sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (08/25/87)
[Warning -- the following is deliberately provocative.] With Kantian catagories and similar things, we see a blurring of the distinctions between psychology and philosophy. If something is psychologically impossible to any human, will any human philsoopher ever be able to regard it as true? Maybe the philosophical quest for non-empirical truth is simply a study of universal psychology -- the psychology of the ways in which people are inescapably constrained to construct their thoughts and understand their worlds. Perhaps we discover these limits by attempting to escape from them and finding we cannot. The truths of philosophy, then, would be those limits that are genuinely inescapable, while other limits of thought might be overcomable. It would surely be useful to know which of our limits we can overcome and which we can't -- what we can think and what we can't think. We can also make a virtue of necessity and decide that *our* limits are built into some kind of universal universe (e.g., that the world is constrained to human logic). But that would be going beyond the evidence, wouldn't it? -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge
hansw@cs.vu.nl (Hans Weigand) (08/27/87)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: In article <117@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: >Maybe the philosophical quest for non-empirical truth is simply a study of >universal psychology -- the psychology of the ways in which people are >inescapably constrained to construct their thoughts and understand >their worlds. You seem to be hinting at what is usually called "transcendental philosophy". This has nothing to do with metaphysics, but it is looking for the bounds of reason, science(s) and experience in general. Examples are Kant's transcendental ideas of time and space, or Heidegger's notion of being-in-the-world. Some time ago there was a short discussion about whether an omnipotent being could also change our logic. A transcendental critique of this question should start by circumscribing the boundary conditions for our logic, and then discover that the question does not make any sense. The book of Winograd and Flores "Understanding language and cognition" can be viewed as a transcendental critique of cognitive science and artificial intelligence (whether it is a good one or not, is not my point now). >Perhaps we discover these limits by attempting to escape from them >and finding we cannot. The truths of philosophy, then, would be those >limits that are genuinely inescapable, while other limits of thought >might be overcomable. Yes, since transcendental philosophy does not deal with empirical questions, and must be aware of its own critical bounds as well, it is different from "normal" sciences. A typical method of transcendental critique is investigating paradoxes, or trying to create them . These tend to be very revealing about where the limits are. Examples are the Liar paradox, Zeno's paradox and the hermeneutical circle. - Hans Weigand Dep. of Math and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
sarge@thirdi.UUCP (08/28/87)
In article <1584@botter.cs.vu.nl> hansw@cs.vu.nl (Hans Weigand) writes: >[Transcendental psychology] has nothing to do with metaphysics, but it is >looking for the bounds of reason, science(s) and experience in >general. Examples are Kant's transcendental ideas of time and space, >or Heidegger's notion of being-in-the-world. Some time ago >there was a short discussion about whether an omnipotent being >could also change our logic. A transcendental critique of this >question should start by circumscribing the boundary conditions >for our logic, and then discover that the question does not >make any sense. Interesting! I had never heard of Transcendental Psychology, though I did try to read Heidegger once, and Husserl more than once. But it sounds like a workable approach. I only wish those following this approach weren't such terrible writers and/or complex thinkers. Didn't we decide that the truth is likely to be simple? >A typical >method of transcendental critique is investigating paradoxes, >or trying to create them . These tend to be >very revealing about where the limits are. Examples are the Liar >paradox, Zeno's paradox and the hermeneutical circle. I also have never heard of the nermeneutical circle. (I thought Hermeneutics meant interpretation of scriptures!) Could you let me know what this is, or send email if it's too stupid a question. Thanks. -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge