There is a centuries-old ongoing debate as to whether "reason" or "faith", or a combination thereof, is the means to acquire knowledge. It is a pointless argument since it dismisses the actual root issue. The question not addressed is whether in a principled universe there can be two means to acquire knowledge. Since principle itself, i.e., immutable natural law, is the necessity of all knowledge, the proposition of two means to acquire knowledge is in irreconcilable contradiction of the very foundation of all knowledge. Any imagined reconciliation of "reason and faith" is accomplished only by failing to define either term. Without a differentiation via objective criteria, the "meanings" of the terms are left up to the feelings of each believer precluding any resolution of the "reason vs faith" argument.
Nevertheless, let us look briefly at the logical inferences of the "reason and faith" idea. There are those who hold that "faith and reason" are complementary means of gaining knowledge. In these instances, faith is held as the primary and dominant means of acquiring "facts" from which to "reason." Thus is "reason" set as handmaiden to faith. In other words, the base premises and foundation beliefs are a matter of faith. From this point on, "reason" just draws logical conclusions from these base beliefs and are always a reflection of said "faith beliefs." On the other hand, there are those who claim to reject the idea of faith altogether and adamantly contend that "reason" and only "reason" is the means to know. Again, we have the same problem of differentiation and identity. It is one thing to claim that one's thinking and beliefs are by "reason" and not faith, but it is quite another to demonstrate by presenting a clear differentiation between faith and "reason" that one may distinguish one mental process from the other. If we do not have such objective criteria to illustrate the difference claimed, how are we to know there is a difference between the two mental processes as claimed? Obviously, we do not. In any event, since the term, reason, has been corrupted by non-definitive common usage, there is no single term to express an actual differentiation between the two modes of thought by which one may acquire beliefs. This being the case, let us just examine the principles of knowledge without any misleading labels.
The first question is, what is knowledge? Ans: Beliefs that conform to objective reality. The ultimate test is in and upon objective reality itself. Fundamentally, if action is taken upon what one believes to be true and the end results are as expected, consistency with reality is evidenced and claimed knowledge is confirmed. The second question is, what is the nature of things and knowledge that is conducive to survival?
I think there shall be no quarrel upon the fact that truth and knowledge are dependent upon the underlying and immutable order of the universe. Were things to lose their character from one instance to the next, one could not predict and act upon prediction in the next second, let alone the next day, the next month, or next year. It is this order, the 100% dependability of objective reality that we literally cannot live without. The operative phrase is 100% dependability, i.e., objective principle. On this principle, must we not also logically assume that knowledge, that is, the acquiring of knowledge is also a matter of principle? Can there be a "counter principle?" Can there be more than one principled way to acquire knowledge? Or is it just a matter of error thought to be knowledge?
Based on the principle of principle, it follows that the means by which one knows anything is the same principled means by which any and all knowledge held is acquired. In some instances, surface appearance may appear to be the contrary, but follow the process to its ultimate base and you will find that the principle still holds. After we define knowledge, the next question is, knowledge of what? What is there to know? What can be known? What is the absolute radical of all knowledge?
In the universe and knowledge of same, there are only two base elements: Entities and relationships between entities. Everything else is derived from and tied to these root concepts. Before one can logically talk about relationships, one must first know that two or more entities exist. To know that two or more entities exist, one must first know that one entity exists. Therefore, the root question of epistemology is: How does one know AN (one) entity to exist? Certainly, we all know of sensory perception as a primary means to supply information to the brain and mind, but this is just a description of process. It doesn't tell us in itself the principle or principles upon which the process depends.
Knowledge of these principles is paramount in that sensory input, though usually correct, is not 100% reliable; nor does knowledge stop with sensory input. It follows an intricate and endless pattern of integration that must necessarily utilize the same principles. Thus does the question, how do you know AN entity to exist stands as an issue of absolute importance. The answer to the question is: By mentally abstracting it by its DIFFERING SET OF CHARACTERISTICS. Difference implies limitation. Ergo, there is no such thing as a non-dimensional, i.e., infinite entity. In definitive and non-contradictory language usage, the term, entity, always means a limited, finite physical existent. It may be smaller than an electron or larger than the earth, but never infinite.
