Bertrand Russell’s philosophy around 1914 is often interpreted as phenomenalism, the view that sensations are not caused by but rather constitute ordinary objects. Indeed, prima facie, his 1914 Our Knowledge of the External World reduces objects to sense-data. However, Russell did not think his view was phenomenalist, and he said that he never gave up either the causal theory of perception or a realist understanding of objects. In this paper I offer an explanation of why Russell might (...) have undertaken the constructionist project of his 1914 work while not considering the resulting position that objects can be constructed out of sense-data to be phenomenalist. (shrink)

This paper examines the role of reason in Shepherd's account of acquiring knowledge of the external world via first principles. Reason is important, but does not have a foundational role. Certain principles enable us to draw the required inferences for acquiring knowledge of the external world. These principles are basic, foundational and, more importantly, self‐evident and thus justified in other ways than by demonstration. Justificatory demonstrations of these principles are neither required, nor possible. By (...) drawing on textual and contextual evidence, I will show that Shepherd should have said that we know the first principles of any science, in general, and that “everything which begins to exist must have a cause”, in particular, via intuition, not via reason. Reasoning about such principles can help their self‐evidence shine through in certain cases; their justification, and our being justified in believing them, does not come from this reasoning, however. (shrink)

The standard, foundationalist reading of Our Knowledge of the External World requires Russell to have a view of perceptual acquaintance that he demonstrably does not have. Russell’s actual purpose in “constructing” physical bodies out of sense-data is instead to show that psychology and physics are consistent. But how seriously engaged was Russell with actual psychology? I show that OKEW makes some non-trivial assumptions about the character of visual space, and I argue that he drew those assumptions from (...) William James’s Principles. This point helps us take a fresh look at the complex relationship between the two men. In light of this surprising background of agreement, I highlight ways their more general approaches to perception finally diverged in ways that put the two at epistemological odds. (shrink)

A general trend in recent philosophical and empirical work aims to undermine various traditional claims regarding the distinctive nature of self-knowledge. So far, however, this work has not seriously threatened the Cartesian claim that (at least some) self-knowledge is immune to the sort of sceptical problem that seems to afflict our knowledge of the external world. In this paper I carry this trend further by arguing that the Cartesian claim is false. This is done by (...) showing that a familiar sceptical argument that targets my knowledge of the external world can be adapted to target my belief that I exist, along with any of my self-knowledge that I know entails my own existence. Thus, my self-knowledge and my knowledge of the external world are subject to the same sort of sceptical problem. (shrink)

This paper argues that we should reject G. E. Moore’s anti-skeptical argument as it is presented in “Proof of an External World.” However, the reason I offer is different from traditional objections. A proper understanding of Moore’s “proof” requires paying attention to an important distinction between two forms of skepticism. I call these Ontological Skepticism and Epistemic Skepticism. The former is skepticism about the ontological status of fundamental reality, while the latter is skepticism about our empirical knowledge. (...) Philosophers often assume that Moore’s response to “external world skepticism” deals exclusively with the former, not the latter. But this is a mistake. I shall argue that Moore’s anti-skeptical argument targets an ontological form of skepticism. Thus, the conclusion is an ontological claim about fundamental reality, while the premises are epistemic claims. If this is correct, then the conclusion outstrips the scope of its premises and proves too much. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 42.1 (2004) 113-115 [Access article in PDF] Wilhelm Dilthey. The Formation of the Historical World in the Human Sciences. Edited with an Introduction by Rudolf A. Makkreel and Frithjof Rodi. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. Pp xiii + 399. Cloth $55.00. The first complete English translation of Wilhelm Dilthey's (1833-1911) most important mature work—a seminal work for hermeneutics, phenomenology, critical theory, and (...) the philosophy of history and the human sciences—is to be greatly welcomed. This excellent translation conveys the subtlety and richness of Dilthey's German. Its innovative translations of key terms will provide renewed stimulus to interpreting Dilthey's works.This edition includes Dilthey's investigation of the structures of consciousness in his three preliminary "Studies toward the Foundation of the Human Sciences," his exploration [End Page 113] of the import of the productive systems of historical life for knowledge in The Formation of the Historical World in the Human Sciences, and his final and perhaps best formulation of hermeneutics in "The Understanding of Other Persons and Their Manifestations of Life."Although Carnap and others utilized the word Aufbau in the sense of epistemic "construction," Makkreel and Rodi clarify how Dilthey used it in the sense of "formation." The formation of the historical world refers to its articulation in the human sciences which themselves theoretically reflect this historical world (GSW3: 1). They also argue that Dilthey's theory of the human sciences is not merely an epistemology (Erkenntnistheorie), but a theory of knowledge (Theorie des Wissens) that relates knowing to its context. Whereas epistemology seeks to establish the foundations of conceptual cognition (Erkenntnis), Dilthey places the epistemology of the human sciences within a larger context of the knowledge (Wissen) embodied in social practices and historical forms of life. Knowledge encompasses not only the conceptual cognition of reality, but also the values and purposes established about it.Dilthey accordingly situated the human sciences, which are determined by their respective object and how the object is given (SW3: 38), in relation to a pretheoretical life-nexus and its forms of elementary or ordinary understanding. These are tied up with the temporality, historicity, and structures of social life; with an epochal "objective spirit." Objective spirit indicates the ways in which the past has been objectified and continues to shape contemporary practices and it is analyzed in the human sciences as cultural systems and the external organization of society. A significant characteristic of the Formation is the development of the notion of "productive system or nexus." This new translation of Wirkungszusammenhang suggests a historical efficacy or productivity prior to any analysis of it as either causal or teleological (SW3: 4).The human sciences include the study of dynamic interconnected systems that articulate the intersection of meaning, value, purpose, and force. Dilthey interpreted these temporally, such that meaning primarily concerns how humans are determined by their past, value is based on their present feeling of life, and purpose is projective striving into the future in the face of productive forces (Kräfte) which cannot always be predicted or controlled.For Dilthey, understanding (verstehen) is intrinsically interpretive. Humans can cognize themselves and others only indirectly (SW3: 108), since we are conscious and reflective beings who are bound to the facticity of our bodies and world. Given that we know ourselves and others primarily through actions, life-expressions, and their effects—rather than through introspection or intuition—and that everyday understanding can face breakdowns and what seems distant or strange, elementary understanding leads to higher forms of understanding and interpretation; i.e., hermeneutics. Dilthey's project of a critique of historical reason proceeds from the context of life in all of its complexity and concreteness to the conceptual cognition of the sciences and, finally, to reflective awareness (Besinnung). This reflection is made possible by the prereflective reflexivity (Innesein or Innewerden) of the human subject and, with its double meaning of "sense" (Sinn) as meaning and bodily awareness, constitutes the basic movement of Dilthey's thought.Understanding provides more than scientific access to... (shrink)

