That our knowledge begins with experience
is a fact not to be doubted. (I. Kant, INtroduction to 1787 edition of the Critique of Pure Reason.)
For Kant, knowledge begins with experience but does not end
with it. Indeed, the kind of knowledge that begins and ends with experience
pertains to the intellect or understanding or instrumental reason (Verstand).
This is the knowledge that is encompassed and dissected in his epistemology.
But beyond this knowledge lies the transcendental field of metaphysics, the
sphere that belongs to Pure Reason (Vernunft) - and that is a rational
projection into the transcendental (hence the “purity” of the Reason, purified
from experience) that is required by the very fact that our natural intellect (Verstand)
is able to reach the a priori knowledge that arises from experience. The mere
fact that our pure reason is able to speculate to a sphere beyond that of
experience shows that this sphere is indeed a requisite of Pure Reason. As we
indicated earlier, this categorization of human reason, of the Logos, erects
two divisions and results in two antinomies between human reason and its
objects: first, the division between the intellect and experience, then the
division between the intellect and the complementary transcendental objects of
Pure Reason – the I, the infinite, Uncreated Creator. In Kant, these moments of
experience on one side and knowledge derived from it on the other are kept
separate, so that what we experience through our sensations (Empfindungen)
is neatly distinguished from the process of deriving knowledge from those
matters that are complementary to experience and that the intellect cannot
countenance.
But before we deal with this transcendental or metaphysical knowledge,
let us first deal with experiential or epistemological knowledge. Apart from
this generic division between “experience” and “knowledge” (the intellect), Kant
operates a division or dissection of the act of perception whereby perception
involves a particular “object” or “experience” about which - upon focusing on
which - the intellect can derive its synthetic a priori conclusions. Yet, we
ought to know that this is simply not so! There is no way known that human
perception can be focused on a particular or distinct object or objects – for
the shatteringly simple fact that even the act of “focusing” on a particular
object within our act of perception is itself an act of selection and
application of and by the intellect! (This is one of Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s
greatest intuitions contained in his The Phenomenology of Perception, a
book dedicated to Husserl.) In other words, not only is there not an “object”
that can be singled out by the act of perception without the aid of the
intellect, but also it is impossible both from the act of perception and the
intervention of the intellect to single out or identify an “object” external to
human perception that is the source of our perceptions and on which the
intellect can exercise its intellective functions! When we perceive or
experience or sense the life-world, this perceptum is an indistinct whole out
of which no single particular object can be singled out – except for the
contemporaneous intervention of our intellect that is able to focus on a
particular object for the sake of drawing practical or synthetic a priori
generalizations! Once again, not only at the general level of knowledge (intellect)
and experience (perception or sensation), Kant has mistaken a logico-conceptual
distinction for one existing in “reality”, in our practico-empirical
experience!
The mistake is to think of the conceptual logical form as
separate from its real content in our intuition! Logic is immanently connected
with the life-world through the human intellect, imagination, intuition and
sensibility: - first, because concepts and thoughts themselves are material
neurological processes; second, because the logical form is inconceivable
without a material content; and third, because logico-mathematics is
fundamentally a tautological operation, a tool that tells us absolutely
nothing new about the experiences to which we apply it. (We follow Bertrand
Russell in accepting that mathematics can be reduced to logic overall – v. his Principia
Mathematica.) The superficial non-contradictoriness of logico-mathematics
induces us to believe falsely that these concepts or thoughts cannot be
material. Yet, logico-mathematical reasoning is contradictory when abstracted
in non-iterative, non-demonstrative forms – because then it incurs well-known
“paradoxes”.
More generally, it is a mistake to think that the universal can
be distinguished from the particular, that somehow the universal is
“extracted” or “derived” or even “abstracted” from the individual, specific
particular – when in reality the universal and the particular are inseverable,
inseparable, indivisible in the unity of human perception! Universal and
particular would be separate if indeed to an internal, subjective
perception-sensation there corresponded an external, objective
“reality”. But this is not so for the simple fact that the perception, the percipiens
and the perceptum are indissolubly linked with the objectum (the
“object”), and both are indissoluble moments of the one “figure” of the
imagination, of the intellect! It is important to distinguish the two moments
of this analysis: first, the percipiens (the human being) is itself material
in the sense that it is not separable – physically and conceptually –
from the perceptum and then the Object no longer understood as ob-ject,
as Gegen-stand, that stands “behind” the Pro-dukt (Kant) of perceiving:
in short, there is no op-position
between perceiver and perceived! And second, the act of perceiving and
the perception interpenetrate each other – sensibility and imagination
are inseparable, inseverable moments of the one reality. The perception,
sensibility, immediately contains the form or figure given to it by the
imagination which, in turn, just as immediately contains the experience of the
perception. The Thing and the Sensation and the Image or Schema all
interpenetrate one another.
Let us summarize this crucial point differently – this time following
Schopenhauer’s famous critique of Kant’s epistemology. According to Kant, what
our senses perceive are different “appearances” of external objects whose
apparent contradictoriness it is the task of the intellect to reconcile so as
to derive a physical “law” that makes all appearances reconcilable. The
difficulty with this approach is that it assumes what is strictly beyond proof
– indeed, beyond experience – that is to say, it assumes that our intellect
must postulate the existence of an object external to our perception of which
neither our perception nor our intellect can have any cognition at all given
that the “appearances” emanated by that external object are both infinite and
indefinite. But if this is so, we are then led to conclude absurdly that our
experience is based on a “thing” – Kant’s thing-in-itself – that is totally
unknowable! Again, if that is so, how is it possible then, as Kant claims in
the very first sentence of the Critique, for us to derive any knowledge
from an experience that is based on an unknowable object – and that therefore
is no proper experience at all because experience must relate to a knowable
object in the first instance? There is clearly an antinomy here between the
Subject and the Object created entirely by Kant’s inability or unwillingness to
concede that the distinction between intellect and perception, between
knowledge and experience is entirely logico-conceptual in nature and wholly
fictitious in practico-empirical reality!
To recapitulate, for Kant there is an Object, an appearance of the
object, the Intellect’s Schema, and then beyond these Pure Reason that governs
the Intellect in the practical and metaphysical, the transcendental
sphere. For Schopenhauer instead the Object and its appearance are one and the
same – representations (Vorstellungen) – so that the Thing-in-Itself
dis-appears as “Thing” or Object and reappears or is replaced as qualitas
occulta by the Will. Each division in this sequence involves an antinomy, which
Schopenhauer perspicuously identified. It is Kant’s positing of these various
qualitates occultae, these inscrutable “things-in-themselves” that constitute
the corresponding antinomies in his critical or transcendental idealism. As
Cacciari put it (in his Krisis), Lukacs’s entire critique of “the
antinomies of bourgeois thought” (in History and Class Consciousness)
would be unthinkable without the “screen” of Schopenhauer’s critique of Kant’s epistemology.
We shall examine this point further in connection with Heidegger’s own critique
of Kant in a later section.
No comments:
Post a Comment