THE THEOCENTRIC MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE

[apperception]

Or: Why Jesus Died for the MaterialistsThe transcendental realist believes we have knowledge of things as they are in themselves. He evaluates and analyzes human knowledge in terms of its conformity with the standard of cognition theoretically achievable by an "infinite" or "absolute" intellect that has a "God's-eye-view" on things. Therefore,

Comments

[essius]

Would you label the general medieval position as committed to transcendental realism? Aquinas especially?

[apperception]

Yes, and to a theocentric model of knowledge, as well.

I researched this a little in Aquinas's Summa Theologica a few years ago. If you'd like, I can provide detailed examples.

[essius]

That would be appreciated, especially as Aquinas is destined to be my specialty in years to come.

[jeffrock]

The transcendental realist believes we have knowledge of things as they are in themselves.

I believe we have knowledge of some things as they are in themselves (integers, for instance) and potentially knowledge of Everything in Itself. Does this make me a transcendental realist?

[jeffrock]

Woo Hoo!

Count me in then.

[jeffrock]

It's obvious how the 16th and 17th century rationalists subscribed to this model

I would argue that they were justified in doing so-- the abstract objects permittable in a rationalist metaphysics can be said to be known "in themselves" (as perception of them is direct and they are nonchanging objects).

but it is equally true that so-called "scientific" materialists appeal to this view.

These folks, I think, would not be justified in holding this view for at least two reasons.

1) The objects of the material world can only be known through indirect and incomplete representations to the mind-- thus even if we are perceiving things "as they are" we have no possible way to establish or justify the claim.

2) Everything in the world is in constant flux-- how can we perceive something "as it is" if it's constantly changing?

[apperception]

It's obvious how the 16th and 17th century rationalists subscribed to this [theocentric] model [of knowledge]

I would argue that they were justified in doing so-- the abstract objects permittable in a rationalist metaphysics can be said to be known "in themselves" (as perception of them is direct and they are nonchanging objects).Whether or not they're justified in doing so is not a question I am trying to answer at the moment

[derspassvogel]

"The transcendental realist believes we have knowledge of things as they are in themselves."

See, this is the mislocation of your either\or from your last post.

It is also possible to hold that we potentially have knowledge of objects independent of subjective a priori conditions of sensibility but that not everyone does have such knowledge.

[apperception]

If there are a priori subjective conditions of sensibility, then it is analytically true that every human being has them, and therefore it is analytically true that no human being has knowledge of objects independently of them.

[unnamed525]

Knowledge analytically requires sensibility only if all knowledge is through the senses.

[apperception]

I have no idea.

What does this have to do with what I just wrote and what I was responding to?

[pooperman]

You got your religious metaphor screwed up, btw.

Jesus, the Word, started in heaven (transcendental) and came down to earth (empirical) to live as a man (anthropocentric), mired in the shit of material existence. That is, the contextless, transcendental language (such as mathematics) that describes a priori knowledge has been ripped from its exalted, sans-context, and lofty place and force-fed meaning until it serves the materialist as a very useful descriptor (model/metaphor).

These words need not attempt to describe things in themselves (i.e. literally). They can easily be limited (by admitting to their metaphorical nature) to describe our understanding of experience, or how the objects of our experience "conform to our conditions of cognition".

Now, the rest of the story has Christ going from dead to resurrected to an ascention back into heaven. Not sure why--perhaps he needed some good metaphorical structure, some nice a posteriori masonry, with which to build the "Fortress of Wisdom"--the new Tower of Babel?

(You started

[nanikore]

Since he knows nothing in that department I'll excuse his utter mishandling of the matter

[apperception]

Jesus, the Word, started in heaven (transcendental) and came down to earth (empirical)

The distinction between transcendental and empirical is not the distinction between heaven and earth. "Transcendental" describes a level of metaphilosophical reflection upon experience, while "empirical" is the level at which we distinguish between objective and subjective in the ordinary sense. (See my recent post on this subject.)