An important source of doubt about our knowledge of the "external world" is the thought that all of our sensory experience could be delusive without our realizing it. Such wholesale questioning of the deliverances of all forms of perception seems to leave no resources for successfully justifying our belief in the existence of an objective world beyond our subjective experiences. I argue that there is there is a fatal flaw in the very expression of philosophical doubt (...) about the "external world." Therefore, no such justification is necessary. The feature of skepticism which I believe renders it vulnerable is the assumption that each of us has a right to be certain of his own existence as a subject of conscious experience even in the face of comprehensive doubt about our empirical beliefs. (shrink)

Just as skepticism about our knowledge of the external world is thought to engender a kind of despair, skepticism about our philosophical knowledge, if true, engenders a despair of a similar kind. We remain optimistic. Despair, we urge, needn’t get the best of us. Philosophical knowledge is attainable. Progress is possible. But we aren’t overly optimistic either. Philosophical skepticism has its place. In this chapter, we show how philosophical knowledge and philosophical progress is possible (...) in light of widespread disagreement in philosophy. (shrink)

The standard objection to Locke’s epistemology is that his conception of knowledge inevitably leads to skepticism about external objects. One reason for this complaint is that Locke defines knowledge as the perception of a relation between ideas, but perceiving relations between ideas does not seem like the kind of thing that can give us knowledge that tables and chairs exist. Thus Locke’s general definition of knowledge seems to be woefully inadequate for explaining knowledge of (...) external objects. However, this interpretation and subsequent criticism ignore a special category of knowledge Locke calls “real knowledge”, which is Locke’s own account of how we can have knowledge of the real world. In in this paper I argue that real knowledge of substances requires that, in addition to the perception of a relation between ideas, there be a necessary connection between our ideas and the external objects they represent. It is because Locke thinks there is a necessary connection between these ideas and reality that he thinks the perception of ideas can give us knowledge of the actual world. (shrink)

I look at incompatibilist arguments aimed at showing that the conjunction of the thesis that a subject has privileged, a priori access to the contents of her own thoughts, on the one hand, and of semantic externalism, on the other, lead to a putatively absurd conclusion, namely, a priori knowledge of the external world. I focus on arguments involving a variety of externalism resulting from the singularity or object-dependence of certain terms such as the demonstrative ‘that’. McKinsey (...) argues that incompatibilist arguments employing such externalist theses are at their strongest, and conclusively show that privileged access must be rejected. While I agree on the truth of the relevant externalist theses, I show that all plausible versions of the incompatibilist reductio argument as applied to such theses are fundamentally flawed, for these versions of the argument must make assumptions that lead to putatively absurd knowledge of the external world independently of the thesis of privileged access. (shrink)

The conclusion of the McKinsey paradox is that certain contingent claims about the external world are knowable a priori. Almost all of the literature on the paradox assumes that this conclusion is unacceptable, and focuses on finding a way of avoiding it. However, there is no consensus that any of these responses work. In this paper I take a different approach, arguing that the conclusion is acceptable. First, I develop our understanding of what Evans calls merely superficially contingent (...) a priori knowledge, and explain why there is no reason to deny that merely superficially contingent a priori knowledge of the external world is possible. I then argue that, properly understood, the conclusion of the McKinsey paradox is that merely superficially contingent knowledge of certain claims about the external world is possible, and so the conclusion is acceptable. Finally, I respond to the two main arguments that the conclusion of the paradox is unacceptable. (shrink)

