Process, Insight, and Empirical Method
An
Argument for the Compatibility of the Philosophies of Alfred North
Whitehead and Bernard J. F. Lonergan and Its Implications for
Foundational Theology.
A
Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Divinity School, The
University of Chicago, for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
December 1983
Thomas Hosinski, C.S.C.
Chapter III:
The Influence of Empirical Method in Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s Analyses
of Human Subjectivity [Continued]
Whitehead’s Analysis of Human Subjectivity [Continued]
Consciousness,
Rationality, and Knowing [Continued]
The Fundamental
Problem of Epistemology
It is widely held that knowledge
must be a form of relatedness between the knower and the known. The
fundamental problem of modern epistemology has been the difficulty of
illustrating that knowledge is an actual relationship between humans as
knowers and the world of which human knowers are a part. Be-cause of the
pervasive influence of the sensationalist doctrine, the human subject
has been left entertaining private thoughts with no visible means of
escape from solipsism, or has been abandoned to skepticism concerning
the reality or actual nature of the world in which it lives, and moves,
and has its being.
See, among many
possible references, SMW, IX, pp. 209-211, 216-219. See also
Thesis, pp. 235-242; I am here discussing the epistemological import
of what I discussed there more generally.
The fundamental contribution of Whitehead’s ontological approach to
knowledge is that it illustrates convincingly that our knowing, however
limited, is an actual relationship between ourselves as actualities and
the actuality of the world we live in and partially know. This is what
we presume in naive experience and in scientific inquiry, and this is
what Whitehead establishes by a metaphysical analysis of the operations
and processes underlying our con-scious reflection and upon which our
reflective knowing is based. In a sense the whole of Whitehead’s
philosophy is a sustained attempt to elucidate this fact and rescue
human knowing and acting from the paralyzing fate that must result if
knowledge is viewed in excessive abstraction from the ground of
actuality.
Knowledge is a form of relationship
between the actuality of the knower and the actuality of the known. It
is thus a particular form or “species” of the wider truth that “all
relatedness had its foundation in the relatedness of actualities . . .”
[PR, Preface (M, p. ix; C, p. xiii).]
The point that must be noticed about actuality and our experiencing
is the insistent particularity of
things experienced and of the act of experiencing. Bradley’s
doctrine—Wolf-eating-Lamb as a universal qualifying the absolute—is a
travesty of the evidence. That wolf eat that lamb at
that spot at that time: the wolf knew it; the lamb knew it;
and the carrion birds knew it.
PR, II.1.ii (M, p. 69;
C, p. 43). In British usage “eat” can express the past tense.
Whitehead cites Bradley’s Logic, Bk. I, Ch. II, Sec. 42.
If knowing is a part of our experiencing, then as our experience, so our
knowing. An act of knowing is a particular relationship between one
particular actuality—the knowing subject at that moment—and another
particular actuality—the thing known at that moment. But this simple
statement conceals the infinite complexity of actualities in their
concrete fulless. Whitehead’s entire metaphysics is an attempt to
elucidate the infinite ground from which the human subject knowing at
this moment springs, and without which not only knowledge but life and
existence of any sort could not be. His metaphysics is also an attempt
to elucidate the ultimate importance of our reason and our reflective
knowing, to cast light upon its metaphysical and transcendent function
in actuality. It is to show the ultimate ground and the ultimate worth
of each particular human subject and each moment of that subject’s
reasoning and knowing that Whitehead approaches epistemological
questions from an ontological point of view. But this evaluation can
only be substantiated by our intervening analysis.
The methodological reason why
Whitehead approaches epistemology from ontology is that this is the
empirical approach, the one which has always been followed in the
philosophical tradition.
A method is a way of dealing with
data, with evidence. What are the evidences to which philosophy
appeals?
It is customary to contrast the
objective approach of the ancient Greeks with the subjective approach of
the moderns, initiated by Descartes, and further emphasized by Locke and
Hume.
But whether we be ancient or modern,
we can only deal with things, in some sense, experienced. The Greeks
dealt with things that they thought they experienced, and Hume merely
asked, What do we experience? This is exactly the question which Plato
and Aristotle thought that they were answering. . . .
The difference between ancients and
moderns is that the ancients asked what have we experienced, and the
moderns asked what can we experience. But in both cases, they asked
about things transcending the act of experience which is the occasion of
asking.
AI, XV, iv, pp. 223,
224. This chapter of AI, entitled “Philosophic Method,” is one
of Whitehead’s clearest defenses of the legitimacy .of his method.
The difficulties of modern epistemology, Whitehead is convinced, are in
the main the result of beginning from too narrow an analysis of human
experience and taking that limited aspect of experience as the ultimate
data of knowing.
