Reiterating at the outset: The “little knowledge” I mention in my title is my own!
Novelist-Poet-Thinker-Dauntless-Traveler Gary Gautier recently touched in his blog on an engrossing philosophical quandary, mentioning an idea expressed by Immanuel Kant:
The idea that we have no access to objective reality but only our subjective models to work with is Kant 101.
Gary cites David Hume:
Hume had already emphasized that we have no access to the objective world…
The comments Gary develops in his post stem from his reading of the abstract of an article about Stephen Hawking’s abandonment of “belief in the ability of science to describe reality in favor of a model-dependent account of truth.” [The cited language is the abstract’s].
Gary takes what could be a scary notion and expands it in a positive direction in succinct, resounding terms:
… Because we share… common subjective strategies of organizing reality, we can communicate meaningfully… Science still gives… valuable, usable insights about our shared interpretation of reality… All the things we value are still valuable…
I haven’t read any of the great works of philosophy (Wittengenstein’s Tractatus lost me on page 2. Fools rush in!), but I’m most receptive to Gary’s raising of the topic and to his handling of it. It feels right and necessary to engage with such matters, especially in a time of civic mourning when the life of the mind reasserts its primacy.
I like to reflect on two slants to the concept of lack of access to objective reality which dawned on me.
One slant is the implication that simply stating that we can’t get to it concedes that an objective (or “transcendent”?) reality exists; it’s locked away from us for assorted reasons. This seems to lead most readily in a theological direction; the Quran, for example, strongly affirms faith-driven submission to “the Hidden.”
A second slant could imply that saying we’ve no access to objective reality is a way of saying that there is none; that, stated crudely, it’s possible we invent our world(s) in our minds — but let’s keep examining what we think we see as objectively as we can (it implies). (I heard in a BBC4 podcast that Dr. Johnson said to Boswell concerning claims that Hume’s idea was irrefutable, “I refute it thus!” and proceeded to slam his walking stick down on something lying in his path until it — the stick or the thing — shattered.)
I make no claim for the intellectual rigor of either of these “slants” as I’ve stated them, but I do find it extremely fruitful to think as deeply as I can, in an embracing frame of mind, about both approaches. One slant foments inquiry that presupposes a Creator, the other slant favors inquiry that doesn’t. Both are enriching. Down the line they may converge, led there in centuries to come by the progeny of Hawking. The long view must be taken, and the long view is in short supply in our moment.
The opportunities which both slants open up to creative thought have occupied reflective humans since our recorded origins. No models built over millenia of cogitation are disposable, be it said. Nihil humanum mihi alienum est. But let’s have no more analogs to crucifixion and burning at the stake. That behavior doesn’t help anyone think. Never has. Never will.
I live in Texas and devote much of my time to easel painting on an amateur basis. I stream a lot of music, mostly jazz, throughout the day. I like to read and memorize poetry.
EthicalDative 
A Little Knowledge (I Refer to Mine) Is Dangerous (and Fun)
Reiterating at the outset: The “little knowledge” I mention in my title is my own!
Novelist-Poet-Thinker-Dauntless-Traveler Gary Gautier recently touched in his blog on an engrossing philosophical quandary, mentioning an idea expressed by Immanuel Kant:
The idea that we have no access to objective reality but only our subjective models to work with is Kant 101.
Gary cites David Hume:
Hume had already emphasized that we have no access to the objective world…
The comments Gary develops in his post stem from his reading of the abstract of an article about Stephen Hawking’s abandonment of “belief in the ability of science to describe reality in favor of a model-dependent account of truth.” [The cited language is the abstract’s].
Gary takes what could be a scary notion and expands it in a positive direction in succinct, resounding terms:
… Because we share… common subjective strategies of organizing reality, we can communicate meaningfully… Science still gives… valuable, usable insights about our shared interpretation of reality… All the things we value are still valuable…
I haven’t read any of the great works of philosophy (Wittengenstein’s Tractatus lost me on page 2. Fools rush in!), but I’m most receptive to Gary’s raising of the topic and to his handling of it. It feels right and necessary to engage with such matters, especially in a time of civic mourning when the life of the mind reasserts its primacy.
I like to reflect on two slants to the concept of lack of access to objective reality which dawned on me.
One slant is the implication that simply stating that we can’t get to it concedes that an objective (or “transcendent”?) reality exists; it’s locked away from us for assorted reasons. This seems to lead most readily in a theological direction; the Quran, for example, strongly affirms faith-driven submission to “the Hidden.”
A second slant could imply that saying we’ve no access to objective reality is a way of saying that there is none; that, stated crudely, it’s possible we invent our world(s) in our minds — but let’s keep examining what we think we see as objectively as we can (it implies). (I heard in a BBC4 podcast that Dr. Johnson said to Boswell concerning claims that Hume’s idea was irrefutable, “I refute it thus!” and proceeded to slam his walking stick down on something lying in his path until it — the stick or the thing — shattered.)
I make no claim for the intellectual rigor of either of these “slants” as I’ve stated them, but I do find it extremely fruitful to think as deeply as I can, in an embracing frame of mind, about both approaches. One slant foments inquiry that presupposes a Creator, the other slant favors inquiry that doesn’t. Both are enriching. Down the line they may converge, led there in centuries to come by the progeny of Hawking. The long view must be taken, and the long view is in short supply in our moment.
The opportunities which both slants open up to creative thought have occupied reflective humans since our recorded origins. No models built over millenia of cogitation are disposable, be it said. Nihil humanum mihi alienum est. But let’s have no more analogs to crucifixion and burning at the stake. That behavior doesn’t help anyone think. Never has. Never will.
(c) 2024 JMN — EthicalDative. All rights reserved
Share this:
About JMN
I live in Texas and devote much of my time to easel painting on an amateur basis. I stream a lot of music, mostly jazz, throughout the day. I like to read and memorize poetry.