The various research methodologies provide multiple means with which an individual may assess a situation. The most appropriate procedures for generating and interpreting information are often determined by the values of the researcher and the specific purpose of a study. However, experimental methods are the most effective means with which one may evaluate theoretical relationships. Although many research strategies generate meaningful information, hypotheses can only be conclusively refuted by contrary evidence (Kabadayi, 2007). While other methods may indicate the nature of a connection between variables, experimentation is the most direct means with which one may determine the significance of antecedent conditions.
Creswell (2009) describes a continuum of research methods within which each specific procedure emphasizes a particular degree of quantitative and qualitative elements. The most appropriate methodology will generate data that is relevant to the purpose of the study. Qualitative studies attempt to explore and represent the general subject of the study as accurately and completely as possible. While case studies explore a specific topic in depth, ethnography and phenomenology focus more on the interpretation of subjective perceptions. However, although qualitative research methods provide the means with which one may construct a representation of some phenomenon, the validity of any inductive generalizations must be evaluated through deductive strategies.
Creswell (2009) explains that quantitative methods attempt to assess the validity of a general theoretical relationship through particular comparisons between hypothetical predictions and objective measurements. Theories are interpretations that explain the relationship observed between objective variables. Scientific disciplines establish theories that are founded on empirical evidence (Çakir, 2012). In quantitative studies, the significance of a theory is evaluated in the context of a relationship that is quantified through the statistical interpretation of numerical values (Creswell, 2009). While surveys assess theories in comparison to collected data, experiments directly test theoretical relationships through comparisons between experimental and control groups. In an experiment, the effect of some manipulation, the independent variable, is quantified in reference to the differentiation it produces, the dependent variable, relative to a control group that is not does not receive the treatment.
Experiments are superior to other forms of research, because this methodology transcends mere correlations through the direct evaluation of the causal relationship between variables. While other methods may indicate some type of connection, experimentation is the only means with which one may determine the causal mechanism that produces observed correlations. Mere observation does not confirm any theoretical interpretation regarding causality. In order to understand the nature of an objective relationship, a researcher must interact with variables to determine what antecedent conditions result in dependent change.
The accuracy of scientific knowledge is increased through the elimination of false theories (Kabadayi, 2007). The scientific function of qualitative studies is limited because no number of finite observations is conclusive evidence to verify a theory with infinite applications. Any research methodology can only conditionally confirm a theory (Çakir, 2012). Regardless of the quantity of evidence that may support an idea, a scientific theory is perpetually open to the possibility of disproval. Any general theory may be conclusively refuted by contrary data. While other strategies may provide information that is relevant to a theory, falsification is most conclusive when founded on a comparison between experimental and control groups that differ in only a single feature.
Although experimentation is the most effective method for testing a theory, other methods are more suitable for alternative agendas. The most appropriate strategy of inquiry must be selected based on the purpose of a research project (Creswell, 2009). Scientific experimentation will produce little progress in the exploration of subjective meanings and interpretations. Qualitative studies like phenomenology and ethnography are much more appropriate for research that is intended to discover and describe human perceptions rather than assess their objective truth. Similarly, case studies are more appropriate when a researcher is seeking to represent only a specific situation. Additionally, the establishment of control and experimental groups may not be possible or morally permissible in many circumstances. Quantitative surveys are often more appropriate in situations involving large populations or when experimental manipulations are not practical.
Experiments do not produce absolute knowledge. Rather, any assessment is limited by the degree to which the strategy of inquiry compares the hypothetical significance of a theory to objective variables (Çakir, 2012). While experimental falsification is conclusive evidence for rejecting a theory, measurements that are consistent with the hypothesis do not necessarily confirm any truth. Ladyman, Douven, Horsten, and van Fraassen, (1997) explain that science functions to construct theories that are only sufficiently accurate to represent truth in practice. Empirical verification is only a means with which a researcher may evaluate the consistency between their theoretical understanding and empirical measurements. This method of comparison is the foundation for valid theories that enable accurate interpretations of objective relationships between variables (Creswell, 2009). Experiments are superior to other research methods, because they explicitly establish conditions that enable direct comparisons between a theory and empirical measurements.
