(1) How can we agree about 'matters of fact' about which we know nothing?
For the existentialists it is not possible for us as humans to disentangle ourselves from the 'world' in which we are a participant. As such it's not possible to take a dispassionate, timeless, pure position on 'matters of fact' per se. As I am participant within the world with prejudices and preconceptions I can only form a perspective about my interactions with 'matters of fact'. How can I establish if I am correct?
One way might be to attain as many perspectives as I can in the hope that the more perspective that cohere to my own, the more complete my concept of 'matters of fact' will become. I assemble the puzzle with as many pieces as I can, to develop a clearer picture of the object of my enquiry. The problem here that "black holes" seems to expose is the possibility of error should I only accept ideas that cohere with my own; there is no guarantee the consensus is correct.
(2) The Hawaii Problem and Climate Change
If I accept that (a) knowledge is experiential, and (b) I have no experience of Hawaii, and (c) I cannot share your perspective of Hawaii given our distinct experiential frameworks. Yet it does not follow that Hawaii is unknowable. It simply is the case that I am not [yet] in a position to have a perspective upon something of which I have no experience.
As such in asking questions such as "IS the climate changing due to human influences?" the answer is contingent upon who you ask. What we really appear to be asking is "Does it appear to you to be the case that climate is changing due to human influences?" or "Do you have experience of climate changing due to human influences?"
The reason such a question is likely unanswerable is because it's not immediately clear what such experience might actually be. With issues such as climate change, and the current political situation within the UK it seems optimistic to expect a binary conclusion from a question of such nuanced complexity.
No comments:
Post a Comment