After a senior seminar session this past week, someone mentioned an interesting point that they felt was mirrored in Hegel’s work. Rorty, in his attempt to dismantle philosophy “as it has been done the past couple hundred years” first dives into philosophy of mind and then epistemology. After discussing Kant and other thinkers, he posits the idea that we should not think of transcendental experiences, or indeed epistemology itself, as necessary but only as a possible answer to a question (that philosophers themselves created….but that’s another blog post.) He ends up saying it’s optional and wondering if we should even waste our time studying it. Hegel offers a similar, yet different, approach to the question. Why should we get bogged down with trying to answer questions of foundations of knowledge, especially in light of a possible infinite regression of agency?
I’m honestly undecided on this. In a way I agree with them both, that our energy could be better spent in, once having a theory, moving from there instead of becoming mesmerized by the question of “how do we know, and how better to know what we know?” But at the same time, it seems as though understanding those foundations are important. Maybe Rorty would argue that practically it’s not really important. With Kant’s work, scientist finally were able to get around the issues that Hume proposed…but then, we don’t see scientists knocking on the door of epistemologists thanking them for their work. But just because people don’t consider it necessary for interacting with the world, does that mean we can’t pursue this is as ultimately important? It doesn’t necessarily have to be the number one priority of everything we do, but for me it does seem important.
Having studied some of Hegel in Aesthetics, his idea of Spirit and its presence and coming awareness in history does seem very interesting, and I’m looking forward to seeing how he develops it, as well as the dialectic. But I think simply dismissing a question that seems a bit foundational to me isn’t necessarily the best course of action, even if it needs to have a slightly lower priority to what “really” matters in our day to day lives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would argue that epistemology is worthwhile, but perhaps not to explore in depth for everyone. In the liberal arts education we learn a little about a lot of subjects. I learn math although I never plan on using it except as it relates to economics, it is however important that the math is sound and have been proved. All of this is to say that while epistemology is important, it is not necessary for everyone one, but only for those who chose to focus on it, to be explored with more than a passing familiarity. Think of it as a specialization of labor as it applies to academics. You mentioned that epistemology has been said to be pointless because it would lead us into infinite regression, but Descartes in his examination of methods evaluates this same claim and argues that we need only to focus on the foundation truths and methods we use to examine them, on which all else is built.
ReplyDeleteWhile Im not yet convinced of Hegel’s epistemology, I find it encouraging that his system looks to prove the existence of Truth. This is why I find philosophy as such a meaningful subject, because is prompts us as humans to examine and evaluate our own existence. For me, philosophy is ultimately a form of self-reflection that drives us to Truth. Rorty’s attempt to dismantle philosophy seems to embrace the purpose of philosophy itself, because ultimately he’s advancing a truth that is says “there is no Truth”. So, although Hegel’s epistemology concerns me thus far, at least it’s meaningful. I fail to see how one can simply abandon the search for Truth and knowledge, as Rorty’s statement implies.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with both Wukasch and Paul that I think the search for knowledge is vital to our existence. In my metaphysics class, we have been discussing being qua being. The search to identify how we "be" so to say is important, but not as important as the knowledge derived from our experiences. The search to know or our epistemological search gives meaning to our lives. How can we simply be without transcending our existence, which ultimately becomes our Truth of the world. I would need to know more about the argument behind Rorty's statement "There is no truth," because without Truth or the search to find Truth we would need a new approach to our day to day living.
ReplyDelete