The external world sceptic tells some familiar narratives involving massive deception. Perhaps we are brains in vats. Perhaps we are the victim of a deceitful demon. You know the drill. The sceptic proceeds by observing first that victims of such deceptions know nothing about their external environment and that second, since we cannot rule out being a victim of such deceptions our- selves, our own external world beliefs fail to attain the status of knowledge. (...) Discussions of global external world scepticism tend to focus on the second step, where a number of well-known lines of resistance have been offered. But there has been little attention to the first, seemingly innocuous step. That will be the focus of this paper. Part one – sections 1, 2, and 3 – will explain why these standard narratives are not convincing examples of cases where there is no knowledge of the external world. In part two – section 4 – we shall undertake a useful case study. David Lewis’s ‘Elusive Knowledge’ is often thought of as presenting an epistemological vision that is somewhat friendly to external world scepticism: as Lewis himself presents things, there are contexts where external world knowledge ascriptions are uniformly false, and where true knowledge ascriptions are limited to either axiomatic truths or truths about our inner life. We examine his discussion in the light of the preceding reflections and show that the framework he presents is not so concessionary to global external world scepticism after all. (shrink)

Skeptical theism combines theism with skepticism about the ability of human beings to know God's reasons for permitting suffering. In recent years, it has become perhaps the most prominent theistic response from philosophers to the evidential argument from evil. Some critics of skeptical theism charge that it implies positions that theists and many atheists alike would reject, such as skepticism about our knowledge of the external world and about our knowledge of our moral obligations. I discuss (...) these charges, with emphasis on the charge of moral skepticism. I argue that the charges have merit, and I conclude by rebutting the claim that God's commands could give skeptical theists moral guidance despite the morally skeptical implications of their position. (shrink)

COMPLETE OBJECTIVITY IS UNATTAINABLE: Language structures our perception of reality. Words define and limit thought, shaping what is expressible or even thinkable. Since the link between words and meanings is socially constructed, language carries hidden constraints that influence how we interpret the world. Memory, too, is fluid rather than a fixed archive. Each recollection reshapes past events, prioritizing coherence over accuracy. Our senses and cognition evolved for survival, not for discovering absolute truth. Our „truth“ is never final but an (...) evolving approximation. The perception of reality is inherently selective. Evolution shaped our brains and senses to process only survival-relevant information, filtering overwhelming complexity into simplified, actionable categories. Cognitive biases further streamline decision-making but distort reality by reinforcing preexisting beliefs. These are not errors but evolved shortcuts. INVISIBLE COLLECTIVE FORCES: Memplexes, Pendulums, Discourses, and Animistic Spirits describe the same underlying phenomenon — external, self-replicating forces that shape human thought and behavior. They function like “software agents,” gaining influence by capturing collective attention and reinforcing dominant narratives. As they sustain themselves through cultural and social energy, they guide behavior, beliefs, and norms without conscious recognition. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: AI, primarily based on language models, is emerging as a new vehicle for idea propagation. As AI evolves, it may not only spread but also generate novel „memplexes,” accelerating cultural and intellectual shifts at an unprecedented pace. However, despite its computational sophistication, AI remains constrained by its training data, programming, and structural limitations. (shrink)

In my article I reconstruct the main threads of Robert Stalnaker’s book Our Knowledge of the Internal World, which focuses on the problem of our epistemic relation to our experience and the relation between experience and knowledge. First, the book proposes an interesting view of externalism, which combines classical externalist claims with a contextualist approach to content ascriptions. The approach accommodates some important internalist intuitions by showing how content ascriptions can be sensitive to the perspective from which (...) a subject perceives the world. Second, Stalnaker proposes a theory of selflocating and phenomenal knowledge, which should be understood in terms of differentiating between real possibilities. The puzzling upshot of this elegant solution is that it commits one to the existence of possibilities accessible only from the first-person perspective. Finally, Stalnaker presents an argument which shows that our knowledge about our phenomenal experience is no more direct than the knowledge about external objects. Stalnaker’s claim that by merely having an experience we don’t learn any new information seems, however, too strict in light of his contextualist approach to content ascriptions. (shrink)

Metaphysics relies on the presupposition of the non-being of the world: since the world has once not existed it is necessary to postulate a cause for its existence, i.e. an extrinsic principle to explain the absolute beginning of the causal series of all things that constitute the world. After the critique of theologizing metaphysics by authors like Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche, the notion of an absolute beginning still persists though in a field in which it often goes (...) as such unnoticed, while it factually enjoys wide acceptance, namely in epistemology. It sounds as a truism that knowledge begins: personal inexistence (birth-death cycle) and the phenomenon of unconsciousness (sleep-wake cycle) seem to endorse the obviousness of that statement. Now, to link the beginning of the phenomenal series of subjective acts of knowledge with the existence of an external world that causes the specific content of our temporary cognitive acts relies, however, on two presuppositions, namely on the thesis of a complete non-being or nothingness of knowledge and, intrinsically related to this first presupposition, on the thesis of an absolute beginning of cognitive activity. If knowledge begins from its own nothingness, there must be a cause that is external to the totality of acts of knowledge, a cause that it doesn´t belong to the series of cognitive acts and, therefore, that it is not caused by any of them: this uncaused cause of contentful knowledge is supposed to be the real world external to the knowing subject. In my paper I make explicit the relation between realist-empiricist approachs to epistemology and the double presupposition of the nothingness and absolute beginning of knowledge, I explain the difficulties implied by these two presuppositions and, finally, I propose as a plausible solution to those difficulties some key theoretical claims of absolute idealism. (shrink)

