On the one hand, everything is what it is. On the other, nothing can merely be what it is; or, everything is what it appears to be, and more.
What is this supposed to mean? It goes back to what we were saying a few posts back about the distinction between object and thing: the thing is what it is, while the object is that thing as an object of thought.
Does this not plunge us into a Kantian blunderland and sever the contact between mind and reality? Is this the end of common sense, of the conformity of mind to reality? No, but we do have to explain why. It’s just common courtesy.
Some people think that if we take one step in this direction -- toward the subjective and transcendental side of things -- there’s no getting back to realism, i.e., to objective truth and our adequation to reality.
If that’s the case, then we can only pretend to be different from the subjectivists, relativists, postmodernists, and progressivists. In fact, we must be as unhinged as they are, only pretending to be in touch with a “reality” that is untouchable.
But even to be unhinged and out of touch presupposes a hinge that is attached to something fixed and stable. In other words, ideologies are unhinged from, and out of touch with, reality, not from another unhinged delusion. To put it more simply, the ideologue is stubbornly tethered. To unreality.
But hold on: if we can only know objects (of thought) and not things-in-themsleves, how then are we hinged, and to what is the hinge affixed?
As Simon writes, "this is where the skeptical doubt comes in.” Since "the thing extends beyond the perceived object,” it leaves us with the question of how we are to "get hold of the thing to compare it with the object and its idea…. To the extent that it exceeds the object, the thing in itself, by itself, is something unknown.”
Turns out that this is the subject of chapter 13 of Lonergan’s Insight, The Notion of Objectivity. I mentioned the other day that I’ve been climbing this mountain of a text with the help of a sherpa named Terry Tekippe, who wrote a book called An Introductory Guide to Insight. Mainly, it helps one skip past the exceedingly pedantic parts, and focus on the merely pedantic ones.
Tekippe confronts the same question outlined above, for “if the known is merely a subjective persuasion, and not a knowing of objective truth, it would not be worth much.” Moreover, focusing on the structure of knowing would seem to be an “unpromising approach,” for
If we are seeking objectivity, why would we look for it in the knowing subject? We distinguish between objectivity and subjectivity. Surely subjectivity would be sought in the subject, but why would objectivity?
It reminds me of something Petey once said, that “Paradise is walled by complementarities.” I think I finally understand what he meant. For it is actually an arbitrary move to radically distinguish object and subject, as if they are two completely different dimensions. Once we separate these complementary modes, it is indeed difficult if not impossible to rejoin them.
But what if “objectivity, paradoxically, requires a subject to be objective”? Better yet, what if it’s not even a paradox but an easily graspable principle?
Let's put it this way: everyone begins life as a progressive, in the sense that we were all children once, and children don’t think the same way adults do. This doesn’t just involve less “content” but a different form of knowing.
Since I know a great deal about developmental psychology, I could play that card, but I will resist the temptation to do so and simply cling to our sherpa, who writes that
maturing as a knower requires learning to discriminate sharply between fantasy and reality. Fantasy is subjective; reality is objective. But note that this growing ability is not in the objects surrounding the child, nor even in the objects of his imagination. The growing sense of objectivity, then, is in the maturing child.
In short, objectivity is in the subject. You could say that this is just a dishonest trick, but it is actually a way to avoid the trickery of not even dishonest subjectivists who locate truth in the subject in order to deny Truth and elevate the will to power.
What is objectivity, after all? We all know it when we see it, if only in light of its absence; for example, it is the opposite of whatever the gaslight media is trying to tell us, or it is what they systematically avoid telling us.
In the first place, objectivity "consists in distinguishing oneself from other things,” which is, speaking of tricks, a neat one. How is it accomplished, and by virtue of what principle is it even possible? How did we ever escape animal planet, i.e., from the mere registration of the senses to the immaterial registration of the registration?
My dog doesn’t take a disinterested stance toward treats, and wonder about other dogs who might be more deserving. I can’t even recall how many times I’ve asked her “who’s a good girl?,” and not once have I received a satisfactory answer.
As we advance in cognitive maturity, we gain judgment and are able to make sound judgments. And what is a judgment?
I’m going to go with Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, who says that the soul of every judgment is the verb to be.
And what is that supposed to mean? It simply means that in the end -- or at the end of our thinking -- mature judgments come down to a simple matter of Yes or No: either it is, or it is not.
To be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment