What can we truly know for certain?
Answer by Francis Petrucci
What can we truly know for certain? Francis Petrucci, B.A. Theology & Philosophy, Ave Maria University
You can be sure about your doubt, because the moment you doubt your own doubt, you either double down on it or become more confident.
There are a lot of things you can know that are self-evident, for example that the whole is greater than its parts. You can know that A=A and does not equal not-A.
The discussion
As an outspoken person of faith, and thank you for that, I am curious about you reactions to my assertions on reason.
For example, for this question, I would say that, to be rational, nothing can be claimed as absolutely true. (https://server.learningframework.com/?p=3807)
Yes, A=A is axiomatic. The whole is (greater than) the sum of it’s parts? Sometimes. See fission and fusion. But I digress.
IF, you an accept my definition and proof at the above link, this means that NOTHING can be claimed as absolutely true. This includes the existence and nature of God. Please note, I believe in God. Here’s what I said at the end of my definition for reason (https://server.learningframework.com/):
“I can’t prove that God exists (the absolute Truth rule applies here too – as if God wanted the prior point made unambiguously). However, all that is truly needed is an understanding that it is reasonable to believe in God while it is likewise unreasonable to claim personal understanding of absolute, or God’s, Truth. And, that’s a good and necessary foundation for rationality. As for God’s Grace and me personally, I know not to desire it, but I humbly accept that, as only a tenuously reasonable human, I need it.”
I truly need to understand how you look at reason and truth.
“nothing can be claimed as absolutely true” is that statement itself absolutely true? If it’s not, then something can be claimed as absolutely true. If that statement is absolutely true, then it contradicts itself and is false. And if it is false, then something is absolutely true. So whether that statement is true or false, it leads to the conclusion that something is absolutely true.
Oh. I apparently did a poor job with the text at the link. The text is a proof. The assertion is not paradoxical because the existence of absolute truth, and that no one can claim it, arises from the definition of reason.
In other words, you can claim something to be absolutely true, like the existence of God, but you would not be able to justify it with reason.
You cannot justify it with reason alone. This is referred to as “a priori” reasoning, but you can justify it with tangible evidence combined with reason. This second way is referred to as “a posteriori.” Proofs for God’s existence start with the tangible evidence that some things are subject to change. Then reason is used to connect the premises to the conclusion (cf Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 13).
I shall check out Summa Contra Gentiles.
Do you have a definition for reason? Does Aquinas define reason? Because I do not think he does. I don’t think the Church does. FIDES ET RATIO does not.
The definition of reason is important.
Yes he does. For Aquinas, the mind has three faculties: Understanding (which is intellectual apprehension) – this is how we know the essence – the “whatness” of a thing. Judgement – this is how our mind composes and divides by bringing ideas together and comparing them with each other and with what is outside of the mind. And finally, reason, which is how our mind discovers previously unknown truths by considering only that which we already know. For example, “all men are mortal” and “Socrates is a man” Knowing only those two things, reason tells us something new, namely that Socrates is mortal.
Ok. If reason is a tool, it’s application should be systematic. It should have clearly defined rules. Otherwise, reason would be subject to interpretation and misinterpretation.
What you set forth for Aquinas is similar to Kant (or not, and that is the problem):
Kant claims that reason is “the origin of certain concepts and principles” (A299/B355) independent from those of sensibility and understanding. … And he now defines reason as a “faculty of principles” (A299/B356) or the “faculty of the unity of the rules of understanding under principles” (A303/B358).
Anyway, this is what I have found. Most philosophers have an ambiguous understanding of reason. Unfortunately, EVERYTHING (epistemology) is then defined from that.
I didn’t. I am very explicit for reason. Happily, concepts that follow are now explicit and consistent.
In any event, since we do not have a shared understanding of reason, it impossible to resolve conclusions that rely upon it.
I saw that in your representations for Aquinas’s proof for the existence of God. Reason is used as a building block … a building block so ambiguous that I am unable to trace the logic.
My definition for reason has no ambiguities, but it establishes that only God knows absolute truth. Mind you, this is also Biblically depicted in the story of Job. God does not want us gaming the system and thinking that we know what is right—for anything. We just don’t. The are important neurological reasons for this.
Unfortunately, this “thinking” equally applied to the form and nature of God, because we are using the same tool—reason. If we are to establish the existence of God with reason, then only God knows the absolute truth.
Whereas people, in the interim, have faith. The faithful have God revealed to them outside of reason. I think this is what Aquinas was describing.
Kant’s entire epistemology is wrong. He can’t even tell the difference between logic and metaphysics. If you think Aquinas is being ambiguous, then you need to read his commentaries on Aristotle’s “On Interpretations” and “Posterior Analytics.” If you go onto a search engine and type in “Aquinas works” then everything he has written will show up. I know Kant very well because I studied him at University and was tested on his philosophy. What makes him so egregiously wrong is that he fails to figure out that the mind can really know what is external to it. He can’t figure it out because the nature of the mind and that outside the mind are radically different. If only he would have read and listened to those philosophers more intelligent than him instead of seeking vainglory by imposing novel ideas better suited to fiction. Aristotle easily solved that problem by explaining that when we apprehend an object outside of our mind, our mind understands the object according to its own mode of existence, which allows for a real point of contact between the mind and the secondary substance (Form) of the primary substance. The fact that we can see a blue object, but then abstract the color blue and imagine it apart from any particular object is proof that our mind understands things according to a universal mode of existence which abstracts form from form-matter composites. Kant, Hume, and Hegel are an utter waste of time if you are searching for the truth.
This is what confuses me.
What you have written above I agree with. For example:
“What makes him so egregiously wrong is that he fails to figure out that the mind can really know what is external to it.”
and …
“Aristotle easily solved that problem by explaining that when we apprehend an object outside of our mind, our mind, our mind understands the object according to its own mode of existence”
Of course I agree. This is why I say that there is an absolute truth, but we cannot claim to know it (see my web-site). This conclusion is further PROVED by my concrete definition for reason.
And as a result, the existence, form, and nature of the creator cannot be claimed as known absolutely either—using reason.
Please don’t presume that I do not believe in God by this prior statement. I am only saying that even the form and nature of God cannot be known through reason.
By the way, as for Kant, I am generally not a fan of philosophy either. Specifically, I am not a pure proponent of any of their theories. I think it is several thousand years of intellectual tomfoolery when a simple definition of reason clears up so much of confusion.
I want to share with you a question I answered a few days ago.
Brian Kenner’s answer to Is secularism inevitable? in Secularists
I answered “likely not”, but I wish I had answered “hopefully not”.
Anyway, it sums up my fears for reason.
The secularists don’t like me really.
END
