If all knowledge is empirical, all knowledge must be subject to the same constraints strict empiricism is. Despite the limitless times a man might have seen an object fall due to gravity, he cannot predict if the next object will fall. Empiricism can never govern future events, but only interpret past events and hope the future acts similarly.
I leave apriori discussions to another time when I say the following. If time and space are known through empiricism, as relations arising between sensible objects or as elements in themselves, then they can never be predicted as well. An empiricist must say “time has hitherto now been one dimension,” not “time is one dimension.” An empiricist who disallows apriori knowledge or forms must also admit “space has hitherto now been three dimensions,” not “space is three dimensions.” There are neither mathematical certainties, nor any of any other kind.
Table of Contents
1) Knowledge, Theoretical
1:1
1:2
1:3
1:4
1:5
1:6
1:7
1:8
1:9
1:10
1:11
1:12
1:13
2) Knowledge, Practical
2:1
2:2
2:3
2:4
2:5
2:6
2:7
2:8
2:9
2:10
2:11
2:12
3) Social Morality, Both Theoretical and Practical
3:1
3:2
3:3
3:4
3:5
3:6
3:7
3:8
3:9
Objectives and Topics
This work explores the philosophical nature of knowledge, human morality, and motivation, arguing from a radical empiricist perspective that all knowledge originates in sensation and that the pursuit of happiness is the sole driver of human action. The text systematically challenges traditional notions of apriori truths, altruism, and free will, proposing that social and political institutions are fundamentally impractical and rooted in the subjective desires of the individual.
- The primacy of sensation and empirical experience over innate knowledge.
- The definition of happiness as the universal motivator for all human behavior.
- The refutation of free will, morality, and altruism as subjective illusions.
- An analysis of social and political structures as inevitable failures based on disparate individual premises.
Excerpt from the Book
1:4
To have a discourse not ignoring any obvious questions comes the very question, “how can we be sure our sensations yield truth?” The first thing I wish to do is to show that they do not; they often fool us.
Anyone who has followed the history of a particular science finds in its development a textbook case for understanding the oldest and commonest events in all “knowing and perceiving.” There, as here, the rash hypotheses, the fabrications, the good, stupid will to “believe,” the lack of suspicion and of patience develop first of all—our senses learn late and never learn completely to be subtle, true, and cautious organs of discovery. With a given stimulus, our eye finds it more comfortable to produce once more an image which has already been produced frequently than to capture something different and new in an impression. To do the latter requires more power, more “morality.” To listen to something new is embarrassing and hard on our ears; we hear strange music badly. When we hear some different language, we spontaneously try to reshape the sounds we hear into words which sound more familiar and native to us: that’s how, for example, in earlier times, when the German heard the word arcubalista he changed it into Armbrust[arcubalista . . . Armbrust: crossbow]. Something new finds our senses hostile and reluctant, and in general, even with the “simplest” perceptual processes, the emotions like fear, love, hate, including the passive feeling of idleness, are in control.—Just as a reader nowadays hardly reads the individual words (let alone the syllables) on a page—he’s much more likely to take about five words out of twenty at random and “guess” on the basis of these five words the presumed sense they contain—so we hardly look at a tree precisely and completely, considering the leaves, branches, colour, and shape; we find it so very much easier to imagine an approximation of the tree.
Summary of Chapters
1) Knowledge, Theoretical: Challenges the existence of apriori knowledge and innate truths, asserting that all knowledge is founded entirely upon sensation and the subsequent interpretation of these experiences.
2) Knowledge, Practical: Applies the theoretical skepticism regarding truth and reason to human life, arguing that since truth is unattainable, actions are driven solely by the pursuit of personal happiness and are inherently determined by genes and environment.
3) Social Morality, Both Theoretical and Practical: Examines social structures and moral codes, concluding that they are artificial constructs designed to serve mass populations, and argues that such institutions are ultimately impractical and prone to inevitable failure.
Keywords
Empiricism, Sensation, Happiness, Knowledge, Morality, Altruism, Free Will, Determinism, Consciousness, Reason, Perception, Political Philosophy, Existentialism, Instinct, Reality
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core premise of this work?
The work is built on the premise of radical empiricism: that all human knowledge originates solely from sensation, rejecting the possibility of any innate or apriori knowledge.
What are the primary themes explored in the text?
The primary themes include the nature of human knowledge, the total absence of free will, the role of happiness as the sole catalyst for action, and the impracticality of social and political institutions.
What is the author's primary objective regarding human morality?
The author aims to deconstruct traditional moral principles by showing that they are not innate, but rather subjective strategies motivated by the individual's pursuit of personal happiness.
Which scientific or philosophical methods are utilized?
The author uses a logical-analytical approach that relies on internal consistency within an empirical framework, frequently utilizing arguments to show the limitations of human perception and reason.
What does the main body of the work focus on?
The main body systematically refutes theories of innate knowledge, demonstrates the role of genetics and environment in determining behavior, and critiques societal reliance on concepts like altruism and government.
Which keywords best characterize this book?
The book is defined by keywords such as Empiricism, Sensation, Happiness, Determinism, and the critical questioning of traditional moral and political structures.
How does the author define the relationship between happiness and pain?
The author suggests that humans are fundamentally motivated by pain, and that "happiness" is the relief or transition from a state of pain to a more neutral or preferred state.
Why does the author argue that social institutions are inherently doomed to fail?
The author argues that societies seek to provide mass happiness, but because individual premises and definitions of happiness are inherently selfish and conflicting, institutions cannot satisfy all members without resorting to tyranny or expulsion.
What does the author suggest about the validity of our senses?
The author posits that our senses often fool us and cannot be externally validated, yet we are forced to treat them as true to continue existing, making all practical life a form of "dogmatic" necessity.
What is the significance of the mention of Raskolnikov?
The author references the character Raskolnikov from Dostoevsky’s work to illustrate the concept of the "extraordinary man" and to challenge traditional notions of morality versus personal power and conviction.
- Quote paper
- Debra Jones (Author), 2010, Valid Fundamental Arguments, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/164571
