A defining feature of my ‘world-for-us’ epistemology

It is evident for us that the world as experienced and thought by us may be different from the world as it is in itself. That is to say, the-world-for-us may differ from the-world-in-itself. But the-world-for-us may also coincide with the-world-in-itself. We do not know, and we will never know. What's decisively justified for us though is that we can make a logical or conceptual distinction between the-world-for-us and the-world-in-itself. This distinction is valid for us in any case, even if the 'for us' actually coincides with the 'in itself'. We will never be able though to justify this distincion as a distinction within the world-in-itself. It's only a justified distinction within the-world-for-us. Now, a defining feature of my ‘world-for-us’ epistemology is that we cannot claim anything about the relation between the-world-for-us and the-world-in-itself. This relationship lacks any content since conceptualizing it would entail claims about the ‘in itself’ of the-world-for-us, and thus knowledge of the-world-in-itself, which is impossible on my theory of knowledge. Each attempt to ontologize the relation between the 'for us' and the 'in-itself' must therefore be prevented. This relation has to be wholly de-ontologized.

World-for-us epistemology, Kantianism, constructivism and metaphysical realism

Kant’s distinction between the object-for-us and the object-in-itself is a distinction that isn’t justified as a absolute distinction. That is to say, it isn't justified as a distinction that applies to how the world is in itself. Precisely because on my world-for-us epistemology the world-in-itself is epistemically forever hidden to us, said distinction is only justified as a distinction for us and thus as a distinction within the-world-for-us. So world-for-us epistemology isn't Kantianism.

Constructivists more broadly understood though claim that what we refer to as the world is a human construction of either mind or language or power or even some other medium. World-for-us epistemology isn't constructivism either. In fact, it's fundamentally different from constructivism. Constructivists claim to know that the-world-for-us is a human construction. But how do they know the absolute nature of the-world-for-us? How do they step outside the-world-for-us? That’s for us human beings simply impossible.

The problem for constructivists is not that they have to admit that their own constructivsim is also merely a construction. For they are actually more than happy to admit that. The problem for constructivists is that it’s epistemically unjustified to claim that everything is a construction in the first place. It's the world-for-us epistemologist and not the constructivist that properly withholds judgement. We cannot justify any claim about the 'in itself' of the-world-for-us since we cannot transcend our human condition. Thus for us an absolute stance is impossible. We remain always inescapably within the 'for us'.

So claiming that the 'for us' is a construction, as constructivists do, is simply bad dogmatic metaphysics. For all we know, the 'for us' could indeed be a construction. But also, for all we know, the 'for us' could be the absolute. We will never know. Therefore we do all our projects, even metaphysics, forever and solely within the-word-for-us, while the ontology of the 'for us' remains for us inevitably inaccessible.

Kantians who consider their distinction between the object-for-us and the object-in-itself as an absolute distinction, metaphysical realists who claim that what we call the world coincides with the world as it is in itself, and constructivists who claim that what we call the world is a human construction, are in fact all equally examples of bad dogmatic metaphysics. For all unjustifiably claim to know the inaccessible absolute nature of the world as it is for us.

Prison break? In Defense of Correlationism

Recently I’ve enhanced my paper on Meillassoux’s arguments in After Finitude against correlationism. The new version of my paper can be found here on my website.

Plausibility, likelihood and truth

Consider the propositions P and "Plausibly, P". An argument for P is not necessarily an argument for "Plausibly, P". For there might be successful arguments for counterintuitive or implausible propositions. In such cases the argument supports P but it doesn't support P being plausibly true. An argument for the proposition "Plausibly, P" is not necessarily an argument for P either. For why should in general plausibility be truth-conducive? That is, why should in general what is plausibly true for human beings be sufficiently likely actually true?

The propositions P and "Plausibly, P" are quite different propositions indeed. The first asserts that the state of affairs denoted by P obtains. The second asserts that the world is such that it is plausible that P is true. This second proposition might be true while at the same time P is false. Also P might be true whereas it is not plausible that P is true.

