~ Rationalism and logic - part one ~

Please note - These ideas were formulated from my reading many years ago, and I make no apologies for their obvious naivity. However, they do hold for me, a personal record of my thoughts and feelings at that time, and, therefore, I feel they are worth a mention. It would be easy, to re-write and edit them, and improve on the quality, but then that would not be an honest representation of the original thoughts, and feelings. So for this reason, I have left them intact, apart from correcting any obvious spelling or grammatical errors. I have, however, added a footnote to clarify the reason and motive for this short piece. Thankyou for reading.

Idealism. Descartes, ("I think, therefore I am") - argues that our experience of the world around us is limited by our senses, and it is only through Rationalism and thought that we can hope to un-lock any real understanding of the way things really are.

Berkeley and Hume take these ideas even further and dismiss any sensiblilty, (use of the senses), whatsoever, to explain the world.

Kant disagrees with the distinct separation of Asthetic experience, (sensibility), and Analytic concepts, (Rationalism), and shows how both these are connected and required to fulfill a true understanding of the world.

Logic. The application of pure reason cannot be applied to providing concepts about the world because concepts and their discovery rely on an inspirational quality and logic does not concern itself with inspirations or ideas only facts.
Logic is therefore limited within it's own descriptions of things, for example, 'all things exist' is logically correct. The statement does not possess any contradiction within itself, and adds no conclusions. The statement, however, 'all things exist because I experience them', adds the contradiction because another person must also experience these things, not just myself.

Kant's ideas express the requirement of Sensibility, (use of the senses), and understanding - to experience phenomenal objects, (things). But he shows that one cannot simply apply sensibility to describe phenomenal objects without the ability of conscious awareness of oneself and existing in relation to the object, ie- 'At the moment I am seeing..etc', or moreover ' On the basis of experience I judge I can see...etc'.

This may be an abstract and an over-necessary statement, but it must be remembered that animals are mostly unaware of a self-being and cannot recognise themselves in a reflection as opposed to that of another animal. The exception to the rule being an adult Chimpanzee, which can recognize itself and whether, for example, it was wearing a hat.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED however, that a human child also cannot recognise it's own reflection up to the age of 9 months or so, or approximately until it can move and hold and experience objects.

So perhaps now the idea is also self-contradictory in the fact that the human child only becomes self-aware as a result of the experience of objects or sensibility, perhaps this whole concept of objects and oneself are inextricably connected from this early experience and stored in the brain conceptually.

So what came first self-awareness or the experience of phenomenal objects without this self-awareness ?
Perhaps the example with mirrors and reflections is mis-guiding, surely a child becomes self-aware long before it experiences it's own reflection, (the latter being simply another new experience to the child). The child becomes self-aware when it understands the fact that by crying it can gain attention, and later even control the actions of it's mother.

This also demonstrates how concepts and the exact use of language are essential to express understanding and ideas. In the above example we all, often without the slightest second thought, express our experience with relation to ourselves, 'I', 'We'.

Kant argues that although there is a distinction between concepts and sensibility,(experience by way of our senses) - they are by no means inseparable and must exist together. Therefore the idea of using pure Rationalism, (or Idealism), to explain knowledge must in the end fail.

Our sense impressions together with empirical knowledge allows us to apply concepts and understanding to the world around us, this understanding of concepts itself, having been founded by our early experience of objects and self awareness. Kant's term for this is Sensibility.
In other words, he implies one cannot have pure understanding without sensibility and also experience.

Knowledge a priori

This is not merely the description for a set of known and accepted empirical concepts that have themselves been founded in the experience of others, (ie. the sun always rises in the East because the Earth rotates etc...).
It can easily be assumed, mistakenly, that this type of common place knowledge is indeed a priori, because it is accepted without question, but knowledge a priori must be more than this, and have basis without the need for experience.

Kant shows that pure a priori knowledge lies in cause and effect, whereby an effect can be explained and observed as a rule of the cause. The cause being necessary for the effect, (necessity), and the outcome or effect a universal rule, (universality).
Note the cause is necessary for the effect and thus the effect is a necessary outcome of it's cause. A good example for this is simple rules in arithmetic, although passed down as empirical knowledge from the ancient Greeks, nonetheless knowledge a priori, (2+2=4).

Language & Philosophy

Empirical knowledge and science fails to answer the fundamental questions of ‘why’ things appear to us as they do, or moreover, ‘why’ we possess the means to even question them. To pursue with reason and try to bridge the differences between the sciences and theology we apply the use of philosophy.

The measure of philosophy is in the use and understanding of language and the ability to converse ideas of concepts and notions to others. Without this ability to communicate these ideas or concepts, we could not possibly hope to expand our knowledge of the world in any field. It is most important to emphasise the use of language in philosophical discussions.

Philosophies often attempt to discuss concepts and theological ideas, and even tackle other philosophies; so it is most important that views are expressed and explained in a clear, precise manner. How could one possibly hope to express ideas and notions to others accurately, without the use of specific terms?

Take for example the concepts of simple arithmetic 2+2=4. This would appear to be fundamental to our knowledge and has been expressed since the ancient Greeks as a rule of cause and effect. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant would describe understanding of this example as ‘a priori’ knowledge. That is, a rule we can accept logically, and apply without the need for our own sensibility or experience to discover or learn it as fact. A rule we can accept as truth without question. There is no other outcome for the problem 2+2=4. We all understand the concept easily, and like the ancient Greeks discovered centuries ago, mathematics is a fundamental truth and source of logic.

Yet the real question is how do we actually understand the concepts of 2+2=4, or even 3+3=6 etc? How do we communicate these concepts to each other ? The answer lies in the use of language and comprehension. It would be impossible to discuss these things without the use and definitions of language, and the accuracy with which this language is applied to concepts such as arithmetic and mathematics.

Footnote - Immanuel Kant was a Prussian philosopher who spent ten years writing his epic, "Critique of Pure Reason", (first published 1781). This was a time when the philosophy of Science was dominated with debates and arguments between empiricism and rationalism. The rationalists of the day argued that everything could be reasoned using pure thought and logic alone, Kant disagreed with this ideal.
Kant later wrote two more "Critiques" - "Critique of Practical Reason", and "Critique Of Judgment".

It is worth noting, that Kant's argument in favour of using both sensibility, (the senses), and understanding, (reasoning), relies on the awareness of the self. For example, you cannot experience an object without the self, or subject. This is quite clearly dualist reasoning, but also points towards the importance of self awareness, and ego, to perceive phenomena and the world around us.