References
Çakir, M. (2012). Epistemological dialogue of validity: Building validity in educational and social research. Education, 132(3), 664-674.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Kabadayi, T. (2007). The second verificationists. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 29, 35-43.
Ladyman, J., Douven, I., Horsten, L., & van Fraassen, B. C. (1997). A defence of van Fraassen’s critique of abductive inference: Reply to Psillos. Philosophical Quarterly, 47, 305–21.
Showing posts with label empiricism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label empiricism. Show all posts
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Thursday, February 7, 2013
On Empiricism: The Epistemic Limitations of Subjectivity
Çakir (2012) explains that scientific disciplines attempt establish theories that are founded on empirical information. Theories are interpretations of meaning that explain the relationship between variables (Creswell, 2009). In quantitative research, these general propositions are tested in order to assess their validity in a particular case. Kabadayi (2007) notes that scientific knowledge is constructed through the elimination of falsified representations. Because specific observations do not necessarily verify a universal concept, a scientific theory must continuously be evaluated in the context of empirical information. However, empiricism does not imply a belief regarding the truth of a proposition (Steup, 2011). Rather, theories are only assumed to represent objectivity to the degree to which they may be assessed. All scientific knowledge is conditional. Contrary empirical evidence invalidates any existing concept.
Empiricism is the assertion that knowledge is acquired through experience (Steup, 2011). Empirical propositions must be changed in accordance with contrary perceptual experiences. However, subjective perception is little evidence that a contingent proposition is true. Empiricism does not imply that an individual believes in the truth of presently accepted scientific theories. Ladyman, Douven, Horsten, and van Fraassen, (1997) explain that the purpose of science is only to establish empirical adequacy. A theory is only ever sufficiently true to explain observations. The conditional nature of propositions invalidates any notions of absolute knowledge. While some ideas may be universally true, the subject has no way of establishing this type of certainty.
Any concept that is coherent and consistent with empirical evidence is epistemologically valid (Dicken, 2009). However, empiricism rejects postulations of elements that are not evident in experience (Van Fraassen, 2004). Without some form of significance, any proposition is unnecessary and meaningless. Although the empiricist cannot conclusively deny the possibility of a superfluous agent, a theory must include pragmatic implications to maintain functionality. If interpretations are intended to represent objectivity, trivial stipulations must be avoided. While there is not any intrinsic moral imperative to ensure that all statements are empirically assessed, a conscientious individual must evaluate all propositions that may motivate significant actions. It may be permissible to indulge in fantasy or polite misrepresentations, but essential assertions must be consistent with empirical evidence to ensure appropriate implementations.
Inductions derive a general theory from finite experiences. While this type of generalization is an effective means of interpretation, no universal concept is immune to eventual falsification (Kabadayi, 2007). A theory provides the foundation for hypothetical predictions (Creswell, 2009). Through deductive assessments, the validity of the theory is evaluated in the context of the particular case. The empirical results of this evaluation either confirm or refute the subjective concept. A theory is conclusively falsified by contrary evidence (Kabadayi, 2007). However, the validity of a theory is only conditionally verified in reference to a particular means of assessment (Çakir, 2012). In order to maximize the accuracy of perceptual representations, concepts must be open to criticism from all sources of evidence. This continuous criticism enables representations to increasingly approximate objectivity.
Although falsification enables the differentiation between valid and invalid concepts, the scientific method does not enable an individual to transcend subjectivity. Any evaluation is an application of an existing methodology (Çakir, 2012). The degree to which a theory may be assessed is limited by the means with which the assessment is performed. While evidence may or may not be consistent with a hypothesis, the nature of the proposition itself is dependent on the individual perspective. Contextual values shape knowledge (Ruphy, 2006). Evidential relevance is defined in reference to existing assumptions. The same data often serves as evidence for multiple distinct hypotheses.
While this realization of relativity does cause one to question the content of any specific theory, it does not invalidate the purpose of science in general (Ruphy, 2006). The integrity of scientific disciplines is maintained as long as all ideas are open to all forms of criticism. The influence of subjective preferences is mitigated through critical interactions between individuals with distinct perspectives. However, although the resulting principles may not include the influence of any specific culture, they are still limited by the fundamental conditions of subjectivity. Even if the scientific community removes all personal biases from a theory, the representation is never more than a hypothetical interpretation. All such concepts must remain perpetually open to falsification (Kabadayi, 2007). The propositional foundations of knowledge are only conditional and never absolute.