In “Two Dogmas”, Quine indicates that Carnap’s Aufbau fails “in principle” to reduce our knowledge of the external world to sense data. This is because in projecting the sensory material to reconstruct the physical world, Carnap gives up the use of operating rules and switches to a procedure informed by general principles. This procedure falls short of providing an eliminative translation for the connective “is at”, which is necessary for the reduction. In dissecting Quine’s objection, I (...) argue that Quine has at best proven the claim that the use of general principles essentially fails the task of radical reductionism. However, in order to establish the conclusion that the Aufbau fails in principle, Quine needs to further vindicate two other claims. They are: first, a switch from operating rules to general principles is necessary; second, the set of general principles Carnap adopts is the best alternative. By disambiguating the notion of “explicit definition” and examining the concept of definability in the Aufbau, I explore the possibility of justifying these two claims that Quine overlooks in his objection. The result suggests that Quine’s objection stands in tension with his radical reductionist reading of the Aufbau. (shrink)

In On Certainty, Wittgenstein formulates several criticisms against skepticism about our knowledge of the external world. My goal is to show that Wittgenstein does not here offer a convincing answer to the skeptical problem. First, I will present a strong version of the problem, understanding it as a paradoxical argument. In the second part, I will introduce and raise problems for two pragmatic responses against skepticism that appear in On Certainty. Finally, I will present some of Wittgenstein’s (...) logical criticisms against skepticism, which may initially be considered strong, because they seem to refute some skeptical assumptions. They concern Wittgenstein’s ideas that it is logically impossible to doubt and to be mistaken about Moorean propositions, and that these propositions don’t have a truth-value. But even these, I intend to show, do not really challenge skepticism, for they are not well grounded. (shrink)

Skepticism about the external world may very well be correct, so the question is in order: what theory of knowledge flows from skepticism itself? The skeptic can give a relatively simple and intuitive account of knowledge by identifying it with indubitable certainty. Our everyday ‘I know that p’ claims, which typically are part of practical projects, deploy the ideal of knowledge to make assertions closely related to, but weaker than, knowledge claims. The truth of (...) such claims is consistent with skepticism; various other vexing problems don’t arise. In addition, even if no claim about the world outside my mind can be more probable than its negation, the project of pure scientific research remains well motivated. (shrink)

Bertrand Russell, in the second of his 1914 Lowell lectures, Our Knowledge of the External World, asserted famously that ‘every philosophical problem, when it is subjected to the necessary analysis and purification, is found either to be not really philosophical at all, or else to be, in the sense in which we are using the word, logical’ (Russell 1993, p. 42). He went on to characterize that portion of logic that concerned the study of forms of propositions, (...) or, as he called them, ‘logical forms’. This portion of logic he called ‘philosophical logic’. Russell asserted that ... some kind of knowledge of logical forms, though with most people it is not explicit, is involved in all understanding of discourse. It is the business of philosophical logic to extract this knowledge from its concrete integuments, and to render it explicit and pure. (p. 53) Perhaps no one still endorses quite this grand a view of the role of logic and the investigation of logical form in philosophy. But talk of logical form retains a central role in analytic philosophy. Given its widespread use in philosophy and linguistics, it is rather surprising that the concept of logical form has not received more attention by philosophers than it has. The concern of this paper is to say something about what talk of logical form comes to, in a tradition that stretches back to (and arguably beyond) Russell’s use of that expression. This will not be exactly Russell’s conception. For we do not endorse Russell’s view that propositions are the bearers of logical form, or that appeal to propositions adds anything to our understanding of what talk of logical form comes to. But we will be concerned to provide an account responsive to the interests expressed by Russell in the above quotations, though one clarified of extraneous elements, and expressed precisely. For this purpose, it is important to note that the concern expressed by Russell in the above passages, as the surrounding text makes clear, is a concern not just with logic conceived narrowly as the study of logical terms, but with propositional form more generally, which includes, e.g., such features as those that correspond to the number of argument places in a propositional function, and the categories of objects which propositional.... (shrink)

