argument goes -
I am a part of something greater
that greater is finally all that is
yes
so - no question here of experiencing the totality
not logically possible
but know - in the sense of a logical deduction yes
here we are talking about frameworks of knowledge
categories necessary for knowledge
transcendental categories in Kant's terminology
on this view - the totality - substance - in Spinoza's terms
is what?
a reality - an actually existing reality?
or - categories of the understanding necessary for the having of knowledge?
i.e. - is substance - reality or a way of understanding reality?
I think the latter
so we think substance -
substance becomes a way of understanding the world and man's place in it?
what the world is
as it were outside of this understanding
without these categories of knowledge -
is the real question
but in fact it is one we cannot know the answer to
the world as such - in itself as Spinoza has put it - and Kant would too
is unknown
unknowable
so we operate within - within the world
and know - know in terms of categories of understanding
and these are just functions of consciousness
how - human consciousness works - its set up position
consciousness is in the business of knowing
and it comes equipped as it were for the job
you might take the view - alright accept this -
and really therefore - isn't this just all knowledge is?
no need as it were to look beyond - for something else
by definition - on this view - there just isn't anything else
fair enough I think - and I guess such is the Kantian solution
Kant's argument is an account of how consciousness works
basically - if we as conscious entities - operate in such a way - i.e. know - then this
(the transcendental categories) must be presumed
for without them we cannot account for epistemological behaviour
so it is an argument of entailment
I know - what are the conditions necessary for this?
I am not sure that Kant has really answered the question - and certainly - not finally
what he has done at least is say there must be pre-existing conditions for knowledge
if knowledge is to follow
- or what he calls knowledge
could one argue - that we cannot actually know - this
what they are?
we cannot that is get to the transcendental level of understanding
that yes it is a way of seeing the issue
but would it not be more to the point to say - we don't know -
we can't go there -
except in an imaginative sense?
it's a background picture
in general I think what I am asking is - what can you see?
what can be seen?
and it is connected to another question
where are you?
in relation to Spinoza
let me put it this way
to know substance - as an object of thought - to be able to conceive substance
substance must be outside the concept
and therefore the conceiver - outside of substance
was this what Spinoza was trying to get up - or was presuming is possible - something
along these lines anyway - in proposing his sub species aeternitatis argument?
yes - from the point of view of eternity (whatever this really means) we may - in some
sense be able to see - or conceive substance
but who has this point of view -
who can see from that place -
who is in that place?
