Curently, I am undertaking a leisurely reading of many different thinkers, striving to construct a metanarrative about moderation, egoism and individualism coalescing to provide the self-realizing agent the means and wherewithal to really make something remarkable of herself.
I rather admire Aristotelian logic and a common sense approach to indicating that there is objective reality beyond our perceiving and experiencing. Spiritual and material objects exist out there, and we can directly detect them as they are, especially as individuators, without illusions and preconceptions.
Both Forms and things exist out there independent of subjective consciousness. Extreme scepticism, as in solipsism, is unlikely to be how the world is. Radical subjective materialists like Stirner deny that any abstraction is more than a spook. I reject his total rebuffing of abstractions.
I believe and accept that these sceptical thinkers serve a useful critique of worshiping any abstraction, any ism, of unthinking embracing of any point of view.
Infallible or intellectual knowledge about the world and the other world may be ascertainable in regard to the everyday world, the people and objects in it, beyond my subjective state and my interacting with them. Still, the moderate in me agrees with fallibilists about empirical claims and other statements that more than probable certainty is usually as close as we can land towards certainty.
Some dogmatic assertions may be available to us, and indeed to absolutely true, and we might understand and posses the appropriate words, as concepts, to exemplify our understanding of these concepts expressing real knowledge about the world.
Thus, it is that a modified fallibilistic stance, a confidence that we can glean probable knowledge about many or most things, some complete knowledge of some things, and toal inability to comprehend some absurdities, mysteries or puzzles--this is moderate epistemology, guiding us to a moderate ontology.
No comments:
Post a Comment