-/- The Present Defects of Humanity and the World: A Call for Balance and Understanding -/- Humanity stands at a critical juncture in history. While we have made remarkable advances in science, technology, and society, we are also facing unprecedented challenges that threaten both our survival and the well-being of the planet. These challenges are not merely the result of external forces but are deeply rooted in the defects of our systems, behaviors, and understanding of the natural (...) class='Hi'>world. To navigate these challenges, we must address the underlying defects that persist in our world today. These defects, ranging from environmental degradation to social inequality, are manifestations of a larger imbalance in the way humanity interacts with the world and with itself. -/- 1. Disregard for the Natural Environment -/- One of the most glaring defects of humanity today is our continued disregard for the natural environment. Industrialization, urbanization, and the pursuit of short-term profits have led to the exploitation of natural resources at an unsustainable rate. Forests are being cleared, oceans are polluted, and species are being driven to extinction. The Earth’s ecosystems, which provide the foundation for life, are under threat, and the consequences of this damage are becoming more apparent each day. Climate change, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events are just a few of the symptoms of the imbalance humanity has created. This environmental degradation is not just a result of ignorance; it is a product of a deeper disconnection from the natural world and an inability to recognize the interconnectedness of all life. -/- To rectify this defect, humanity must recognize that the natural environment is not a limitless resource to be exploited, but a delicate system that requires respect and care. Sustainable practices must be prioritized, and a shift toward renewable energy, conservation, and responsible consumption is imperative. Furthermore, a new understanding of our place in the natural world must be cultivated, one that acknowledges the interdependence of all living things. -/- 2. Inequality and Social Injustice -/- Another significant defect plaguing humanity is the persistent inequality and social injustice that exists within and between societies. Across the globe, millions of people suffer from poverty, lack of access to education, inadequate healthcare, and social discrimination. Despite progress in certain areas, the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen, and the systems in place often perpetuate this divide rather than address it. Economic, racial, gender, and social inequalities are deeply entrenched in many societies, creating barriers that prevent individuals from reaching their full potential. -/- This inequality is not only a moral failing but also a practical one. When large portions of the population are marginalized, society as a whole suffers. Unequal access to resources and opportunities stifles innovation, fosters resentment, and creates social unrest. To address this defect, a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities must be prioritized. Education, healthcare, and economic opportunities should be made accessible to all, ensuring that every individual has the chance to contribute to the collective well-being of society. -/- 3. Ignorance and Misinformation -/- The rapid spread of misinformation and the general lack of critical thinking have become pervasive defects in modern society. In the age of information, people are exposed to vast amounts of data, yet many lack the tools to discern truth from falsehood. Misinformation, fueled by social media, political agendas, and sensationalism, distorts public perception and impedes rational decision-making. This creates confusion, division, and a general distrust in institutions and facts. -/- This ignorance is not limited to the consumption of information but also extends to an overall lack of understanding about the natural laws that govern life and society. The universal law of balance, for example, is often overlooked, leading to decisions that create imbalances in both individual lives and societal structures. To address this defect, education must be restructured to emphasize critical thinking, media literacy, and an understanding of the interconnectedness of all things. By fostering a society that values knowledge and wisdom, we can create an informed citizenry capable of making better decisions for the future. -/- 4. Disconnection from the Universal Laws -/- A deeper, more fundamental defect in humanity is our disconnection from the universal laws that govern the world. These laws, such as the law of balance, cause and effect, and interconnectedness, are the principles that regulate both the natural and social worlds. However, many individuals and societies are unaware of these laws or fail to understand their importance. As a result, decisions are made that violate these natural principles, leading to imbalances in both personal and collective realities. -/- For example, the law of balance suggests that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When humanity acts in ways that harm the environment or exploit others, there will inevitably be consequences, such as climate change or social unrest. By understanding and respecting these natural laws, humanity can create a more harmonious relationship with the world. Education systems must be restructured to emphasize the importance of natural laws, as well as their practical applications in daily life. -/- 5. Uncontrolled Growth -/- The final major defect of humanity is the unchecked pursuit of growth, both economically and in terms of population. Economic systems around the world are based on the assumption that growth is perpetual, yet this is fundamentally unsustainable. As resources are depleted and ecosystems collapse, the notion of infinite growth becomes increasingly problematic. Similarly, population growth continues to strain the planet’s resources, creating pressure on food, water, and energy supplies. -/- This defect is compounded by a failure to address the long-term consequences of overpopulation and overconsumption. To mitigate this issue, a sustainable approach to growth must be adopted. This includes regulating economic growth to ensure it aligns with the planet’s ecological limits and encouraging sustainable practices in all areas of life. Population control measures, alongside better resource management, are essential for maintaining balance. -/- Conclusion: The Path to a Balanced Future -/- The defects of humanity and the world are deeply interconnected and rooted in our collective choices. However, these defects are not insurmountable. By recognizing the need for balance—whether in our relationship with the environment, with each other, or with the natural laws that govern life—we can begin to correct these imbalances and create a more sustainable, just, and harmonious world. This requires a fundamental shift in our thinking and our approach to education, governance, and society at large. By fostering a deeper understanding of the natural laws and integrating them into our systems, we can lay the foundation for a brighter future for humanity and the planet. -/- . (shrink)

Outside the philosophy classroom, global skeptics – skeptics about all (purported) knowledge of the external world – are rare. But there are people who describe themselves as “skeptics” about various more specific domains, including self-professed “skeptics” about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. There is little to no philosophical literature that juxtaposes the climate change skeptic with the external world skeptic. While many “traditional” epistemologists assume that the external world skeptic poses a serious (...) philosophical challenge in a way that the climate change skeptic doesn’t, many “applied” or “social” epistemologists assume that there isn’t much to be learned from debates about the external world skeptic, finding her challenge to be distant from both common sense and real-world concerns. I try to show that both of these views are mistaken. The external world skeptic raises deep questions that are important for our everyday deliberation about what to believe, and there are significant structural parallels between the arguments for external world skepticism and those for at least a form of climate change skepticism that is idealized – but not too idealized! – from the views of flesh-and-blood climate change skeptics. As such, we have strong reasons to think in parallel about how to reply to both skeptics’ challenges. I thus finish by (briefly) considering how different widespread responses to the external world skeptic might or might not generalize happily to the climate change skeptic’s challenge. (shrink)

