On Method
& Inquiry
by Alraune
Philosophic Method
To undertake an honest inquiry into
anything we must first begin by questioning what it is that we can
know with the utmost certainty; that is, that in which we are most
capable of holding the least amount of doubt concerning the surety of
truth in regard to our knowledge. We are capable of ascertaining
that this is where we must begin our inquiry for the simplicity of
it, or rather, we can little doubt that if we are incapable of
approaching the simplest and easiest of a thing we will most
certainly fail to ascertain those things which are of greater
complexity. This system of inquiry is known as methodic doubt
(also known as hyperbolic doubt),
and it is comprised of four steps:
- The acceptance only of information which can be affirmed true with certainty.
- The dismantling of truths into smaller units.
- Solving the simpler problems first.
- Making complete lists of further problems.
The system of methodic doubt was first
used by the French philospher, mathematician, and physicist René
Descartes. In brief, it was through this system Descartes deduced
that, putting aside all perceived things, it would seem that there is
but one thing which can be known with a higher sort of certainty than
all other things, and that knowledge is: I am, I exist; I am that
"I" am known by myself to be; or I think, therefore I am
(cogito ergo sum). It is from this very simple and seemingly
obvious; indeed, even seemingly insignificant conclusion, that two
other conclusions were able to be further deduced, and what would
come to be known as the Laws of Thought would be firmly
established, or:
- The First Fact – I exist.
- The First Principle – Something cannot be that which it is not.
- The First Condition – I am capable of knowing.
The Laws of Thought state that an
individual can know they exist; that therefore they are capable of
knowing; and that because one can know they exist and that they are
capable of knowing, it becomes apparent that something cannot be that
which it is not (e.g. both existent and nonexistent). These
three primary truths must be accepted at face value; that is,
as they are, or all manner of reason must necessarily break down.
Subjective Truth & The Axiom of
Self
Descartes' famous deduction brought
one other very important revelation to light; that revelation being
that, all knowledge, and therefore truth, which we are capable of
knowing, is purely of an idealistic nature. That is, everything
which we think we know through both deduction and perception is
restricted to the mind of self. In other words, it may be that there
exists an actual material realm which is divorced from the realm of
ideas, but even if such is the case, we are, as conscious
individuals, entirely incapable of knowing such a realm actually
exists with any degree of certainty without first accepting the
inescapable truth that everything we know to be true is, in all
actuality, purely of the realm of the mind.
Furthermore, this realm of ideas from
whence we perceive and reason all things, is of a purely subjective
frame of reference. It is not necessary that all things which exist
must be of some sort of subjective idealism, but that all that
we know of existence, as individuals, must be from the reference of
our own subjective consciousness. In other words, so far as reason
is concerned there is no escaping the fact that the root of all truth
which any individual is capable of ascertaining is firmly predicated
on subjectivity (i.e. the "I" in the Laws of
Thought) and the reality of the realm of ideas (i.e. the
"thinking" that the "I" is, or is doing).
Now, certainly there has been and
there still exists some considerable debate regarding dualism
and the mind-body dichotomy and the philosophies of
materialism (from which physicalism
eventually developed) versus idealism,
and in this debate is contained the underlying question as to whether
or not ideas arise from purely physical properties, physical
properties arise from ideas, or there are in actuality two distinct
realms of the physical and ideas; however, even if one were to
suppose that ideas arise from the physical realm, it would not negate
the fact that any philosophical position taken is necessarily
predicated on subjectivity due to the a priori
truth on which all empirical knowledge rests. That is, one cannot
experience one's existence but rather one who exists experiences
things. The existence of self is ultimately a very personal
existential revelation on which all subsequent rational thought is
based (i.e. the "I"
who is thinking).
That being said,
it is not necessary that at this time we rationalize what constitutes
the body and the mind, how they interact; or indeed, if they even
exist independent of one another, but rather only that we simply
recognize that the subjective self is the starting point of that
certainty of truth which we are most capable of obtaining.
Nature As
Reference
Once we recognize
that the subjective self is the axiom on which all our future
knowledge rests we are then able to begin asking the next most
obvious question which arises: What am I, or what is I, and where
did that which I recognize to be I come from?
The answer to at
least part of our question would appear to be readily apparent; in
that, if I immediately recognize that there is something which I
refer to as myself, then there must also be that which I consider not
to be myself, or I; for the First Principle clearly declares that
something cannot be that which it is not. What is that which
differentiates that "something" which is "I" from
that "something" which is not "I"?