References
Çakir, M. (2012). Epistemological dialogue of validity: Building validity in educational and social research. Education, 132(3), 664-674.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dicken, P. (2009). Constructive empiricism and the vices of voluntarism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 17(2), 189-201. doi: 10.1080/09672550902794421.
Kabadayi, T. (2007). The second verificationists. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 29, 35-43.
Ladyman, J., Douven, I., Horsten, L., & van Fraassen, B. C. (1997). A defence of van Fraassen’s critique of abductive inference: Reply to Psillos. Philosophical Quarterly, 47, 305–21.
Ruphy, S. (2006). "Empiricism all the way down": A defense of the value-neutrality of science in response to Helen Longino's contextual empiricism. Perspectives on Science, 14(2), 189-214.
Steup, M. (2011). Empiricism, metaphysics, and voluntarism. Synthese, 178(1), 19-26. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9518-8
Van Fraassen, B. (2004). Précis of the empirical stance. Philosophical Studies, 121, 127–132.
Empiricism is the assertion that knowledge is acquired through experience (Steup, 2011). Empirical propositions must be changed in accordance with contrary perceptual experiences. However, subjective perception is little evidence that a contingent proposition is true. Empiricism does not imply that an individual believes in the truth of presently accepted scientific theories. Ladyman, Douven, Horsten, and van Fraassen, (1997) explain that the purpose of science is only to establish empirical adequacy. A theory is only ever sufficiently true to explain observations. The conditional nature of propositions invalidates any notions of absolute knowledge. While some ideas may be universally true, the subject has no way of establishing this type of certainty.
Any concept that is coherent and consistent with empirical evidence is epistemologically valid (Dicken, 2009). However, empiricism rejects postulations of elements that are not evident in experience (Van Fraassen, 2004). Without some form of significance, any proposition is unnecessary and meaningless. Although the empiricist cannot conclusively deny the possibility of a superfluous agent, a theory must include pragmatic implications to maintain functionality. If interpretations are intended to represent objectivity, trivial stipulations must be avoided. While there is not any intrinsic moral imperative to ensure that all statements are empirically assessed, a conscientious individual must evaluate all propositions that may motivate significant actions. It may be permissible to indulge in fantasy or polite misrepresentations, but essential assertions must be consistent with empirical evidence to ensure appropriate implementations.
Inductions derive a general theory from finite experiences. While this type of generalization is an effective means of interpretation, no universal concept is immune to eventual falsification (Kabadayi, 2007). A theory provides the foundation for hypothetical predictions (Creswell, 2009). Through deductive assessments, the validity of the theory is evaluated in the context of the particular case. The empirical results of this evaluation either confirm or refute the subjective concept. A theory is conclusively falsified by contrary evidence (Kabadayi, 2007). However, the validity of a theory is only conditionally verified in reference to a particular means of assessment (Çakir, 2012). In order to maximize the accuracy of perceptual representations, concepts must be open to criticism from all sources of evidence. This continuous criticism enables representations to increasingly approximate objectivity.
Although falsification enables the differentiation between valid and invalid concepts, the scientific method does not enable an individual to transcend subjectivity. Any evaluation is an application of an existing methodology (Çakir, 2012). The degree to which a theory may be assessed is limited by the means with which the assessment is performed. While evidence may or may not be consistent with a hypothesis, the nature of the proposition itself is dependent on the individual perspective. Contextual values shape knowledge (Ruphy, 2006). Evidential relevance is defined in reference to existing assumptions. The same data often serves as evidence for multiple distinct hypotheses.
While this realization of relativity does cause one to question the content of any specific theory, it does not invalidate the purpose of science in general (Ruphy, 2006). The integrity of scientific disciplines is maintained as long as all ideas are open to all forms of criticism. The influence of subjective preferences is mitigated through critical interactions between individuals with distinct perspectives. However, although the resulting principles may not include the influence of any specific culture, they are still limited by the fundamental conditions of subjectivity. Even if the scientific community removes all personal biases from a theory, the representation is never more than a hypothetical interpretation. All such concepts must remain perpetually open to falsification (Kabadayi, 2007). The propositional foundations of knowledge are only conditional and never absolute.