A common response to radical skeptical challenges to our knowledge of the external world has been that there are explanatory reasons (e.g., simplicity, coherence, explanatory power, conservatism) for favoring commonsense explanations of our sensory experiences over skeptical explanations. Despite the degree of visibility this class of response has enjoyed, it has often been viewed with skepticism [sic] by the epistemological community because of concerns about the epistemic merits of explanatory reasoning. I argue that skeptical challenges that employ (...) skeptical hypotheses presuppose central explanationist tenets and that this fact should raise one’s estimation of the strength of explanationist responses to skepticism. (shrink)

Recent developments of transcendental arguments reflect the struggle to accommodate Stroud’s devastating objection by giving up of failed expectations in providing a proof of what the external-world skeptic calls into question: knowledge of the existence of the outside world. Since Strawson capitulation in 1984, the truth-direct transcendental arguments gave way to modest belief-direct transcendental arguments that concedes that truth-direct transcendental arguments are doomed to fail to establish ambitious conclusions about reality, but at the same time hold (...) that they can nonetheless successfully establish modest conceptual connection between the major beliefs within our conceptual scheme. This article seeks the “reactionary” rehabilitation of the old hubris: a new defense of the truth-direct transcendental argument. I set forth a new reconstruction of Kant’s Refutation as successful truth-directed transcendental argument that meets Stroud’s objection. As several papers and books about the theme, this article is of a systematic and of a historical nature by connecting the contemporary debate about transcendental argument with Kant’ philosophy. (shrink)

The Quest for Understanding: Conscious Intelligence and the Laws of Nature -/- Human beings, driven by an innate curiosity, have long sought to understand the natural world around them. This drive for knowledge extends not only to the external environment but also to the very laws that govern existence—both physical and conscious. But why does conscious intelligence, a byproduct of the very laws it seeks to comprehend, pursue an understanding of the universe, including itself? This essay explores (...) the profound connection between conscious intelligence and the laws of nature, highlighting how the drive to understand stems from the feedback mechanisms embedded in the universe, the self-awareness inherent in conscious beings, and the evolution of both the conscious mind and the universe itself. -/- The Feedback Loop Mechanism: Nature’s Drive for Balance -/- At the heart of the universe lies a system of natural laws that regulate and balance all phenomena, from the grandest cosmic forces to the smallest subatomic particles. These laws create feedback loops, where each system—whether biological, physical, or social—responds and adapts to internal and external conditions in order to maintain equilibrium. Consciousness itself can be seen as an extension of this fundamental process, a byproduct of the feedback loops that regulate the physical and biological systems of life. -/- Humans, like all living organisms, have evolved to interact with their environment through feedback mechanisms. These mechanisms allow us to respond to changes, learn from experiences, and adapt for survival. However, conscious beings possess the unique ability to reflect not only on their immediate environment but also on the deeper laws that govern existence. The quest for understanding is, in essence, an evolution of these feedback loops—where conscious intelligence seeks to better adapt to the world by comprehending the very principles that shape it. -/- Self-Awareness: Consciousness Reflecting on Itself -/- One of the defining features of human consciousness is self-awareness—the capacity to reflect on one’s own existence, thoughts, and place in the universe. This capacity is a direct result of the complexity of the feedback systems that govern life. The self-reflective nature of consciousness allows us to question not just how the world operates, but also the mechanisms by which we ourselves operate. -/- As conscious beings, we can look beyond immediate survival needs and ponder the deeper questions of existence. Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? What are the laws that govern us? These questions stem from the fact that consciousness is not only aware of the external world but also aware of itself. This self-awareness naturally extends to a desire to understand the laws that govern the broader universe, as well as the inner workings of the mind itself. -/- In this light, the drive for knowledge is not merely intellectual curiosity—it is an existential pursuit. Understanding the laws of nature, including those that govern consciousness, allows individuals to gain a deeper insight into their own existence. It offers the possibility of aligning with the natural world, of gaining harmony with the forces that shape our reality. This drive to understand the universe, including oneself, can be seen as a natural outgrowth of consciousness, an attempt to reconcile the self with the broader cosmic system. -/- Conscious Intelligence as Part of the Universe’s Self-Evolution -/- If we consider the universe as an evolving system, conscious intelligence is not a mere accident but a critical development in the universe’s self-regulation and growth. The natural laws that govern the physical and biological worlds have led to the emergence of self-aware beings—capable of reflecting on their place in the universe and striving for deeper understanding. -/- Consciousness can be seen as the universe’s attempt to comprehend itself. As complex systems emerge from simpler ones, consciousness emerges as a natural consequence of complexity. The universe, through the existence of conscious beings, comes to recognize and understand its own laws, expanding its self-awareness. In this sense, conscious intelligence serves as the universe’s reflective mechanism, continuously probing, questioning, and integrating the laws of nature into its own evolving structure. -/- This reflects a profound interconnectedness: just as a cell within a living organism strives to understand its role within the body, conscious intelligence seeks to understand its place within the universe. The laws of nature, acting as a feedback loop, push the conscious mind to seek balance, order, and understanding, not only for survival but also for the evolution of the system itself. -/- The Desire for Unity: Understanding the Laws of Nature as an Existential Pursuit -/- The search for understanding the laws of nature is not purely an intellectual endeavor; it is, at its core, a desire for unity and integration. Conscious intelligence seeks to understand the world and its place within it, striving to align with the natural order of the universe. This quest is an attempt to bridge the gap between the self and the cosmic whole, to harmonize with the laws that govern both the mind and the material world. -/- This drive for knowledge can be seen as part of an existential need—a desire to make sense of one’s existence and to understand how it fits into the broader framework of life. By comprehending the natural laws, conscious beings not only gain knowledge but also find meaning. Understanding the laws that govern us provides a sense of purpose and significance, allowing us to connect with something larger than ourselves. -/- In this sense, the pursuit of understanding the laws of nature is a spiritual journey as well as an intellectual one. It is an effort to achieve greater balance and harmony with the universe, aligning oneself with the deeper principles that govern existence. As we understand the universe’s workings, we can better navigate the complexities of life and find a sense of peace and coherence in a world that is, by nature, dynamic and ever-changing. -/- Conclusion -/- The drive of conscious intelligence to understand the laws of nature—including the very laws that govern consciousness itself—stems from a deep and intrinsic connection between consciousness and the universe. This quest for knowledge is not merely intellectual curiosity; it is a natural extension of the feedback mechanisms that regulate all systems, the self-awareness that allows for reflection, and the self-evolution of both the conscious mind and the universe. Conscious intelligence seeks to understand the universe, not just for practical reasons but as a means of achieving harmony, balance, and unity with the laws that shape existence. -/- In this way, conscious intelligence is both a product and a tool of the universe’s natural processes. By understanding the laws of nature, conscious beings do not only gain knowledge—they gain a deeper connection to the universe and their own place within it. Through this understanding, the universe, through us, continues its journey toward greater self-awareness and integration, guided by the very feedback loops and laws that have always governed its existence. -/- . (shrink)