If we switch - in light of my 'world-for-us' theory of knowledge - the context from how the world is in itself to how the world is for us, i.e. from the-world-in-itself to the-world-for-us, the above picture changes. Within the context of the-world-for-us an argument for the proposition "Plausibly, P" is also an argument for P because within the-world-for-us plausibility is truth-conducive. Yet, within the-world-for-us an argument for P is still not necessarily an argument for "Plausibly, P". For there might be good arguments for counterintuitive or implausible truths within the-world-for-us.

Now consider the propositions P and "Likely, P". Here 'likely' is not to be equated with 'plausibly'. Plausibility refers to being in accordance with our human intuitions. Being likely though refers to having statistically a high chance or high probability of being true. These notions are not the same.

An argument for "Likely, P" is an argument for P having a high chance of being true. But then such an argument is also an argument for P. Yet, an argument for P is not necessarly also an argument for "Likely, P". For even though a successful argument for P increases the likelihood of P, it does not follow that the increase is significant enough to render P likely true.

With respect to the concept of 'likelihood' the picture does not change if we switch again from the context of how the world is in itself to how the world is for us. In both cases the conclusions remain the same.

An argument for a world-for-us epistemology

That the world appears exhaustively mathematizable, can be cashed out as argument for the claim that we only have access to the-world-for-us. Let me explain. Mathematics can be applied succesfully to the world. But why is this in fact the case? Why is the world so perfectly mathematizable? This asks for some kind of explanation. But how to explain this? On metaphysical realism, there does not seem to be a straightforward explanation (although some philosophers, such as Craig, have opted for a theistic solution). However, on a world-for-us epistemology the almost perfect applicability of mathematics to reality is no surprise. For if mathematics is just extended rigorous thought (which seems plausible to me), then it is no wonder at all that the world as it is thought by us (i.e., the-world-for-us) is inherently mathematical. In fact, on an epistemology according to which we can only access the-world-for-us the successful applicability of mathematics is simply something one would expect. Therefore it seems to me that the fact that the world appears exhaustively mathematizable increases the likelihood of a world-for-us epistemology. Clearly, it is what Meillassoux has dubbed 'correlationism' in his much discussed book After Finitude.

The argument from factiality

In a recent talk at COIN I argued that Meillassoux's argument from ancestrality in his book After Finitude against strong correlationism fails. But later on in his book he presents another argument against strong correlationism. It is called the argument from factiality. Let me quote the crucial passage. In this passage Meillassoux addresses the strong correlationist directly: "When you think of [realism and idealism] as "possible", how are you able to access this possibility? How are you able to think this "possibility of ignorance" which leaves [both] eventualities open? The truth is that you are only able to think this possibility of ignorance because you have actually thought the absoluteness of this possibility, which is to say, its non-correlational character. Let me make myself clear, for this is the crux of the matter. So long as you maintain that your scepticism towards all knowledge of the absolute is based upon an argument, rather than upon mere belief or opinion, then you have to grant that the core of any such argument must be thinkable. But the core of your argument is that we can access everything's capacity-not-to-be, or capacity-to-be-other, our own as well as the world's. But once again, to say that one can think this is to say that one can think the absoluteness of the possibility of every thing" (After Finitude, p. 58).

This argument fails. For, indeed, the strong correlationist thinks the absoluteness of both possibilities. After all, the strong correlationist is thinking about a possibility with respect to the in-itself and not with respect to the correlation. But this absolute has to be understood correctly. What is the strong correlationist actually saying? For all we know, the strong correlationist says, realism about the in-itself is true. Similarly, as the strong correlationist has it, for all we know idealism about the in-itself is true. Now, as the 'for all we know' already indicates, both assertions of the strong correlationist about the in-itself are claims about the absence of knowledge of the in-itself. More specifically, the strong correlationist merely affirms that realism and idealism are epistemic possibilities. He or she is not affirming that these possibilities are ontological possibilities. For that would entail that he or she knows something about the in-itself, which contradicts strong correlationism. So the strong correlationist is affirming nothing more than possibilities of ignorance. He or she is thus not saying anything positive about the in-itself. No knowledge of the in-itself is claimed, which is entirely consistent with strong correlationism. Meillassoux has therefore not broken the circle. He has not regained access to the absolute.

