Metaphysics, Philosophy

More Than A Feeling: Metaphysical Intuition in Aristotle and Bergson, Part One.

by Dave Seng

Ever since Aristotle first discussed the role of intuition in human knowledge development, philosophers have debated its significance and purpose throughout history. The debate centers around whether or not intuition is a valid source of knowledge. If intuition is a genuine part of human understanding, how can it be rightly understood? Philosophers have held different conceptions of intuition and have proposed a number of answers. For example, Aristotle held that intuition is the human capacity to apprehend primary premises and is “the originative source of scientific knowledge” (Posterior Analytics, 136-137). For Kant, intuition was immediate sense perception (23). In An Introduction to Metaphysics, Henri Bergson makes intuition a central part of his philosophical approach to understanding reality, and makes the claim that intuition is the “kind of intellectual sympathy by which one places oneself within an object in order to coincide with what is unique in it and consequently inexpressible” (italics in original, 72). In each case, intuition seems to be more than a “feeling” or vague emotional awareness of something. Although they have different concepts of intuition, these philosophers indicate that it might play a part in understanding reality. If intuition is a kind of knowing—or perhaps a way to knowledge—how can it be rightly understood? Could it really be a valid approach to knowledge? Although they do have differing understandings of intuition, Aristotle, Kant, and Bergson seem to be in agreement that intuition can be a basic starting point for understanding the world.

Since, however, Bergson makes intuition central to his philosophical approach, and given that his concept of intuition is unique in Western philosophy, it is helpful to examine his understanding of the idea. Ultimately, it must be decided whether or not his definition of intuition is helpful for gaining a better grasp of reality. In addition, Aristotle’s conception of intuition will be explored and examined for the purpose of critically evaluating the role of intuition in knowledge formation and how it might help one develop a better understanding of reality. Aristotle and Bergson present two very different understandings of intuition and, ultimately, very different presentations of reality. An examination of these two positions helps us to discover the proper role that intuition has with one’s theory of knowledge, including how knowledge of reality relates to metaphysics. Furthermore, for any conception of intuition to be valid, it must conform to the right use of reason. For example, it is reasonable to reject the irrational (that which is against reason), and it must be decided whether or not a properly conceived understanding of intuition is irrational. Both Bergson, and Aristotle present interesting and complex positions about the role of intuition in the human intellect. By exploring each position, the correct role of intuition is discovered in the cognitive apprehension of reality.

In An Introduction to Metaphysics, Bergson presents two different ways of knowing reality. The first is the “relative” and the second is the “absolute.” This dichotomy is used to support his categories of “analysis” and “intuition” and is closely related. For Bergson, the relative corresponds to analysis and intuition is how the absolute is known. According to Bergson, there are two ways of knowing an object. The first way, that of analysis, is to “move round” the object and the second, the way of intuition, is to “enter into it” (71). The first depends on point of reference, perception, and symbols to express the object. The first way will always be relative, dependent on the individual, and analytical. The second way is to embrace the “absolute” by attributing to the object “states of mind” and developing sympathy with those states; inserting oneself into them by effort of imagination (71). One is able to embrace the absolute of an object because he or she will enter into the object by sympathy, imagination, and coincide with it in some inexpressible way (71 – 72). Regarding intuition, Bergson explains, “In short, I shall no longer grasp the movement from without, remaining where I am, but from where it is, from within, as it is in itself. I shall possess the absolute” (71). Intuition, then, becomes the mode of knowing an object in an absolute manner, from within the object. As Bergson explains:

“It follows from this that an absolute could only be given in an intuition, whilst everything else falls within the province of analysis. By intuition is meant the kind of intellectual sympathy by which one places oneself within an object in order to coincide with what is unique in it and consequently inexpressible. Analysis, on the contrary, is the operation which reduces the object to elements already known, that is, to elements common both to it and other objects. To analyze, therefore, is to express a thing as a function of something other than itself.” (72)

In other words, Bergson holds that intuition is that which allows one to enter into an object and know it absolutely. On the other hand, analysis is always relative to the observer and therefore no amount of symbols will ever be able to adequately or precisely explain the absolute nature or essence of the object. For example, Bergson uses the process of literary analysis as an illustration. No matter how well he could translate and describe the meaning of a poem, he will never be able to arrive at the genuine essence of the poem (72). Bergson describes analysis this way:

“Analysis, on the contrary, is the operation which reduces the object to elements already known, that is, to elements common both to it and other objects. To analyze, therefore, is to express a thing as a function of something other than itself. All analysis is thus a translation, a development into symbols, a representation taken from successive points of view from which we note as many resemblances as possible between the new object which we are studying and others which we believe we know already.” (72)