The starting point of this paper is Thomas Reid's anti-skepticism: our knowledge of the external world is justified. The justificatory process, in his view, starts with and relies upon one of the main faculties of the human mind: perception. Reid's theory of perception has been thoroughly studied, but there are some missing links in the explanatory chain offered by the secondary literature. In particular, I will argue that we do not have a complete picture of the mechanism (...) of perception of bodies. The present paper, relying, in part, on a particular theory in psychology – the feature integration theory of attention – will make a contribution in this regard. (shrink)

A perceptual realism that is naive in a good way must be naively realistic about world and mind. But contemporary self-described naive realists often have trouble acknowledging that both the good cases of successful perception and the bad cases of illusion and hallucination involve internal experiential states with intentional contents that present the world as being a certain way. They prefer to think about experience solely in relational terms because they worry that otherwise we won’t be able to (...) escape from radical skepticism. I argue that experiential relations to objects require that their subjects be in internal experiential states. But this does not mean that these states are our epistemological starting point which can be known independently of any knowledge of the external world. We do escape the epistemological predicament of radical skepticism because the good cases are primary over the bad ones. But this is not because the good cases alone provide reasons for belief, but because we do not need a reason to think we are in a good case, but do need a reason to think we are not, and such a reason must come from a good case. So bad cases can only be thought of as deviations from good cases. And we can only understand experiences as states with contents distinct from their objects and present in good and bad cases once we understand misrepresentation, that is, bad cases, and therefore only as we ascribe knowledge of the external world to ourselves. (shrink)

