Phenomena == Noumena?
It seems like Descartes was wrong with his Cogito. It does not follow that ‘I think, therefore I exist.’ That is actually an abbreviated syllogism which goes more like ‘Premise 1: Whatever thinks exists. Premise 2: I think. Conclusion: therefore I exist.’ Unfortunately, any sufficiently powerful demon could be manipulating him into believing in the truth of that logical construction. Even without the evil demon, syllogisms can already be faulted for infinite regress: particularly, they imply a third term that says ‘if Premise 1 and Premise 2 then conclusion’, which can only be justified by a fourth term. Nasty! But something can be salvaged of the Cogito. Most subjective experiences (with the obvious exception of self-deceptions) must qualify as true. For example, the Cogito states ‘I think’. That must be true, because I am experiencing it, and am the sole determiner of its truth value. No one but I can say and mean truthfully ‘I feel pain’, ‘I am hungry’, etc. Which leads me to the conclusion that we can know some noumena: subjective experiences. Isn’t it amazing that the noumena so avidly searched after should be found in something as nebulous as emotions and feelings? A wonderful reversal of the truth value of objective and subjective observations; not to mention a great argument for relativism.
Update: I just realized the unreason of my arguments. If I were asleep, I could dream I was thirsty, or I felt pain, but neither would necessarily be true. Aargh!
Possibly relevant posts:
- Without wisdom (12/15/2004)
- My blog, talking ’bout my blog (3/13/2002)
- Election and other evil notions (8/4/2001)