Philosophical Perspectives on Knowledge and Reality
Dogmatic Knowledge and Early Philosophy
Vulgar and dogmatic beliefs are based on tradition or dogma revealed by a deity. The traditions and dogmas are indisputable, justified by the sacred authority of ancestors or gods. Such knowledge is commonplace because it offers no rational proof for its claims. Dogmatic knowledge is accepted without contention or argument, often rooted in superstitious stories of sorcerers or myths. These narratives accept the existence of supernatural entities that act on a whim, causing natural disasters.
In contrast, Greek philosophy, from its inception, is characterized by its criticism of myths, which are specific to each community and appeal to supernatural forces. Philosophy excludes the intervention of supernatural beings, and its explanations are based on unchanging laws.
Theories on the Limits of Knowledge
Dogmatism
This intellectual position, which Kant likened to the “childhood of human reason,” asserts that human reason can comprehend all laws of nature and decrypt all riddles, believing its ability to know has no bounds. Dogmatists believe ignorance is temporary and will vanish when humanity achieves omniscience.
Skepticism
Defined by a willingness to investigate to find indubitable proof of truth, skepticism acknowledges that our knowledge has limits and doubts any statement lacking absolute certainty. Skeptics suspend judgment (epoché) on the truth or falsity of statements until indisputable proof is discovered, avoiding comment on claims not yet evident.
Kantian Criticism
Immanuel Kant’s criticism admits the existence of scientific knowledge while also asserting that human reason has limits. It posits that science can study the conditions of possibility for scientific knowledge, thereby determining the limits of human understanding. Kant argued that natural science can only address phenomena or facts of experience, and thus cannot have knowledge of anything exceeding human experience. Criticism is an intellectual position intermediate between dogmatism and skepticism, summarized by the claim that human reason can only know phenomena.
Positivism and Pragmatism
Positivism (Auguste Comte)
Auguste Comte founded Positivism, a theory of knowledge that sets clear limits for human reason. It accepts sensory experience as the sole source of knowledge and asserts that induction allows us to discover universal and necessary laws. Positivism rejects any metaphysical knowledge not related to empirical facts. Comte considered “social physics” (sociology) the supreme science, aiming to discover laws governing social facts and determine order and progress. This involves scientism, the interpretation that the only valid knowledge is “positive knowledge,” which uses the experimental method.
Pragmatism
Pragmatism suggests that scientific theories should be evaluated based on their usefulness for solving social problems. Science, it argues, may not aim to discover objective laws governing reality, but it can develop scientific theories that are borne out by experiment. Pragmatists reject the traditional assumption that true theories describe reality, claiming there is no proof for such a correspondence. They reject the concept of absolute truth, proposing instead the pragmatist theory of truth, where theories are preferable alternatives based on their practical utility.
Hegel’s Idealism and Rational Reality
Reality, according to Hegel, is fully rational. It originates from what he termed the Absolute Spirit, an immaterial entity that governs nature and history. Hegel affirmed that everything real is rational because it stems from the Absolute Spirit, and conversely, that the rational is real, meaning human institutions are progressively becoming more rational and just. He defended historical progress and the cunning of reason, suggesting that humanity makes indefinite progress even through unexpected means, such as war. Hegel had complete confidence in the ability of human reason because, for him, reality itself is rational. His theory of knowledge is dogmatic in its assertion of reason’s ultimate capacity.