Self-awareness. The self is cognisant of what it is in contrast to
what it is experiencing. Hence, we readily know that the self is
present, and it is from that subjective frame of reference that self
is also able to determine that something else is present which self
is experiencing.
However, we know
that experience is necessarily subjective, and therefore anything
which the self experiences must be known through thought, and thus is
deemed to be of the idealistic realm. We also know that in order to
have an experience one must first exist, and thus is deemed to be of
the physical realm; therefore, it must be concluded that thought is
contingent upon the mind, and the mind is contingent upon thought.
Now, it could be that the natural realm is merely thought eminating
from the self, and thus, is not truly separate from it, but merely an
action which the self takes; it could be that the idealistic realm is
eminating from the physical self, and thus also not truly separate,
but merely a process of the physical self; or it could be that the
natural realm is entirely separate from the idealistic realm, but so
far as the self is capable of knowing, the two are both necessarily
separate and contingent upon one another. Thought cannot exist
without first having the self, and the self cannot exist without
first having thought. In other words, any sense of self requires
thought, and any self-awareness requires the existence of self.
"I" am
both a physical, that is existent being, and a being of ideas, and
furthermore, I can know no other way in which any thing which exists
can exist except both in the physical realm and the realm of ideas.
Taken one step further, I cannot know with any degree of certainty
the existence of any thing without also accepting the idea of that
thing as a necessary contingent of its existence. Although there may
be ideas without physical representations and there may be physical
things without idealogical representations, I, and all logic and
reason which is founded upon the First Fact and the other Laws of
Thought which any individual rationing "self" uses, must
accept that the most "I" am capable of knowing with the
utmost degree of certainty, is that ideas and physical existence are
necessarily separate realms or states which are contingent upon one
another.
Thus, we may
conclude that a second axiom of truth exists which is necessarily
part of the axiom of the subjective self – nature. That is, nature
and the subjective self are both two separate parts of the same
whole.
This does not mean
that a thing is both that which it is and that which it is not, which
would violate the First Principle, but rather that there are two
polar halves of the same whole: I and existence. Taken further, it
then follows that there can be no existence without self-awareness,
and that it may be that there can be no thing that exists which does
not contain some sense of self – panpsychism.
In conclusion, we
now have two frames of reference, which are contingent upon one
another, by and from which we may obtain knowledge of a higher sort
of certainty: the subjective mind of self and nature. The
subjective mind of self looks to nature as a frame of reference
concerning the truth of "what is".
Revelation in Nature
By using our method of inquiry and the
consequential axioms which it yields, we are able to conclude with a
higher sort of certainty than we have in all other things, that
nature (i.e. the universe) is equipped to provide us with a
reference whereby we might be guided toward an existential truth;
that is, because nature is, in part, a representation of what is
likely to be true, then it also likely contains, at least in and
throughout the entirety of itself, part of the revelation of any
truth which is.
It is because of this realization that
we look to nature as a whole, and in its entirety, as a means by
which to discern what is and should be and what is not or should not
be. Among the many questions nature is able to aid us in answering
are:
- Questions of truth and reason – Nature shows us that truth can only be known subjectively, and that reason is written into nature, of which the self is part, and that such reason essentially consists of logical consequence, or rather the relation between propositions as "either, or" and "if, then".
- Questions of reality and existence – Nature provides us with a reference by which we might determine what is real and what is existent, such as the necessary contingent (so far as the self is capable of knowing) of physical existence with that of consciousness.
- Questions of purpose and meaning – Through nature we can see that purpose and meaning are found in both individual liberty and interdependence, as parts of the whole, in which our own subjective experience plays a role in conjunction with its utility and support for the whole of existence.
- Questions of ethics, justification, and moral behavior – Nature, since we are part of it and it is part of us, clearly reveals to us that that which upholds the sustainment of the whole, to the greatest degree; that is, with the least degree of unnecessary hinderence and interference upon others, and sustains the self by means of the most positive experience possible, must be that which is justified and ethical.
Conclusion
It is by using this method of inquiry
that we are able to develop our philosophical system from which is
derived the systematic theological presentation and argument for our
particular Neopagan belief system; that is, a set of logical and
coherent revelations which culminate in a full blown system of faith
and which underline the basis for our own subjective world view.
