Autor: Lonergan, Bernard J.F.

Buch: Collection: Papers bei B. Lonergan

Titel: Collection: Papers bei B. Lonergan

Stichwort: Gegenpositionen (counterpositions); treffende Charakteristik: der naive Realist; Idealist

Kurzinhalt: The generalization contains two elements, one positive, and the other negative; The idealist is not impressed ...; Denken to Anschauen

Textausschnitt: Counterpositions Criticized

214a The alternative to distinguishing is confusion.k We have been engaged in distinguishing between human knowing and its component elements and between the objectivity of human knowing and the objectivity proper to different components in human knowing. When, however, the distinctions are not drawn, confusion easily if not inevitably occurs. (Fs)

214b From the viewpoint of the validity of human knowing, such confusions may be divided into two classes that are dialectically related. The naive realist correctly asserts the validity of human knowing, but mistakenly attributes the objectivity of human knowing, not to human knowing, but to some component in human knowing. The idealist, on the other hand, correctly refutes the naive-realist claim that the whole objectivity of human knowing is found in some component of human knowing, but mistakenly concludes that human knowing does not yield valid knowledge of reality. The strength of the naive-realist position is its confidence in the validity of human knowing; its weakness is its inability to learn. On the other hand, the strength of the idealist position is the sharpness with which it refutes the mistaken claims of naive realists; its weakness is its inability to break completely with the confusions introduced by naive realism. (Fs) (notabene)

215a If theoretically this dialectical process could begin from any confusion, commonly its starting point is the myth that knowing is looking. Jack or Jill is invited to raise a hand and to look at it. The hand is really out there; it is the object. The eye, strangely, is not in the hand; it is some distance away in the head; it is the subject. The eye really sees the hand; it sees what is there to be seen; it does not see what is not there to be seen. That is objectivity. (Fs) (notabene)

215b Once the essence of objectivity has been grasped in this dramatic instance, there follow generalization and deduction. The generalization contains two elements, one positive, and the other negative. The positive element in the generalization is that any cognitional activity that sufficiently resembles ocular vision must be objective; for if it sufficiently resembles ocular vision, one can grasp the essence of objectivity in it no less than in ocular vision; and an activity that possesses the essence of objectivity must be objective. The negative element is that any cognitional activity that does not sufficiently resemble ocular vision cannot be objective; for it lacks what is essential to objectivity; of itself, therefore, any such activity is merely immanent; it may have some subordinate or derivative role to play in human knowing, particularly when knowing is not immediate but mediate; but from the nature of the case it can make no proper contribution to the objectivity of human knowing, for of itself it has nothing to contribute. (Fs) (notabene)

215c The positive and negative elements of the generalization provide a basis whence one can deduce what human knowing must be and what it cannot be. With such premises to hand, one does not have to bother too much about cognitional fact. The analogy of ocular vision reveals what intellectual activity must be like if it is objective; it must be like seeing. Even if introspection discovers no intellectual activity that resembles seeing, still some such activity really must exist; for if it did not, then our intellectual activity would be merely immanent, and idealism would be correct; but the conclusion is false, and therefore the premise must be false. Again, no serious difficulty arises from the fact that introspection brings to light intellectual activities that do not resemble seeing; it is true that such activities make no contribution of their own to the objectivity of human knowing; they are not constitutive of our immediate knowledge or our knowledge by acquaintance; but they can perform some useful function in the subordinate and derivative parts of our knowing, in our mediate knowledge or our knowledge by description. Just what these functions are, of course, is somewhat obscure; but we may with confidence look forward to the time when sound and sane study and research will have cleared up these extraordinarily difficult and complicated problems. In the meantime, however, we have complete certitude with regard to the essentials of the matter. Knowing, if objective, is like seeing. We know that we know, and so, in some analogous sense of the word, see, we see our knowing. We know the truth of our knowing; but truth is the correspondence of the knowing to the known; therefore, in some analogous sense of the word, see, we see the correspondence of our knowing to the known. Finally, science is of the universal; but scientific knowledge is at least possible; therefore, in some analogous sense of the word, see, we see universals. (Fs) (notabene)

216a The idealist is not impressed. He feels that the distinction between appearance and reality has been overlooked. By appearance he does not mean any illusion or hallucination. He means precisely what Jack or Jill really does see: the shape of an outstretched hand, its color, the lines that mark it, its position out there in front of the head. He is willing to add what Jack and Jill do not see: the feelings inside the hand and the conjunction in ordinary experience of the feelings with the visible object. All of that is not reality but appearance. And by reality he means what is meant by Jack, Jill, and the naive realist. Such is his thesis, and he argues as follows. (Fs) (notabene)
216b When I lift a lump of lead, I may report either that the lead is heavy or that the lead feels heavy. When I gaze out my window at a green field, I may report either that the field is green or that the field looks green. Such alternative reports are not equivalent. When I say 'is heavy' or 'is green,' I am using language that purports to report the real properties of real things. When I say 'feels heavy' or 'looks green,' I am not committing myself to any statement about the objective properties of things but, on the contrary, am limiting my statement to impressions made on me. Hence it is quite possible for one to say that, while he does not know whether or not the field really is green, at least it appears green to him. Knowledge of appearance, then, is one thing; and knowledge of reality is another. (Fs) (notabene)

216c Now what does Jack know when he looks at his hand? What does Jill know when she looks at hers? Two answers are possible, so Jack may say that his hand is out there in front of his face, and Jill may say that her hand at least seems to be out there in front of her face. Nor is the difference between the two answers difficult to detect. When Jack says 'is,' he is not reporting what he knows by sight alone; he also has made a judgment; he has added Denken to Anschauen. When Jill says 'seems,' she is limiting her report to what is known by sight alone; the act of reporting involves thought and judgment; but what is reported is simply and solely what is known by her seeing, the appearance of a hand in front of her face. (Fs) (notabene)

217a No less than the naive realist, the idealist is capable of generalization and deduction. As sight, so also hearing, smelling, tasting, touching are constitutive, not of knowledge of reality, but only of knowledge of appearances. What is true of outer sense also is true of inner sense: by our consciousness we know, not our reality, but only its appearance. Hence, when we inquire, understand, think, we have only appearances to investigate, to understand, to think about. When we judge, our judgments must be based, not on things themselves, but only on their appearance. There is no way in which knowledge of reality could creep into our cognitional operations. Hence all our statements must be modified with the qualification, 'as far as appearances go.' To say that men commonly do not add that qualification or that they are not ready to admit it even when its necessity is demonstrated, is just another way of saying that they suffer from a transcendental illusion. (Fs)