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

[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.

All I'm doing at this point (and have been doing over the past few weeks) is pointing out the difference between the standpoint of transcendental idealism and the standpoint of transcendental realism. That difference, with which you are at this point no doubt familiar, is that the former acknowledges the role in human experience of a priori conditions of knowledge, while the latter does not. In this latest post, all I wanted to show is that the transcendental realist standpoint can also be described as a theocentric model of knowledge, while the transcendental idealist standpoint can also be described as an anthrocentric model of knowledge. At this moment, whether or not one is justified in adopting one or the other of these positions is to me beside the point. I merely want people to understand what the positions are.