Most people are realists, that is, they get their knowledge from using
common sense or logic. Almost everyone get knowledge through our eyes
and sometimes our ears. Other forms of valid knowledge we get through
the verbal testimony of others, inference, and through the scriptures,
that is, /anything that is recorded by any means, graphic or textual./
But, are these forms of knowledge the only valid means of obtaining
knowledge? /Epistemology/ is the investigation of what distinguishes
justified belief from opinion.
So, let's review the valid means of knowledge:
* Sense experience
* Verbal testimony
* Inference
* Scriptures
We transcendentalists postulate that Consciousness is the ultimate
reality - without it people would not be conscious - there would be no
perception. This is a dirt simple fact of life requiring no further
proof. No rational person would claim that they don't exist, unless they
were insane or demented - it's just not rational. We are conscious of
ourselves enough to know that we exist and are self-conscious.
So, we are agreed that the physical world contains numerous
contradictions. Everyone experiences the world mostly with their senses:
mainly our eyes and our ears; sometimes taste and smell. We observe the
world over time and take note with our senses: we see a flower; watch an
event; hear a sound or a voice and from our sense impressions we deduce
and analyze. But, sometimes the sense do NOT perceive the world exactly
as it is. When sense perceptions do not agree, or are contradictory and
conflicting, which sense should we accept as true?
If appearances derived through one sensory channel appear contradictory,
it is natural to appeal to other senses for corroboration. We hear the
distant carpenter's hammer strike once after we see it stop striking. We
see lightning flashes now, but hear thunder later. The steam of a
distant whistle stops while the sound continues. How do we decide
between conflicting senses?
What are thoughts? Are thoughts physical objects that we can see with
our eyes or hear with our ears?" /Or, are thoughts transcendental
sources of valid knowledge? /
>
In a previous post, (Naive Realism) this fellow proposed that:
/"Meditators are transcendentalists, whereas naive realists are
materialists." /
That report was a reflective account of an un-reflective view. For,
strictly speaking, the moment a naive realist reflects upon his view
he is no longer completely naive. According to my professor, A.J.
Bahm, the naive realist is something of a strawman set up by
epistemologists to represent us in our un-reflective moments. This
straw man may not be quite like any of us, or you, because most of us
have reflected somewhat on the transcendental view as opposed to the
materialistic view. Yet, we can recognize that it represents a view we
transcendentalists hold much of the time.
In order to remind the good reader of all the salient points covered
in that cogent post by this fellow, it would be perhaps beneficial to
review here, to wit, those salient points:
There are six statements which summarize the doctrine of a
Transcendentalist:
1. Objects do NOT exist independently of their being known. They
cannot endure or continue to exist without being experienced by
anyone. Knowing objects creates them.
2. Objects derive their existence or nature from the knower.
3. Objects, including their qualities, are affected merely by being
known. Knowledge of objects changes their nature.
4. Objects are not as they are and are not as they seem. Or, as we
sometimes say, appearances are not realities. What seems obviously
so is sometimes not so.
5. Objects are not known directly; that is, there is something
between them and our knowledge of them. We do not experience them
exactly as they are because they are distorted by the intervening
senses.
6. Objects are not public; that is, they can not be known by more
than one person. exactly alike. Several people can see the same
object and see it differently.
Are we agreed so far?