For Bergson, analysis is an unending process of description which uses symbols that will always render an imperfect translation, and is completely relative to the observer. No amount of words, logic, reason, or analysis will ever describe the nature of the self, great works of art, or objects. Analysis will always place the observer outside the object or person, and will always rely on description and translation (71 – 73). Bergson concludes by describing the ultimate end of metaphysics:

“If there exists any means of possessing a reality absolutely instead of knowing it relatively, of placing oneself within it instead of looking at it from outside points of view, of having the intuition instead of making the analysis: in short of seizing it without any expression, translation, or symbolic representation—metaphysics is that means. Metaphysics, then, is the science which claims to dispense with symbols.” (italics in original, 72)

As a metaphysician, Bergson wants to discover the essence, or absolute nature of things. However, he believes the quest for the absolute cannot be done through the traditionally Western approach of evidence, examination, evaluation, or induction. Rather, metaphysics should entirely do away with analysis, symbols, translation, and, ultimately, reason because any objective process which details an examination of a thing in order to understand its nature or to determine its essential features will fail from the start and turn out to be relative. It is interesting to note, here, that Bergson takes on a similar tone as Descartes and Kant in his methodology. If an approach to philosophy does not provide absolute and exact certainty, it should be rejected. Bergson indicates that because evaluation, careful reasoning, and symbolic communication will always be relative, an entirely new method to understanding reality is needed. For Bergson, intuition is the only way to know something and its essence absolutely. Is this version of intuition the correct approach to understanding reality? Is it true that the only way to know something absolutely is through an imaginative sympathy with the object? Although Aristotle has a place for intuition in human understanding, he believes it should be formulated in a different way. In part two, we’ll explore the Aristotelian understanding of intuition and its foundational relationship to metaphysics.

Note: Aristotle discusses intuition in Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Metaphysics, and Nicomachean Ethics. Also, Bergson indicates that “absolute” means “essence.” Essence, in ontological terms, is that which makes something the kind of thing it is in its unique act of being.

Works Cited

Aristotle. The Works of Aristotle: 1. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 7. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Aristotle. The Works of Aristotle: 2. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 8. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Bergson, Henri. An Introduction to Metaphysics. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 55. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999

Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Pure Reason, The Critique of Practical Reason and Other Ethical Treatises, The Critique of Judgement. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 39. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Metaphysics, Philosophy

Descartes, Kant, and Why Metaphysics Matters

by Dave Seng

“Let us call to our aid those who have attacked the investigation of being and philosophized about reality before us.” – Aristotle, Metaphysics, I, 3.

Being is the fundamental object of study for the metaphysician. In this essay, I will outline why the study of Being as Being is foundational, and perhaps the most basic to all other issues related to philosophy. This is not a purely academic question or one that is the sole concern of philosophers. As the Canadian philosopher George Grant reminds us, all civilizations have paradigms of knowledge and such paradigms dramatically shape every part of the society (36). The way we think about the ultimate issues and conditions of reality impacts the way we think and interact with each other in society. I have become convinced that the more I study the nature of Being, the more connections I find at the human level of technology, economics, law, and education.

To start, Being includes all reality including physical nature, conceptual abstractions, essences, and potentialities. In Aristotelian and Thomist terms, Being incorporates all that which is in act and potential, being and essence. The concepts of essence, act, and potency are the most helpful and importat for understanding reality. Philosophers from the time of Heraclitus to Martin Heidegger have tried to unlock the mystery of Being because it is believed that understanding Being leads one to what it means to be and become in this world. When one makes sense of Being, it is easier to make helpful judgments about reality, whether it is one or many, completely fluid or essentially static, ordered or chaotic, and good or bad, or perhaps both. If the world is essentially chaotic, as Heraclitus believed, how does one live meaningfully and “become” in such a world? Being includes both being and becoming, essences, values, and change and how one answers these questions have important implications for human life and activity. These questions are foundational to human flourishing. The philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) believed that these kinds of metaphysical questions are unavoidable. He tells us in the preface to the first edition of his Critique of Pure Reason:

For it is in reality vain to profess indifference in regard to such inquiries, the object of which cannot be indifferent to humanity. Besides, these pretended indifferentists, however much they may try to disguise themselves by the assumption of a popular style and by changes on the language of the schools, unavoidably fall into metaphysical declarations and propositions, which they profess to regard with so much contempt. (1, italics in original)

It is true that in today’s intellectual climate, Being is thought to be unimportant or impossible to figure out. But have you ever heard someone—perhaps Kant would call an indifferentist—turn around and give her explanation for doing something based on her understanding of reality? If someone were to tell you that all reality is simple matter and mechanics, you would have a good idea of what she thinks on other important issues. Metaphysical questions are unavoidable and everyone seems to have something to say about these ultimate matters even when they claim they are indifferent or agnostic to them. Our understanding of reality shapes many other things in our lives. The question is, “are we going to have a well-developed notion of Being or not”?