Lezing bij COIN over Quentin Meillassoux

Vanmiddag gaf ik voor de Contemporary Ontology Investigation Network (COIN) van de Universiteit van Amsterdam een lezing over de Franse filosoof Quentin Meillassoux. Het was een mooie middag met veel goede discussie's. Mijn lezing is inmiddels ook hier online beschikbaar.

Does reality exist? A debate with Graham Harman

In 2010 I completed my master thesis in philosophy (see here for an addendum to it). In this thesis I develop a theory of knowledge that comes very close to what the French philosopher Quentin Meillassoux calls 'strong correlationism' (without me knowing this term at that time; I didn't even know who Meillassoux was). Yesterday I entered into a debate at Felix & Sofie with the American philosopher Graham Harman (who, like Meillassoux, rejects strong correlationism). My opening statement to the debat is available below.

"First of all I would like to thank Felix & Sofie for the invitation to participate in tonight’s debate. The question of tonight’s debate is one of the most fundamental questions of philosophy: Does reality exist? Well, in my master thesis I make a distinction between the-world-for-us and the-world-in-itself. The-world-for-us is the world as implied by the human point of view. It is the world as it is thought and perceived by us humans. The-world-in-itself is ultimate reality. The-world-in-itself is the world as it exists on and for itself in an absolute sense. It is the absolute.

Now, the-world-in-itself is inaccessible for us. It is impossible for us to get outside ourselves in order to compare the world as it is ‘in itself’ to the world as it is ‘for us’. We do not have access to such an absolute stance. After all, we are trapped in our human condition. We can only access the world from our human viewpoint. It is impossible for us to step outside our relation to the in-itself. Therefore we cannot know anything that is beyond this relationship. To put it differently, we cannot think or perceive something while abstracting from the fact that it is still us who are thinking or perceiving it. Indeed, if we think or perceive anything as true about the in-itself, then what we think or perceive is still a human thought or human experience. All our knowledge is qualified as human knowledge. This is inevitable. We can’t get rid of this qualification of our knowledge. Absolute knowledge is unreachable.

So the-world-in-itself is unknowable because our knowledge is always relative to the human conditions of knowledge. We cannot have access to the-world-in-itself since we cannot have knowledge of anything independent of our human way of thinking and perceiving.

Is this Kantianism? No, for contrary to Kantianism, even the claim that there exist objects outside us that ground or produce our experiences, is only justified as a claim about how the world is for us. So Kant’s claim that there are Dinge-an-sich is only warranted as a world-for-us-claim. In fact, even the distinction between the-world-for-us and the-world-in-itself is only justified as a claim about how the world is for us. For again, everything we think applies to the-world-for-us. So, the-world-for-us is the ultimate unsurpassable horizon of all our understanding. It is for us the holistic all-inclusive. We are always already in it. Hence, it is the subject of all our predications. Is this idealism? No. Idealism claims to know the in-itself. According to idealism the in-itself is consciousness or mind and nothing exists outside it. But this claim is not warranted because we cannot know the in-itself. Is it than realism? No, for idealism might be true. Again, we know nothing at all about the in-itself; so also not whether idealism is false.

Should this all worry us? Not at all! For within the context of the world-for-us we can justify many, many claims. Examples include, but are not limited to, logical propositions such as the principle of non-contradiction, mathematical statements such as the theorems of set theory, ordinary claims (such that I exist, that you exist and are not merely a product of my thought, that the glass of water in front of me exists extra-mentally as well, that Paris is the capital of France, etc.), and moral claims, such as that it is wrong to torture the innocent. In fact the whole project of metaphysics can still be carried out within the context of the world-for-us, as long as we realize that all our claims, metaphysical and non-metaphysical, are about the for-us and cannot be justified as claims about the in-itself. And this is fine. For what else could we as human beings wish for than to justify claims about how the world is for us? Indeed, what else could we as human beings wish for than to be justified as human beings? After all, we are human beings, not gods. The in-itself is inaccessible. That is what we should concede to the skeptic. But we can still find truth: objective universal human truth within the-world-for-us. And for us humans, that should be sufficient."

Note: On 6 April I translated the Dutch parts of this post into English