References
Çakir, M. (2012). Epistemological dialogue of validity: Building validity in educational and social research. Education, 132(3), 664-674.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dicken, P. (2009). Constructive empiricism and the vices of voluntarism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 17(2), 189-201. doi: 10.1080/09672550902794421.
Kabadayi, T. (2007). The second verificationists. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 29, 35-43.
Ladyman, J., Douven, I., Horsten, L., & van Fraassen, B. C. (1997). A defence of van Fraassen’s critique of abductive inference: Reply to Psillos. Philosophical Quarterly, 47, 305–21.
Ruphy, S. (2006). "Empiricism all the way down": A defense of the value-neutrality of science in response to Helen Longino's contextual empiricism. Perspectives on Science, 14(2), 189-214.
Steup, M. (2011). Empiricism, metaphysics, and voluntarism. Synthese, 178(1), 19-26. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9518-8
Van Fraassen, B. (2004). Précis of the empirical stance. Philosophical Studies, 121, 127–132.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Theoretical Validity: Induction and Deduction
In his literature review, Çakir (2012) explores the foundations of knowledge in education and the social sciences. The social sciences attempt to construct theories that are founded on empirical evidence (Çakir, 2012). These concepts enable meaningful interpretations of events. However, a theory is itself only a subjective interpretation that specifies a causal interrelation (Creswell, 2009). The validity of any proposition is a measure of the degree to which the perceptual construct represents the relationship between variables (Creswell, 2009). Because all such knowledge is established through inductive generalizations, the validity of these interpretations is limited (Çakir, 2012). Any knowledge is only a conditional hypothesis that may eventually be falsified. Science progresses through the replacement such theories as they are invalidated by empirical evidence (Kabadayi, 2007).
Although positivists assert that meaningful principles may be derived from empirical verifications, scientific systems must remain open to the possibility of falsification (Çakir, 2012). No finite number of observations can conclusively prove a theory with infinite applications (Kabadayi, 2007). This limitation of inductionist reasoning invalidates epistemological assertions founded on verification (Kabadayi, 2007). While logical principles may be confirmed through assessments in the context of objectivity, multiple theoretical constructs may often be applied to a single collection of data (Çakir, 2012). Without some form of neutral appraisal, the value of a paradigm is relative to a particular subjective perspective (Çakir, 2012). Because any learning represents an interpretation of novelty in the context of existing understanding, the validity of a theory is never independent of personal values (Çakir, 2012). Methods of verification are never able to transcend subjectivity and resolve perceptual incommensurabilities.
In contrast, deductive falsifications conclusively invalidate any theory (Kabadayi, 2007). A theory provides a rationale for hypothetical predictions (Creswell, 2009). A general theory is only conditionally validated through applications test derivative hypotheses in particular situations (Creswell, 2009). However, the process of evaluation is necessarily embedded within an existing set of practical methods (Çakir, 2012). In order to ensure validity, a theory must remain open to all deductive forms of criticism (Çakir, 2012). Because theories must be assessed through application, validity is defined in reference to specific a methodology rather than intrinsic metaphysical truth (Creswell, 2009). In order to maintain validity, a theory must not be exempt from empirical contradictions. Rather, by eliminating invalidated concepts, the degree of confidence regarding invulnerable ideas is increased. Although absolute certainty may never be achieved, the functionality of a theory in particular instances is ensured by continuously testing hypotheses in all possible applications.
References
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Çakir, M. (2012). Epistemological dialogue of validity: Building validity in educational and social research. Education, 132(3), 664-674.
Kabadayi, T. (2007). The second verificationists. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 29, 35-43.