The translation of Hume’s question
from “What do we experience” to “What can we experience”
makes all the difference, though in his “Treatise” Hume makes the
transition, time and again, without explicit comment. For modern
epistemology the latter form of the question—with its substitution of
can for do—is accompanied by the implicit presupposition of a
method, namely that of placing ourselves in an introspective attitude of
attention so as to determine the given components of experi-ence
in abstraction from our private way of subjective reaction, by reflexion,
conjecture, emotion, and purpose.
In this attitude of strained
attention, there can be no doubt as to the answer. The data are the
patterns of sensa provided by the sense organs. This is the
sensationalist doctrine of Locke and Hume. Later, Kant has interpreted
the patterns as forms introduced by the mode of reception provided by
the recipient. Here Kant introduces the Leibnizian notion of the
self-development of the experiencing subject. Thus for Kant the data
are somewhat narrower than for Hume: they are the sensa devoid of their
patterns. Hume’s general analysis of the consequences of this doctrine
stands unshaken. So also does his final reflection that the philosophic
doctrine fails to justify the practice of daily life. The justification
of this procedure of modern epistemology is two-fold, and both of its
branches are based upon mistakes. The mistakes go back to the Greek
philosophers. What is modern, is the exclusive reliance upon them. [AI,
XV, v, pp. 224-225.]
The two mistakes are, first, the assumption that the five senses are the
sole “avenues of communication with the external world,” and second, the
presup-position that “the sole way of examining experience is by acts of
conscious introspective analysis.”
[AI, XV, vi, vii, p. 225.]
This attitude of conscious
introspec-tive analysis “lifts the clear-cut data of sensation into
primacy, and cloaks the vague compulsions and derivations which form the
main stuff of experience.”
[AI, XV, vii,
p. 226.]
Whitehead proceeds to summarize the
types of human experience I have discussed in the two preceding,
subsections, the common practice of human beings and, how language
interprets practice. He concludes:
Thus an appeal to literature, to
common language, to common practice, at once carries us away from the
narrow basis for epistemology provided by the sense-data disclosed in
direct introspection. The world within experience is identical with the
world beyond experience, the occasion of experience is within the world
and the world is within the occasion. The categories have to elucidate
this paradox of the connectedness of things:--the many things, the one
world without and within.
[AI, XV, viii, p. 228.]
Methodologically, epistemology has
always begun from a base involving particular ontological presup-positions
concerning the nature of our experience and the method of analyzing that
experience. Whitehead sees that the fundamental problems of modern
epistemology are the result of the narrowness of this presupposed
ontological base with its correlative method of analysis, and that these
problems cannot be resolved until epistemology begins instead with a
more adequate rendering of the nature of our experience and the
recognition that its nature demands a different mode of analysis. The
presupposed ontological theory and the method of analysis in
epistemological study are connected. For “theory dictates method . . .
This close relation of theory to method partly arises from the fact that
the relevance of evidence depends on the theory which is dominating the
discussion.”
[AI, XV, i, p. 220.] Since
the presuppositions of the sensationalist doctrine have been the theory
dominating modern epistemo-logical discussion, the first requirement in
extricating human knowing from the problems in which it has become mired
is the development of a new ontological theory capable of illuminating
the evidence ignored by the sensationalist theory.
An example is afforded when we
inter-rogate experience for direct evidence of the interconnectedness of
things. If we hold with Hume, that the sole data originating reflective
experience are impressions of sensation, and also if we also admit with
him the obvious fact that no one such impression by its own individual
nature discloses any information as to another such impression, then on
that hypothesis the direct evidence for intercon-nectedness vanishes. .
. . But if we hold, as for example in Process and Reality, that
all final individual actualities have the metaphysical character of
occasions of experience, then on that hypothesis the direct evidence as
to the connectedness of one’s immediate present occasion of experience
with one’s immediately past occasions, can be validly used to suggest
categories applying to the connectedness of all occasions in nature. [Ibid., pp.
220-221.]
The issue, in brief, concerns the “data originating reflective
experience.” In the ontological theory I have been considering in this
chapter, Whitehead is trying to show that the data originating
reflective experience are much more complex than has been assumed by
epistemological theory. Further, he is trying to show that the reason
modern epistemology has had such great difficulty resolving its funda-mental
problem—namely, illustrating that knowing is an actual relation between
the knower and the objective world known—lies precisely in the
inadequacies of its presuppositions concerning the data originating
reflective experience. The ontological approach is necessary in order
to show the metaphysical ground of the possibility of knowing.
I must now consider the elaboration
of Whitehead’s ontological theory for the higher phases of experience in
order to show how that theory casts new light on cognition and
epistemology.
Forward to
Propositions and Propositional Feelings: Simple Comparative Feelings
Back to
Table of Contents