A note on ignorance from Kant



Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is a hugely impressive (but fiendishly difficult) treatment of our knowledge and ignorance.

One of its more clear and plainly-written segments comes in a Note to a section entitled: ‘The Transcendental Ideal’. In this, Kant writes:

“The investigations and calculations of astronomers have taught us much that is wonderful; but the most important lesson we have received from them is the discovery of the abyss of our ignorance in relation to the universe – an ignorance, the magnitude of which reason, without the information thus derived, could never have conceived. This discovery of our deficiencies must produce a great change in the determination of the aims of human reason.”

There is a crucial point here for all of us, that the deficiencies in our claims to knowledge are as much if not more important than all our achievements.

Too often we assume that our knowledge is all-pervading or at least at some point in the future will be all-pervading. But there is no reason to assume this. Kant said (in 1781) that our ignorance of the whole nature of the universe constituted an “abyss”, and this is still true today, despite all the advances in science and technology. Any belief that we do, or can, understand reality in in its totality, is an act of faith on a par with a belief in God. We may believe it, but there is no reason to believe it.

This calls for a certain humility which is not easy to retain in our ‘fast-moving’ world of growing markets, moving peoples and the progressive colonisation of the natural world.

By trying to get on, just to get by, we can’t help but be a cog in the wheel of a system whose advocates claim ultimate right on their side, but with no ultimate justification – just self-justifying ideology. We have no reason to trust them just as we have no reason to trust the Marxists and Islamists and other ideologues who claim self-righteousness and moral superiority from spurious claims to ultimate knowledge.

Comments

  1. ChrisL16 January 2014 at 10:32

    Very much agree. Imagine the leap in knowledge that will have to take place for us to understand the question "What came before the Big Bang?" let alone get anywhere near comprehension of an answer. We're still at the stage where just that question scares people into believing all kinds of unprovable (and non-disprovable) beliefs.

    Perhaps the way forward is to imagine a species elsewhere that has got closer to that level of intelligence, and imagine ourselves in a competition with them in which we're catching up. Maybe not, that only just came to me, but I like the idea.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

All comments, however critical, will be accepted as long as they are not personal and/or abusive.

Popular posts from this blog

Schopenhauer on Hegel: "A flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan."

There's nothing like a good insult or two, and if you're looking for insults in philosophy, you need look no further than Arthur Schopenhauer's comments on his German contemporary, the much more popular and successful Friedrich Hegel.  Schopenhauer suggested as a motto of Hegel’s philosophy some words of Shakespeare: ‘s uch stuff as madmen tongue and brain not’. He added : " Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to ac
Read more

Immigration: our public debate misses the main point

Our public debate on immigration in Britain almost always focuses entirely on money and thereby misses the main point, a point that our political-media class finds difficult to deal with and that many regard as almost illegitimate. This is how people feel . It is emblematic of the state of democracy in Britain that any sort of negative opinions about immigration routinely get shouted down and lambasted as ‘wrong’ by the siren voices of people and institutions, most of which are on the supposedly ‘liberal-left’ side of politics. It is particularly disturbing the way that anyone who talks about negative effects of immigration is routinely attacked (often by hordes of lefty people on Twitter) as ‘racist’. These voices have a huge and in my view poisonous impact on the debate, forcing anyone who wants to make some nuanced points about immigration and identity into defending themselves against charges of racism, which is well established as one of the the worst offences one
Read more

Why Islamists and feminists avoid confronting each other

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of our system of diversity is the way feminists and Islamists avoid directly confronting each other. Their ideologies are utterly opposed to each other, but within the system they are allies, so maintain distance and attack others. We can see this in how feminists resolutely avoid picking up on specifically Islamic-related instances of actual misogyny and discrimination in action. They nearly always stick to generalities and abstractions about the world or society as a whole, as Fawcett Society chief executive Sam Smethers does in telling Owen Jones that , “We have a very misogynistic culture in the UK.” In this version of reality, there is a single culture – or at least all the cultures we have come from the same root - and it is ‘very misogynistic’. This is the ‘patriarchy’ theory that is remarkably popular in the upper echelons of the liberal-left, just as it is among young feminists coming out of their Gender Studies courses at universit
Read more