It is merely out of my disappointment that I often refer to enlightenment era philosophers as “amateurs”. In all honesty, considering their era and the slumber from which it was arising, “amateur” is too strong a critique. They posed necessary questions and to a beginning degree addressed thoughts toward answers. What is disappointing to me is that they never got past that even though far more solid answers and more relevant questions were available, not requiring any advanced technology. And it seems that such questions and half answers are still being thought of as relevant even hundreds of years later.
Two of the most notable issues mentioned by David Hume and responded to by Immanuel Kant are;
- Causality
- Induction
Hume proposed that neither could be rationally justified. Kant attempted to justify each (but insufficiently in my view).
Hume Paraphrased
Causality: Just because one situation immediately follows another, such is insufficient reason to conclude that the first necessarily caused the second.
Induction: Just because each of multiple instances of one specific event following an immediately prior specific event, such is insufficient reason to conclude that it will always do so.
Kant Paraphrased
Causality: Cause to effect is presumed by the mind and instincts as “a priori”, thus experienced as reality and necessary for thought.
Induction: The uniformity and consistency of the behavior of nature is a priori, thus discerned from experience and necessary for usefulness of thought.
From my view, Hume, being the science and metaphysics skeptic, did his duty in posing reasonable questions, although it would seem a little more reasonable to have answer them rather than presume them to be unanswerable (a common mistake). Kant, being the positivist in response to Hume, seems to have attempted to categorize all epistemology and with a degree of success. But even though his counter proposals to Hume were in the right direction, they seem to have fallen short of actually answering the questions in a straightforward, unambiguous fashion (although he proclaimed that he had resolved the questions once and for all time).
What everyone seems to be leaving out of the discussions and consideration is the issue of what it is that constitutes a truth concerning reality. They seem to always be willing to proclaim what must be true because of something else that must be true without explicating exactly what makes something true in the first place. Kant was on the right track, but just didn’t seem to get to the final point (understandably, having to explain too much to too many skeptics, a common problem in making any progress toward resolve).
The Construct of Truth
Truth is what is sometimes referred to as “the map of the terrain of reality”. Truth is a type of language that is always in reference to an aspect of reality. And as with language, the same reality can be represented by many forms of truth or language. Each truth concerning the make of existence is an ontology. Each ontology has its own declared objects and relations from which it constructs what is hoped to be an accurate and useful representation of reality.
Older religions use different ontologies than science and thus might appear to be untrue when they are actually just saying something different than what the reader presumes them to be saying. Often ontologies can be translated just as languages can be translated, but often concepts get lost in the translation attempts. When an ontology can conform to the following concerns, it is a “True representation of reality”, or “Truth”.
A) Consistent - throughout the entire truth ontology
B) Comprehensive - covering any thought at least by category
C) Relevant - to subjective experience and use
Kant pointed to the necessity of that 3rd element, “Relevance” or usefulness. He proclaimed that it is of necessity that we presume causality. And in that regard, he was right. But that doesn’t exactly answer whether causality is true, but merely why we accept it as true.
The interesting truth of it is that causality is true only because of an ontological choice, much like a choice of language. A true ontology can be proposed wherein the concept causality makes no sense. The concept simply doesn’t fit. But that doesn’t make causality untrue, merely nonsense to that ontological choice, such as the ontology that proposes that every instant in time is independent of every other but inadvertently causes the appearance of dependent causal flow from one situation to the next. Such an ontology can be said to be true, but of what use is it to think in such terms?
A more useful ontology defines a “situation” as the complete relative positioning of all relevant objects, their motion, and their affects. Such an ontological choice allows one to examine a situation and based upon it, realize what the next situation is going to become. That is a very useful thing to be able to do. And in fact, is the entire philosophical ontological foundation of science (and most, if not all useful ontologies).
Any situational ontology can make the following claim;
Every specified Initial Situation acted upon with a Specified Treatment leads to consistent Resultant Situation.
And anyone can know that to be absolutely true simply because of the definitions of “Initial Situation” and “Specified Treatment”. A situation has already been defined by the affects that it is going to have (as well as a treatment). If it doesn’t have those affects, it wasn’t the specified situation or the specified treatment. Thus it is tautological that every situation must lead to the next situation.
Thus one knows that causality is true simply due to the ontological definition of “a situation”.
And one can know that Induction is valid simply because of the tautology that;
Every specified Initial Situation acted upon with a Specified Treatment leads to consistent Resultant Situation.
But what if one proposes that within a given situation there is an object that has no affect upon the next situation? My question would be, “Why bother with it?” If it is known that something, presumed to exist, has absolutely no affect upon the next instant in time, what relevance is it? It could never be experienced in any way by anything. Why would anyone care to even say that it exists? It would pose as a useless element of an ontology. So just categorize it as “non-existent” within the ontology so as to maintain a useful and more efficient ontology; "It doesn’t exist because it has absolutely no affect. It is irrelevant to truth" (ref: Affectance Ontology). Conundrum resolved.
But then what if one experiences something that appears contrary to causality? The answer to that is easy although often harshly avoided. The truth can be known that by definition, either the Initial Situation, the Specified Treatment, or the Resultant Situation was inaccurately specified or not as it appeared, an error of presumption.
Self-sustaining egos of both individuals and organizations such as nations and religions (including Science) avoid having to face that they mis-specified or mis-perceived something (especially to the public - embarrassment), but honesty, integrity, and rational thought requires that they do. Usually the ego battle lasts for life times and centuries, but in the long run the deception loses ground. Unfortunately such misunderstandings are most often merely replace by new misunderstandings. So the accurate truth still goes only hinted at.
So in summation, Hume properly posed the questions but inappropriately presumed them to be unanswerable. Kant properly proposed that the answers were a matter of necessity, but failed to express the exact reason why - rational ontological choice.