On the state of human
approximation in interpretation
of the world and where it may
possibly lead.
By: Jessie Adrian De Lima
AB Philsophy FS/IR
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
Introduction: ......................................................................................................................................... 3
3
The Enlightenment and the inroads of Reason: ................................................................................... 5
4
The Counter-Enlightenment: ................................................................................................................ 5
5
The Phenomenological attempt ........................................................................................................... 6
6
Why we must be silent.......................................................................................................................... 7
7
The Leap ................................................................................................................................................ 7
8
Works Cited ........................................................................................................................................... 9
2 INTRODUCTION:
In the course of the discourse in the field of hermeneutics, philosophers have always been
presented with the challenge of balancing the individualistic type of knowledge and the
objectivistic type of knowledge in the interpretation of the world. The enlightenment period saw
to the advancements of reason and the subsequent challenging of the dogmatic and the super
naturalist philosophical principles of the preceding era. What is quite surprising is that the
advancements of the enlightenment in the utilization of reason has led philosophy into an
impasse. This impasse was brought about by the critique against reason and the inherent
weakness of the argument of reason concerning epistemology. This weakness has been
capitalized by their enemies to the point that advancements of reason are slowly being reclaimed.
This failure of reason to sufficiently defend itself could be traced back to the admittance
of the inadequacy of individualistic knowledge to account for a totalizing experience of the
world. This weakness, exploited by the critics of reason would eventually stymie the progress of
reason as a means of interpreting the world. The culprits (their names would frequent the pages
of this paper) like David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Ludwig Wittgenstein Heidegger (though I do
not think they meant to attack reason) and Gadamer. There are many others (Said, Derrida,
Spivak, etc….) but that is a paper for another time.
Where philosophy would be led if Reason would be unable to put up a sufficient defense
of its claims? This impasse breeds a certain atmosphere of anarchy and chaos regarding
knowledge. In such an environment, human sentiments would be at a premium. A clamor would
rise up for a pacification of the “warring tribes” and eventually a totalizing idea that would at
least put at ease the inflammed sentiments. And what could be more pacify and soothing an idea
than religion?
3 THE ENLIGHTENMENT AND THE INROADS OF REASON:
The shift of the focus of philosophical debate from the supernatural to man has led the
enlightenment era to direct its efforts in improving the state of human existence. The character of
human introspection has paved the way for human oriented endeavours. Human knowledge’s
greatest takeaway from this era is realization that the interpretation of the world and how we
interact in it is a human activity.
Reason as a faculty, was put at a premium. Thus human minds could freely explore and
formulate principles by which the world around them functions. Reasonability of a certain
principle has led human knowledge to be more accurate in its portrayal of the world. This
rationalist approach led humanity to an autonomist and progressive disposition. Thus, to cut the
story short, the scientific revolution, the rise of the nation-states, the recognition of individual
rights and many more.
4 THE COUNTER-ENLIGHTENMENT:
The attack against the enlightenment and rationalistic philosophies began against the
epistemological commitments of the enlightenment. It basically boiled down to the question of
whether or not one is actually able to formulate an identical portrayal of nature. Because of the
lack of the rationalist argument of a totalizing principle, the critics of the enlightenment were
able to exploit this admitted ignorance into equating the inability of the rationalist arguments to
account for the world and thus dismissing their arguments easily. Immanuel Kant pointed this
out in his critique of reason. A knowing subject attributes principles in his mind alone and these
principles are dictated by the manner wherein the knowing subject experienced the world. The
noumenal world was closed off to the rationalist arguments by the virtue that their portrayal of
the world does not completely depict what is in the noumena. This would be echoed by gadamer
when he said that a knowing subject’s “horizon” is dictated by his historicity and this historicity
of knowing subjects vary due to the different circumstances wherin that history was formed.
This would later be reinforced by the discusions of Marx on Historical materialism
wherein individual expressions of labor are highlighted. The rationalist discourses with overtones
of objectivity were contaminated or were hampered by accusations of being ideological and
being alienating.
5 THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL ATTEMPT
Heidegger to his credit did attempt to get in touch with the objective existence of being.
Recognizing that our understanding of being is confined within the constarints of its locality
ahnd temporality, he endeavoured to libearate our understanding from these parametes. Thus
phenomenology. By de-containing being from these parameters (“epoche”) he tried to look at
being as objects of experience removed from the constraints of the past and the future. Heidegger
however was unabale to completely unadulterate phenomenological consciousness from human
consciusnes. The conciusness of the known object is still subjected to the conciusness of the
knowing subject
6 WHY WE MUST BE SILENT
Wittgenstein’s “Picture theory” talked about how reality (facts) is portrayed thru
symbols (pictures) that rely on logical principles for it to make sense. Reality as understood thru
reason is governed by logical principles. We rely on logical/ rational principles in order to make
sense of how we picture facts. Logical principles however are reliant on sense perceptions in
order to make conclusions. Logical conclusion however are not reliable in the sense that human
sense perceptions cannot possibly encapsulate the entirety of the experience of the object
being portrayed.
The picture of the facts are at best approximation of the facts or at the worse
assumptions without any connection to the facts themselves. Either way on errs.
In order for the knowing subject to make an accurate picture of the facts he must first
gain an exact knowledge of the facts so that he can make a sound logical conclusion about it.
This un reliance eliminates need to refer to some obscure principle that is in itself
euphemistically an informed guess.
7 THE LEAP
And so we are left with a conundrum. Should one cling to the cause of the
enlightenment even though it has been proved to have too many weaknesses in its arguments?
Or should one rather stay silent upon things he would never fully know and continue life blindly
groping for meaning? It is a choice that both espouses illogical/irrational commitments.
This irrational commitment is the presence of a hope based or a faith based principle
that eventually everything will get better. Abstractions and theories could only go so far as to
explain human existence, but due to their inherent lack they could not yet hope to be able to
explain or interpret human experience. Though I would not directly commit myself to a
Christian themed discussion. What I am trying to say is that Soren Kierkegaard identified one of
the possible path that the discussion would take.
8 WORKS CITED
Hicks, Stephen. Explaining Postmodernism from Rousseu to Focault. Ockham's Razor, 2011.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure reason(the cambridge edition). Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Marx, Karl. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1859.
Wittgenstain, Luwdig. Philosophical Investigations. Chicester: John wiley and Sons ltd., 2016.