I've always thought of philosophy - good philosophy, at least - as being both academic and practical. I have to wonder about some of the great minds who have undertaken various philosophical exercises. When Kant was "scandalized" by Hume's writings, were his (Kant's) reactions based upon something he really believed?
I don't mean to call into question Kant's sincerity, and hopefully my intentions will become clear by the end of this post. Take, for example, Kant's insistence that causation is a mental construct, which is part of the phenomenal realm. Would Kant have really thought that causation has nothing whatsoever to do with the realm of the noumena? Or, as I suspect, did he set out to demonstrate as much as he thought possible and simply leave his belief in causation-qua-noumena as a rationally-held belief that couldn't have absolute metaphysical certitude?
We find traces of a less-than-skeptical Hume, as well. Not even he questioned the truth of ex nihilo nihil fit. He only questioned our ability to prove it with Cartesian certitude.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very little that we know, or believe we know, can be proven with "Cartesian certitude" -- for: all our rational knowledge is built ultimately upon a base of non-rational (or "pre-rational") intuitive knowledge. Reason can take us back and back and back ... but soon or late comes the point beyond which reason cannot hope to venture, and we arrive at "it's self-evident that ‘X’," which is a fancy way of saying "it's true because it's true."
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me (admittedly, my knowledge of Hume is at best third-hand) that part of Hume’s foolishness is his disinclination to understand the limitations of reason and of rational knowledge.
"and we arrive at "it's self-evident that ‘X’," which is a fancy way of saying "it's true because it's true.""
ReplyDeleteWhy think this?
"It seems to me (admittedly, my knowledge of Hume is at best third-hand) that part of Hume’s foolishness is his disinclination to understand the limitations of reason and of rational knowledge."
Why think this?
Ilíon: andall our rational knowledge is built ultimately upon a base of non-rational (or "pre-rational") intuitive knowledge. Reason can take us back and back and back ... but soon or late comes the point beyond which reason cannot hope to venture, and we arrive at "it's self-evident that ‘X’," which is a fancy way of saying "it's true because it's true."
ReplyDeleteMickey: Why think this?
Because it's self-evident that "explanations come to an end."
There are only three broad categories of causes for a person to believe or assert what is false:
1) inability to understand the truth of the matter;
2) misunderstanding of the truth of the matter;
3) disinclination to understand (or state!) the truth of the matter;
So, when a person denies -- or refuses to affirm -- the truth that rational knowledge *must* be based upon axioms, which are deninitionally non-rational (else they'd not ne axioms), option (2) seems not to be applicable. If so, that options (1) or (3); to put it bluntly: intellectual disability or intellectual dishonesty.
"Because it's self-evident that "explanations come to an end."
ReplyDeleteI could grant this and deny your conclusion.
When we say something is self-evidently true, we are speaking about the way in which its truth is conveyed. We mean that its truth is obvious, forceful and basic in that we need not go anywhere else to see its truth. We are not explaining why it is true.