Although positivists assert that meaningful principles may be derived from empirical verifications, scientific systems must remain open to the possibility of falsification (Çakir, 2012). No finite number of observations can conclusively prove a theory with infinite applications (Kabadayi, 2007). This limitation of inductionist reasoning invalidates epistemological assertions founded on verification (Kabadayi, 2007). While logical principles may be confirmed through assessments in the context of objectivity, multiple theoretical constructs may often be applied to a single collection of data (Çakir, 2012). Without some form of neutral appraisal, the value of a paradigm is relative to a particular subjective perspective (Çakir, 2012). Because any learning represents an interpretation of novelty in the context of existing understanding, the validity of a theory is never independent of personal values (Çakir, 2012). Methods of verification are never able to transcend subjectivity and resolve perceptual incommensurabilities.
In contrast, deductive falsifications conclusively invalidate any theory (Kabadayi, 2007). A theory provides a rationale for hypothetical predictions (Creswell, 2009). A general theory is only conditionally validated through applications test derivative hypotheses in particular situations (Creswell, 2009). However, the process of evaluation is necessarily embedded within an existing set of practical methods (Çakir, 2012). In order to ensure validity, a theory must remain open to all deductive forms of criticism (Çakir, 2012). Because theories must be assessed through application, validity is defined in reference to specific a methodology rather than intrinsic metaphysical truth (Creswell, 2009). In order to maintain validity, a theory must not be exempt from empirical contradictions. Rather, by eliminating invalidated concepts, the degree of confidence regarding invulnerable ideas is increased. Although absolute certainty may never be achieved, the functionality of a theory in particular instances is ensured by continuously testing hypotheses in all possible applications.
References
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Çakir, M. (2012). Epistemological dialogue of validity: Building validity in educational and social research. Education, 132(3), 664-674.
Kabadayi, T. (2007). The second verificationists. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 29, 35-43.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Will and Intellect
Empirical knowledge is the result of sensory experience. Comprehension is gained only through the impression of an external object. It is this extrinsic objectivity that defines the will.
“…Consciousness consists in knowing…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.101) Perception requires a knowing subject as well as a known object. According to empiricism, the method of subject enlightenment is the process of acquaintance with the advenient world. “In all knowledge, however, the known is first and essential…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.101) Without the influence of circumstance, the subject is unable to know anything. It is the subject who is dependent upon the object. The will is “…the thing in itself....” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.100) The subject interprets sensory information that is the consequence of the object.
The will “…constitutes the true core…” of man (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.104) It is the uniform source of motivation. The will includes the deterministic processes essential to existence. The will is the natural entity that is represented by various phenomena. It is the essence of reality. “…The will is what is primary and substantial…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.102) It is the will in circumstance that necessitates the character of the actual.
The will “…retains everywhere its identical nature…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) Manifestations of the will include all fundamental compulsions. “The difference lies merely in what it wills…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) Gravity is the will that an object, containing potential energy in the form of positioning, descend when not physically inhibited. Hunger is the will in an organism that drives it to consume nutrients. Perpetuation is the will in information that is replicated within an ecosystem. These imperatives are not the activity of the objects. Rather, the objects are forms of the will. Without the will of gravity, the object cannot maintain a position. Without hunger, the organism cannot endure. Without perpetuation, information ceases to remain. The objective event is the actuation of the will. The physical appearance, perceived by the subject, is the consequence of the natural process.
“…The will as the thing it itself, the metaphysical in the phenomena… admits of no degrees, but is always completely itself. Only its excitement has degrees.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) There is no quantity attributed to a process. Quantification is a function of representation. Gravity, hunger and perpetuation are constant forces. Incidental differentiation is a subjective interpretation of the intellect. The degree of excitement of the will is a property of the manifestation. Gravity does not cease or wane because the object is not currently falling. While the organism may be temporally satiated, the metabolic processes are continuous. Although information may reside in a dormant state, it is perpetuated in this condition.
The will is the natural source of activity. It is without reason or morals. “Willing always goes on with perfect success…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.108) “…Morality is in direct opposition to the natural will…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.108) The only function of the will is existence. It is pure egoism. Morality is a system of control established in order to create limitations. The purpose of the will is to transcend limitation.
Functional morality is an obligation to maintain the current status. The will is a process of change. While an embodiment of the will may be a system of maintenance, this perpetuation is achieved at the expense of free energy. A living cell avoids entropic death through the destruction of order in the environment. A social law is established through the investment of resources provided by those who enforce it. Ultimately, perpetuation can only continue as long as it is the greatest of competing forms of the will. Eventually, the organism will die and the law will be broken. The final manifestation of the will is always the process in which the gross entropy of the universe increases.