One way to evaluate a philosophy or particular philosopher is to examine how the concept of Being is handled. Does the philosophy illuminate and help us to understand the nature of Being or is the issue sidestepped or simply untouched? Does the philosophy help us to understand the nature of existence a little more or does the philosophy or philosopher think the attempt is futile? These are the questions we are going to keep in mind as we explore the philosophical assumptions of Rene Descartes in regards to his conception of Being. This time, however, we will use Kant and Aristotle as helpful guides.

Descartes was an interesting and important philosopher who contributed much to the rational approach to philosophy. And he really did not have that much to say about Being as Being in the way Aristotle did. Descartes’ main project was to prove the existence of God and the immortality of the human soul. Since he was very skeptical of the fundamental principles of Being—act, potency, essences, and most of causation—he ended up painting himself into a corner, and the only way he could describe physical reality was by way of mechanism. In this aspect of his thought, he really is close to Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes. When it comes to physical reality all we need to do is “render ourselves masters and possessors of nature” (285). (Along with Bacon and Hobbes, Descartes was very triumphant about the scientific “new method” and mankind’s newfound destiny to master nature. Today many philosophers of technology are exploring the question of whether or not something should be done simply because it can be done.) Descartes was very clear in his Meditations on First Philosophy that he was indifferent to matters of metaphysics or the claims of ultimate reality. If the issue was not immediately clear, certain, and indubitable, he would reject it. Of course, Descartes’ metaphysical skepticism was based on theological grounds because he did not want to assume the purposes or mind of God regarding nature. Nonetheless, his interpretive scheme has consequences. Metaphysics, according to Descartes is seen as doubtful. And those following Descartes believed that the project of laying out the first principles of reality was a worthless task.

This, however, brings us again to the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant’s entire project in his Critique of Pure Reason was to revive the corpse of metaphysics. He took upon the task of reviving metaphysics when in his day most scholars believed such a project was pointless. He reminds us,

Yet in a certain sense, this kind of knowledge must unquestionably be looked upon as given; in other words, metaphysics must be considered as really existing, if not as a science, nevertheless as a natural disposition of the human mind (metaphysica naturalis). For human reason, without any instigations imputable to the mere vanity of great knowledge, unceasingly progresses, urged on by its own feeling of need, towards such questions as cannot be answered by any empirical application of reason, or principles derived therefrom; and so there has ever really existed in every man some system of metaphysics. It will always exist, so soon as reason awakes to the exercise of its power of speculation. (19)

For Kant, metaphysics is an innate natural disposition of every human being. It is unavoidable. It would be impossible to go into all of Kant’s philosophy at this point. But in summary, much of Kant’s thought highlights the importance of basic laws and principles that must be in place to render anything intelligible, including metaphysical knowledge. Aristotle says much the same thing in his Posterior Analytics and Analytics (and, of course, was the first philosopher to elucidate the human need to understand the first principles of reality in his Metaphysics). The philosopher Daniel Sullivan reminds us that, “our most commonplace expressions of optimism or pessimism, selfishness or high-mindedness, idealism or cynicism, carry along with them unacknowledged assumptions about the nature of the universe as a whole and man’s place in it” (7). Why does metaphysics matter? Because in unpredictable ways, an understanding of reality is assumed in the conversations we have, the books we read, the movies we watch and the political associations we keep. All these, and more imply a philosophy or perspective on reality and life.

Works Cited

Descartes, Rene. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 28. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Grant, George. Technology & Justice. House of Anansi Press, 1986.

Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Pure Reason, The Critique of Practical Reason and Other Ethical Treatises, The Critique of Judgement. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 39. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Sullivan, Daniel J. An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition. Tan Books, 1957.

Culture, Metaphysics, Philosophy

Does Ontology Matter?

by Dave Seng

Due to my teaching load and doctoral research, I won’t be able to give the follow up to my previous post regarding the nature of wisdom right now. However, I hope to do so in a week or two. In light of that, I’ll just present this thought …

Making the case that metaphysics—or more specifically—that ontology matters in our current cultural climate can be a tricky affair. Not many have the patience or interest in such things. And most, I imagine, are caught up in daily concerns that take up their time and energy. This is completely understandable. Nor is everyone called to be a philosopher. But there are those who believe that Max Planck was correct when he said, “there is a metaphysical reality behind everything that human experience shows to be real.” He also explained that, “metaphysical reality does not stand spatially behind what is given in experience, but lies fully within it.” There seems to be a fixed order of reality that lies within the sequence of phenomena in experience (what Aristotelian-Thomists call hylomorphism and we’ll get to that term later). How we understand these first principles determine how we understand and live in the world around us. What the great metaphysicians of the Western intellectual tradition are trying to get at is this—reality is the determinate of order, and understanding this order has implications for our personal lives, social concerns, and what it means for civilization to genuinely thrive. Wisdom is the virtue of using our metaphysical and ontological knowledge well.