The brevity belies the significance of the idea in the short paragraph above. It relates directly and indirectly to literally every belief, every value, and every goal you consciously seek to accomplish. In recognizing principle and mentally separating it from non-principle, it clearly differentiates and clearly presents two choices in modes of thought: A - conscious adherence to the principles of identity as described above (entity identity) and B - abandonment of these principles to an imaginary infinite entity. Since no one is omniscient and infallible, strict adherence to A, the principles of epistemology, does not mean that one's conclusions will be correct 100% of the time. However, abandonment of these principles does mean that one will be wrong 100% of the time in this mode of thought. To fail to make an identity via the principles described above is to conclude upon non-identity (feelings inconsistent with reality) and act upon error.
A term that is frequently tossed about is the term, logic. If understood, logic can be an invaluable mental tool in making identifications, but is not, and does not make identifications in itself. Logic, frequently equated with scientific hypothesis and syllogisms, is an automatic mental action. Logic, i.e., the mental integrator, merely integrates given premises and logically arrives at a logical conclusion. Never does this integrator evaluate the given premises as true or false. This responsibility falls to conscious mind. Every conclusion is logical in respect of some premise. Its a natural condition. The term, logical, has little definitive meaning unless a specific premise or premises are directly or indirectly identified as reference.
Fundamentally, we are talking about what I call the "if-then" principle of mind as evidenced in formal syllogisms, or in everyday calculations and events. "If A is = to B and B is = to C, then A is = to C. " If it rains, then the ground will be wet. It is raining, then the ground is wet - and so on. Even in subconscious, the if-then principle is always present. Without conscious awareness: "If I depress the brake pedal, then the car will slow and stop." These are easily recognized, understood, and accepted, but what is not so easy to convey is that the if-then principle operates on ALL beliefs; even those held in subconscious that are unknown to conscious mind and sometimes vehemently denied by the holder. For every conclusion and belief, there is a logical if-then link back to its source. For every action, there is an underlying logically directive belief. This is the actual dominant belief even if the actor claims to hold a belief to the contrary. Subjective claims are without limit, but one can act only upon what one believes to be true. Ergo, if there is a conflict between verbal claim and actions, the actions tell the truth of the matter every time.
There is much lip service paid to the idea of thinking in principles. Unfortunately, this worthy admonition is rarely practiced as the confused epistemology which most embrace leaves them failing to make a distinction between principle which is objective and 100% consistent and premise which is a matter of mental invention and choice. Thousands of times each day, each conscious functioning individual uses the principles of epistemology and accomplishes a wide assortment of tasks. However, few grasp that the mental method that they successfully use to identify entities, know relationships, select means, and achieve a particular goal is a matter of principles and applies 100% of the time. Consequently, when prompted by an emotionally dominant belief, the principles are abandoned and thinking shifts to the never never land of subjective feelings. The principles and objective identity are abandoned with the thinker totally oblivious to the shift and firmly believing that his(her) conclusions are derived from the facts of an objective reality. To make the situation even more difficult to grasp, in social circumstance, the end result is often far removed in time from cause and no mental connection is made between cause and effect. Consequently, the consciously undesirable effect is attributed to an imagined cause while the actual cause is ignored and effectively denied. This means that the same error is repeated over and over again. (As in perpetual war).
Like the term, principle, and the phrase, thinking in principles, the term, objectivity, is frequently heard and recommended as a thinking discipline. Most, if not all, understand objectivity to mean determining what is true, what is as it exists independently of personal preference and feelings. In other words, identify BEFORE presuming to attribute and impose personal values to the distortion of one's view of reality. While all believe they do not allow their feelings to distort their view of reality, the unfortunate truth is that nearly all frequently deny and dismiss logical conclusions of conscious mind in deference to feelings - with the feeling that they are not allowing feelings to interfere.