A criticism of empirical philosophy is that it leads to an infinite regress of causality. If the will is the process by which an object may exist, then how did the will originate? This is a misapplication of the question. Beginning is without cause. If a cause exists for something, then that thing cannot be the beginning. To have a cause, is the definition of an effect. The will is the beginning. It is the inception of reality. If the will is understood as the source of physical law, then it is absurd to speak of a time when the physical law does not apply. Natural principles have no origin. Indeed, such laws are natural because they exist independently of invention. The existence of natural law is a means by which the will may express its form.
The will is “original and therefore metaphysical.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.107) The intellect is “…subordinate and physical.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.107) The intellect gains knowledge of this essence by the manifestations that induce sensation. These observable phenomena are the activity of the will. The expression of the will includes deterministic physical laws that are not naturally displayed in formula but are rather observed through their interactions and representations within physical bodies. The formulation of these laws is an activity of the intellect.
The intellect is “…a mere tool for the service of…” the will. (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.102) It consists in the subjective function of knowing. The will is the substance of matter. The intellect is the form of this matter. The will cannot be directly observed. It is detected through the effect of a variety of actions. The operation of the will is the source of reality. The detection and interpretation of the will is the necessary exercise of the subject. It is through this system that the subject originates and continues. Without this process, the subjective intellect collapses into objectivity.
Consciousness is the highest purpose of the subject. The function of the intellect is the capacity to know of the will. “The intellect… has not merely degrees of excitement… but also degrees of its nature…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) “For in man not only does the faculty of ideas of perception… reach the highest degree of perfection, but the abstract idea, thought, i.e., reason, and with it reflection is added.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.102) Perception of an object only allows the subject to comprehend sensory impressions. Through reason, the intellect is able to know the action from which that perception originates. One who merely perceives an object only has the subjective knowledge of experience. The highest purpose of the intellect is to understand the mechanisms that necessitate that object. Abstract thought and reason allow the intellect to transcend pure perception and apprehend the true nature of the will.
From the outside looking in, the will defines the nature of reality. By means of the physical laws, the will has manifest itself in life. The ultimate purpose of this physical embodiment is sentience. In this way, the will has become conscious of itself through the intellect. It is now able to understand and interpret the existence of both the means and the end of its purpose.
From the inside looking out, the intellect experiences the universe through perception. The cause of sensation cannot be within the subject, because the subject is defined through these impressions. The external object must be the origin of these forms. The presence of physical bodies is the interpretation of the object by the intellect. This comprehension is the means by which the will is expressed though objectivity. The intellect is the mechanism through which the will has become conscious.
Resource
Schopenhauer, A. (1818) On the Primacy of the Will in Self-consciousness. In Baird, F. Walter, K. (Eds.), Nineteenth-Century Philosophy. (p. 100-124) Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.
“…Consciousness consists in knowing…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.101) Perception requires a knowing subject as well as a known object. According to empiricism, the method of subject enlightenment is the process of acquaintance with the advenient world. “In all knowledge, however, the known is first and essential…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.101) Without the influence of circumstance, the subject is unable to know anything. It is the subject who is dependent upon the object. The will is “…the thing in itself....” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.100) The subject interprets sensory information that is the consequence of the object.
The will “…constitutes the true core…” of man (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.104) It is the uniform source of motivation. The will includes the deterministic processes essential to existence. The will is the natural entity that is represented by various phenomena. It is the essence of reality. “…The will is what is primary and substantial…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.102) It is the will in circumstance that necessitates the character of the actual.
The will “…retains everywhere its identical nature…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) Manifestations of the will include all fundamental compulsions. “The difference lies merely in what it wills…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) Gravity is the will that an object, containing potential energy in the form of positioning, descend when not physically inhibited. Hunger is the will in an organism that drives it to consume nutrients. Perpetuation is the will in information that is replicated within an ecosystem. These imperatives are not the activity of the objects. Rather, the objects are forms of the will. Without the will of gravity, the object cannot maintain a position. Without hunger, the organism cannot endure. Without perpetuation, information ceases to remain. The objective event is the actuation of the will. The physical appearance, perceived by the subject, is the consequence of the natural process.