Metaphysics, Philosophy

Introduction to Metaphysics part One: The Primacy of Wisdom

by Dave Seng

discover

The study of philosophy is that we may know not what men have taught but what the truth of things are – St. Thomas Aquinas

Metaphysics is a particularly challenging field because it underlies all we understand to be regarding the ultimate questions of life and reality and, further because it has such a long history. It is said that the literature covering the field of philosophy is the largest of all academic fields. Metaphysics, as a sub-discipline of philosophy, is the rational and critical investigation of Being or reality. It is held by the classical philosophers and those throughout the middle ages that metaphysics is the pursuit of wisdom through the intellectual discovery of the first principles and causes of reality. Aristotle explains that the genuinely wise individual is one who knows the first principles of something—not just that something exists but why and provides the example that it is one thing to know that fire is hot, but it is more significant to know why fire is hot. True wisdom goes beyond the knowledge which sense perception provides (because everyone to some extent has common sense perception) but to the rational understanding and ultimate wisdom of why something is the case. This post is the first in a series which will serve as a basic introduction to the field of metaphysics. Using Aristotle as our guide, we will discover why the understanding of metaphysics, or the study of reality, is the first and primary sort of wisdom.

In the Western intellectual trajectory, from the time of Plato and Aristotle, and through the middle ages, metaphysics was the chief end of philosophy. From about the Enlightenment to the modern period, metaphysics has fallen on hard times (modern-day critics come from various schools of thought known as “deconstruction”, “poststructuralism”, “critical theory” or other forms of postmodernism). Nonetheless, if a philosopher can’t speak intelligently about metaphysics there is nothing of significance left for a philosopher to discuss. For example, if a philosopher is a strict materialist, then he or she is not doing philosophy but, rather, science—no matter how creative or ingenious their argument might be. Science is a good and worthwhile enterprise but it is not philosophy.

The first book ever entitled “Metaphysics” comes from Aristotle. Aristotle’s Metaphysics examines the principles, axioms, and properties that underlie all reality and which apply to all fields of study. That is why he calls metaphysics “first philosophy” or the study of the most universal principles. I will point out that the skeptic cannot doubt the existence of Being. When one asks the question, “does something exist”? The skeptic might say “no” but miss the point that the question itself is something that exists and needs rational inquiry. Plato follows this line of thought in his dialogue entitled “Gorgias” and concludes that the skeptic can never say anything positive regarding reality. Try as one might, the fact of Being, or reality, cannot be denied.

When Aristotle refers to the content of his Metaphysics as “first philosophy” or simply “sophia” he is speaking about wisdom. From an Aristotelian stance, all of philosophy is said to be the love of “first philosophy” and should be inspired by the love of wisdom, which is the love of metaphysics. So what is this wisdom which should inspire all of philosophy? Further, why should reality be the primary starting point for the search of wisdom? And why should anyone be interested in this approach to wisdom in the first place? The answer to these kinds of questions rests, like most things in human life, in the ends or purpose of the enterprise. The end or purpose of metaphysics is to explain the most universal principles of reality, to offer a comprehensive view of all that exists, and through this inquiry offer wisdom regarding reality and the highest good of human existence.

Metaphysics speaks to the ultimate questions which no one can really avoid. Questions such as “is all reality ultimately in flux and change as Bergson, the process philosophers, and some of the pre-Socratics suggest, or is there a basic order and natural rhythm to the universe as other classical and contemporary philosophers claim? If there is a determined order to the universe, where is the place for human freedom, intuition, and non-rational ways of knowing? What is the origin, destiny, and fabric of reality? Is it always wrong to torture babies for fun?” We all have notions and ideas about the nature of reality, human nature, and the role of ethics in our lives. Far from being purely semantic or academic concerns, questions of metaphysics are part of our everyday experience and are ultimately grounded in our understanding of reality. In these introductory discussions, we’ll discover why we start with metaphysics and why it is unwise to let epistemology drive metaphysics. The point of metaphysics, then, is to illuminate our understanding of reality and offer a course to wisdom. The purpose (or end) of metaphysics, is to offer wisdom regarding the ultimate nature of reality and through rational deliberation, we can then apply this wisdom with intention and purpose to our own lives. This is why many have thought that wisdom is the highest good of the human mind.

For a more complete treatment see: Kane, Robert. “The Ends of Metaphysics.” International Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. XXXI., No. 4, Issue No. 132, 1993, 413-428. Kane’s article served as an inspiration to this post.