An emotion-based conclusion does not necessarily refer to a situation of crisis or high emotional intensity. It refers to any conclusion that is contrary to identity and the conclusions of the conscious mind. In these instances, which are many, there is no conscious awareness of the directive emotion at all. It is known to exist by the fact that an emotion is a consequence of a belief and every belief carries a corresponding emotion even if not consciously realized. It is this condition of unknowing default acceptance that is philosophically and psychologically devastating. To understand the actuality and significance of this default acceptance, it is necessary to clearly see the mental process by which you reach conclusions that result in consciously desired ends. In this manner, you may by your own observation and analysis contrast productive thinking with destructive thinking.
Square one: Since the sense of sight is so fast and so efficient in supplying information to the brain, it is easy to fail to grasp the principles of identity that are in action. To get a clear and concise view, let's employ another one of the senses that is not as fast so that we can view the principles in action and in slow motion. Let us mentally enter a dark room filled with objects unknown to you. You move forward and touch an object with the tip of your finger. You observe that the surface of the object is rigid. You now have one bit of information about the object via the sense of touch. You have a perceptual (sensory perception) identity of the object. You then move your finger sideways and discover that the surface of this object is rough. Mind integrates the characteristics rigid and rough and relates the integration to the entity in question. You now have the very base conceptual identity (conceived idea) of the object. You then move around and become disoriented. Again you encounter an object that feels rigid to the touch. Is it the same object that you touched before? You move your finger and find that the surface of this object is smooth, not rough. Mind integrates rigid and smooth and creates a conceptual identity of the object.
The conceptual identities are different, so you know that it is not the same object. The entities have been mentally abstracted by their differing sets of characteristics. You may continue this exploration indefinitely. You may find objects that have nine characteristics that are the same, but one different characteristic. The difference establishes a differing set of characteristics allowing the mental abstracting and identification; which in turn provides knowledge of potential or presently existing relationships.
Now let's look at the situation from an eyesight perspective and the other side of the knowledge spectrum. You observe an entity, say a human individual. At a glance, you have enough information to mentally abstract this particular individual from all other things and all other individuals because of their differing sets of characteristics. Suppose for medical reasons, you desire or need more information about this person. You wish to increase your conceptual identity of this creature. Carry it as far as desire and ability allows. You may mentally abstract the heart, heart valves, liver, spleen, kidneys, even down to red and white corpuscles and beyond. In every step of increasing conceptual identity and knowledge of this entity, differentiation is the absolute epistemological requirement. In this instance and in all other instances, the greater the degree of mentally abstracting by difference, the wider the conceptual identity and the greater the degree of knowledge.
Imagined "conceptual identity" as in "will of the people", or "racial identity" is based on similarity, not differentiation. It is, therefore, not objective identity, but rather subjective mental invention without limit and fails to identify the actual objective existent, human INDIVIDUAL. Since similarity is tantamount to infinity, imagine the latitude of "discovery" if one subscribes to similarity as an element of identity.
Categorizing certainly has its place and is indispensable, but it is not objective identity. Categorizing travels in the direction away from identity. The wider the category, the less cognitive content. What differentia exists in categorical terms is dependent upon choice of what degree of difference one prefers to retain in a subjectively created category. However, as stated above, in no instance does a category constitute objective identity as it does not deal with an actual objective existent as a specific existent. There is no objective correspondent for a category. A category is infinite, and infinity is non-identity. (What is the identity in matter, the ultimate category?) Categorizing is simply a way of organizing knowledge after objective identity. Since similar characteristics indicate similar entities and similar relationships, categorizing is indispensable to survival, but objective identity it isn't. From start to finish categorizing is arbitrary and secondary to objective identity. Since confusing subjectively created infinite category with objective finite discovery and entity existence is commonplace and poses a serious epistemological problem, it may be of much value to explore this situation in further illustrative detail.