“…The will as the thing it itself, the metaphysical in the phenomena… admits of no degrees, but is always completely itself. Only its excitement has degrees.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) There is no quantity attributed to a process. Quantification is a function of representation. Gravity, hunger and perpetuation are constant forces. Incidental differentiation is a subjective interpretation of the intellect. The degree of excitement of the will is a property of the manifestation. Gravity does not cease or wane because the object is not currently falling. While the organism may be temporally satiated, the metabolic processes are continuous. Although information may reside in a dormant state, it is perpetuated in this condition.
The will is the natural source of activity. It is without reason or morals. “Willing always goes on with perfect success…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.108) “…Morality is in direct opposition to the natural will…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.108) The only function of the will is existence. It is pure egoism. Morality is a system of control established in order to create limitations. The purpose of the will is to transcend limitation.
Functional morality is an obligation to maintain the current status. The will is a process of change. While an embodiment of the will may be a system of maintenance, this perpetuation is achieved at the expense of free energy. A living cell avoids entropic death through the destruction of order in the environment. A social law is established through the investment of resources provided by those who enforce it. Ultimately, perpetuation can only continue as long as it is the greatest of competing forms of the will. Eventually, the organism will die and the law will be broken. The final manifestation of the will is always the process in which the gross entropy of the universe increases.
A criticism of empirical philosophy is that it leads to an infinite regress of causality. If the will is the process by which an object may exist, then how did the will originate? This is a misapplication of the question. Beginning is without cause. If a cause exists for something, then that thing cannot be the beginning. To have a cause, is the definition of an effect. The will is the beginning. It is the inception of reality. If the will is understood as the source of physical law, then it is absurd to speak of a time when the physical law does not apply. Natural principles have no origin. Indeed, such laws are natural because they exist independently of invention. The existence of natural law is a means by which the will may express its form.
The will is “original and therefore metaphysical.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.107) The intellect is “…subordinate and physical.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.107) The intellect gains knowledge of this essence by the manifestations that induce sensation. These observable phenomena are the activity of the will. The expression of the will includes deterministic physical laws that are not naturally displayed in formula but are rather observed through their interactions and representations within physical bodies. The formulation of these laws is an activity of the intellect.
The intellect is “…a mere tool for the service of…” the will. (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.102) It consists in the subjective function of knowing. The will is the substance of matter. The intellect is the form of this matter. The will cannot be directly observed. It is detected through the effect of a variety of actions. The operation of the will is the source of reality. The detection and interpretation of the will is the necessary exercise of the subject. It is through this system that the subject originates and continues. Without this process, the subjective intellect collapses into objectivity.
Consciousness is the highest purpose of the subject. The function of the intellect is the capacity to know of the will. “The intellect… has not merely degrees of excitement… but also degrees of its nature…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) “For in man not only does the faculty of ideas of perception… reach the highest degree of perfection, but the abstract idea, thought, i.e., reason, and with it reflection is added.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.102) Perception of an object only allows the subject to comprehend sensory impressions. Through reason, the intellect is able to know the action from which that perception originates. One who merely perceives an object only has the subjective knowledge of experience. The highest purpose of the intellect is to understand the mechanisms that necessitate that object. Abstract thought and reason allow the intellect to transcend pure perception and apprehend the true nature of the will.
From the outside looking in, the will defines the nature of reality. By means of the physical laws, the will has manifest itself in life. The ultimate purpose of this physical embodiment is sentience. In this way, the will has become conscious of itself through the intellect. It is now able to understand and interpret the existence of both the means and the end of its purpose.
From the inside looking out, the intellect experiences the universe through perception. The cause of sensation cannot be within the subject, because the subject is defined through these impressions. The external object must be the origin of these forms. The presence of physical bodies is the interpretation of the object by the intellect. This comprehension is the means by which the will is expressed though objectivity. The intellect is the mechanism through which the will has become conscious.
Resource
Schopenhauer, A. (1818) On the Primacy of the Will in Self-consciousness. In Baird, F. Walter, K. (Eds.), Nineteenth-Century Philosophy. (p. 100-124) Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)