Autor: Lonergan, Bernard J.F.

Buch: Insight

Titel: Insight

Stichwort: Relativismus, Relativist (Punkte 1-5): Postion gegen Empirismus, Mangel der Stufe der Reflexion; Beispiel: Schreibmaschine; das virtuell Unbedingte

Kurzinhalt: Fifthly, not only will the relativist make it plain that there are further questions until everything is known, but also he will explain why this is so.

Textausschnitt: 366a From Kantian we turn to relativist thought. The initial question in the present section was whether correct judgments occur. Our account of self-affirmation directly contradicts the relativist contention that correct judgments do not occur. Though the arguments for our position have been given, it will not be amiss to indicate where the relativist would disagree and why. (Fs)

366b First, relativist thought is largely devoted to a refutation of empiricism. Correctly it insists that human knowing cannot be accounted for by the level of presentations alone. There is as well the level of intelligence, of grasping and formulating intelligible unities and systematic relations. Without this second level of activities, there is indeed a given but there is no possibility of saying what is given. (Fs)

366c Secondly, just as the relativist insists on the level of intelligence against the empiricist, so we insist on the level of reflection against the relativist. Human knowing is not merely theory about the given; there are also facts: and the relativist has not and cannot establish that there are no facts, for the absence of any other fact would itself be a fact. (Fs) (notabene)

366d Thirdly, just as the empiricist could have nothing to say if, in fact, he did not utilize operations on the level of intelligence, so also the relativist does not confine himself strictly to the levels of presentations and of intelligence. He is quite familiar with the notion of the unconditioned. He regards the unconditioned as the ideal towards which human knowing tends. But he supposes that this ideal is to be reached through understanding. If the universe in its every part and aspect were thoroughly understood, there could be no further questions; everything would be conceived exactly as it ought to be;h on every possible topic a man could say just what he meant and mean just what he said. On the other hand, short of this comprehensive coherence, there can be no sure footing. There is understanding, but it is partial: it is joined with incomprehension: it is open to revision when present incomprehension yields to future understanding; and so intimately are all things related that knowledge of anything can be definitive only when everything is known. (Fs) (notabene)

367a Fourthly, the relativist is able to follow up this general view by facing concrete issues. Is this a typewriter? Probably, yes. For practical purposes, yes. Absolutely? The relativist would prefer to be clear about the precise meaning of the name 'typewriter'; he would like to be told just what is meant by the demonstrative 'this'; he would be grateful for an explanation of the meaning of the copula 'is.' Your simple question is met by three further questions: and if you answer these three, your answers will give rise to many more. If you are quick and see that you are starting on an infinite series, you may confront the relativist with a rounded system. But the relativist is also a smart fellow. He will point out that ordinary people, quite certain that this is a typewriter, know nothing of the system on which you base their knowledge. Nor is this all. For human knowledge is limited; systems have their weak points; and the relativist will pounce upon the very issues on which a defender of the system would prefer to profess ignorance. (Fs) (notabene)

367b Fifthly, not only will the relativist make it plain that there are further questions until everything is known, but also he will explain why this is so. A relation is named internal to an object when, without the relation, the object would differ radically. Thus, we have spoken of inquiry and insight. But by inquiry we have not meant some pure wonder; we have meant a wonder about something. Similarly, by insight we have not meant a pure understanding but an understanding of something. Inquiry and insight, then, are related internally to materials about which one inquires and into which one gains insight. Now, if one supposes that the whole universe is a pattern of internal relations, clearly it follows that no part and no aspect of the universe can be known in isolation from any other part or aspect; for every item is related internally to every other; and to prescind from such relations is to prescind from things as they are and to substitute in their place other, imaginary objects that simply are not. If then, one asks the relativist to explain why questions run off to infinity, he has a ready answer. The universe to be known by answering questions is a tissue of internal relations. (Fs)