Categorizing is the mental grouping of things, entities, or relationships on arbitrarily selected similarities. There is no objective criteria as to what to categorize or how to categorize. Its all a matter of personal preference as pertains to use value. Is it important? As stated above, indispensable. It is essential to survival. Were it not for categorizing, one would have to examine and re-examine everything at every encounter; an impossible task. Categorizing is a means of organizing and using knowledge, but it is not objective identity. The illusion to the contrary stems from two things: absence of the knowledge of actual objective identity, and the retention of differentia in any given step of categorizing. The first step is the maximum retention of differentia, and the last step is matter, which is absolute infinity and total non identity. (Individual, singular and actual identity - then individuals - man -animal - organism, etc.) To repeat for emphasis: Categorizing is a process of mentally grouping on similarity. The retained differentia is a concession to differences (identity) known prior to categorizing.
By a couple of hypothetical situations, let's illustrate the fact that there is no identity in similarity, and also determine the specific relationship between objective identity via limitation and difference and categorizing on the infinity of similarity.
Suppose that Mr. Smith has a three-year-old son who in turn has a bunch of toy bricks. These toy bricks are the same dimensions of regular house bricks, same reddish brown color, and same rough looking surface, but they are made of rubber. Mr. Smith frequently walks through the room where the toy bricks are. Fantasizing about becoming a world famous soccer player, he playfully kicks the toy bricks against the wall. He does this many times and no harm comes of it. Then, one day, someone who knows of Mr. Smith's diversion decides to play a cruel joke. He removes one of the toy bricks and replaces it with a real masonry one. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Smith comes strolling through the room kicking the toy bricks just like he has done dozens of times before. At the third brick, he encounters the real one and breaks his foot. The difference is that he did not know about denied identity, and therefore, denied knowledge of the relationship.
Now let's get melodramatic for further emphasis. Suppose you are standing in middle of a blacktop road near a railroad track. A train is going by and the noise from it blanks out all other sounds. You look up and see a thing that you call an automobile coming straight at you at a high rate of speed. With knowledge held, you, by mental reflex, instantaneously evaluate the situation and know that if you don't get out of the way, you will be injured or killed. You quickly jump to the side of the road just as the automobile roars by at 100 miles per hour. Your actions saved your life, but what knowledge prompted the saving action? At this point, most would conclude that they identified the automobile by category and the "categorical identity" saved their life. Is this your conclusion? If so, let's put it to a test.
Let's go back to the road, the track and the automobile. You're standing in middle of the road as before. The train noise is deafening as before. Now we add a pea soup fog so thick you can't see your hand in front of your face. There's an automobile coming right at you at a high rate of speed. You can't hear it because of the train noise and you can't see it because of the fog. Now, how much good does your knowledge of the category, automobile, do you? Freeze frame. Think about it. You still have the same knowledge of the category, automobile, as you did before. DOES IT IDENTIFY? Why not? What happened in the fog that made the difference between life and death? Ans. The sameness and infinity of the fog prevented objective identity because it prevented the mental abstracting of the automobile by limitation and difference.
Play it back in mental slow motion. See with absolute clarity that one must first mentally abstract an entity by limitation and difference BEFORE one can use any knowledge of that entity as held in the mind as category. Category is always secondary from start to finish. Objective identity precedes categorizing AND objective identity precedes use of knowledge held in category. No exceptions. 100% consistent! Its a matter of principle.
Whether it is a life threatening situation or a simple matter of picking up a concrete block from a stack, objective identity via limitations and difference is always the primary. One may call this primary objective identity automatic, axiomatic, and the given with no further need of thought, but to do so is to deny the base principle of knowledge. If so, this denial and consequent ignorance will be manifested as grievous errors in philosophical beliefs. A principle is a principle is a principle. It applies to all aspects of reality, from getting out of the way of a speeding car to determining fact from fiction in philosophy. To deny this principle is to deny reality. It is to psychologically displace the real with mental invention believed to be discovered. The end results are anti-individual and anti-life beliefs and actions, often quite fatal. Denial equals disaster, and due to the prevailing mode of thought, denial is a certainty UNLESS one is consciously aware of THE PRINCIPLES AS PRINCIPLES - and not to be violated under any circumstance.
Copyright at Common Law, Delmar England,
1997
Permission in hereby granted to copy this work for personal
use or for FREE distribution provided that the work is copied or distributed in
its entirety and that this copyright notice accompanies each copy.