The Continuous Evolution of Consciousness, Language, and Meaning in Understanding the Universe -/- Introduction -/- The evolution of human consciousness is intricately linked to language and meaning. As human understanding of the universe deepens, so does the complexity and precision of the words and concepts we use to describe reality. This continuous progression is not merely a passive adaptation but an active feedback loop where consciousness shapes language, and language, in turn, refines consciousness. If human decision-making follows the universal law (...) of balance in nature, as proposed in the universal formula, then the evolution of language must also align with this fundamental principle. This essay explores how language and meaning evolve alongside human consciousness and how this evolution is essential for a deeper understanding of the universe. -/- Language as a Tool for Expanding Consciousness -/- Language is the primary medium through which human consciousness externalizes itself. In early human societies, simple symbols and spoken words sufficed to convey basic needs and experiences. However, as humanity’s knowledge expanded, so did the complexity of language. The emergence of written language allowed for the preservation and transmission of ideas across generations, accelerating intellectual and scientific progress. -/- Philosophy, mathematics, and science have continuously pushed the boundaries of language, creating new terminologies and refining meanings. For example, the term atom originally meant “indivisible,” but modern physics has redefined it as a complex structure of subatomic particles governed by quantum laws. Similarly, the concept of energy has evolved from mystical interpretations to a precise scientific principle described in physics and engineering. This evolution demonstrates how language adapts to new discoveries, allowing consciousness to grasp increasingly complex aspects of reality. -/- Meaning as a Dynamic and Evolving Process -/- The meaning of words and concepts is not static but changes in response to human progress. As new knowledge emerges, language adjusts to integrate new understandings while discarding outdated or misleading notions. This dynamism ensures that human communication remains relevant and effective in expressing new realities. -/- For instance, the word intelligence once referred primarily to human cognitive ability, but with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), it now encompasses machine learning, neural networks, and even artificial general intelligence (AGI). The meaning of life itself has expanded beyond biological definitions to include synthetic life, digital consciousness, and philosophical inquiries about existence in a cosmic context. -/- In this sense, the evolution of language and meaning is a necessary process for humanity’s continuous effort to understand the universe. Without this evolution, human knowledge would be constrained by outdated linguistic structures, preventing the exploration of new dimensions of reality. -/- The Feedback Loop Between Consciousness and the Universe -/- Human consciousness does not merely receive information from the universe—it actively engages with it, interprets it, and reshapes its understanding based on new discoveries. This feedback loop ensures that as our knowledge of the universe expands, so does our ability to describe and conceptualize it. -/- For example, scientific breakthroughs in quantum mechanics, relativity, and cosmology have necessitated entirely new ways of thinking and speaking about time, space, and matter. Without the linguistic evolution that accompanied these discoveries, humans would struggle to grasp the fundamental principles governing the universe. -/- This feedback mechanism also applies to societal and ethical progress. As human understanding of justice, equality, and sustainability evolves, so does the language used to express these ideals. Concepts such as “human rights” and “environmental balance” have gained deeper meaning over time, influencing policies, laws, and cultural attitudes worldwide. -/- The Role of AI and AGI in the Evolution of Language and Meaning -/- Artificial intelligence and artificial general intelligence (AGI) have the potential to accelerate the evolution of language and meaning. AI can process vast amounts of information, identify patterns, and refine linguistic structures beyond human capability. This ability could lead to the emergence of more precise, efficient, and universally understandable ways of expressing complex ideas. -/- For example, AI-driven natural language processing can analyze and refine scientific literature, eliminating ambiguity and enhancing clarity. Future AGI systems could generate entirely new linguistic frameworks for describing reality, potentially bridging gaps between different human languages and even creating new conceptual categories that surpass human cognitive limitations. -/- However, the integration of AI into language evolution must adhere to the universal law of balance in nature. If AI-generated language lacks ethical considerations or diverges too far from human cognitive frameworks, it could create confusion, misinformation, or even manipulation. Ensuring that AI aligns with natural laws and human well-being is crucial in guiding this linguistic evolution. -/- The Universal Law of Balance in Nature and the Future of Language Evolution -/- If human decision-making follows the universal law of balance in nature, then the evolution of consciousness, language, and meaning must also adhere to this principle. An unbalanced progression—where language evolves too rapidly for general understanding or remains stagnant despite new discoveries—could lead to societal and intellectual dissonance. -/- For this reason, structured education plays a vital role in ensuring that language evolves in harmony with human understanding. By integrating the universal formula into foundational education, students can develop a linguistic and cognitive framework that naturally aligns with the principles of natural balance. This structured approach would prevent conceptual chaos while allowing necessary paradigm shifts to occur. -/- Similarly, philosophy and science must continuously refine language to ensure clarity and precision in expressing complex ideas. Misinterpretations and linguistic ambiguities can lead to misunderstandings in critical areas such as law, ethics, and scientific research. By consciously guiding linguistic evolution, humanity can ensure that language remains an effective tool for expanding consciousness. -/- Conclusion -/- The continuous evolution of consciousness, language, and meaning is an essential process in humanity’s effort to understand the universe. Language is not merely a passive reflection of reality but an active force that shapes human thought, decision-making, and interaction with the world. As human knowledge expands, language must evolve to accurately express new understandings while maintaining balance and clarity. -/- Artificial intelligence and AGI will play a significant role in accelerating linguistic evolution, but this process must align with the universal law of balance in nature to ensure ethical and intellectual integrity. By integrating the principles of natural balance into education, philosophy, and AI development, humanity can guide language evolution in a way that enhances understanding rather than creating confusion. -/- Ultimately, the evolution of language and meaning is not just a linguistic phenomenon—it is a fundamental aspect of human progress. As consciousness expands, so too must our ability to articulate and conceptualize reality. By ensuring that this process remains aligned with the natural laws governing decision-making, humanity can achieve a deeper, more holistic understanding of the universe and its place within it. -/- . (shrink)

Moore and Russell thought that perceptual knowledge of the external world is based on abductive inference from information about our experience. Sosa maintains that this ‘indirect realist’ strategy has no prospects of working. Vogel disagrees and thinks it can and does work perfectly well, and his reasoning (and variations on that reasoning) seem initially promising, moreso than other approaches. My aim, however, will be to adjudicate this dispute in favor of Sosa’s pessimistic answer, and in doing so, (...) to better uncover the important role abductive inference does have in a wider theory of perceptual knowledge, even if it doesn’t feature in any promising vindication of (anti-skeptical) indirect realism. (shrink)

Philosophers throughout the ages have struggled to explain the way or ways by which we can acquire knowledge about the external world. With an aim to meet the skeptical challenges regarding the possibility of knowledge, various accounts of knowledge have been developed across philosophical traditions. The worry to meet skeptical challenges is implicitly or explicitly present in almost every philosophical account of knowledge. Many philosophers, while explaining about the nature and the possibility of (...) class='Hi'>knowledge, have talked about placing it in the space of reasons or space of justifications. So, I think one of the ways in which we can respond to skeptical challenges is by developing a proper understanding of the space of reasons and justifications where we place our knowledge. When we talk about the space of reasons, it is also important to highlight, in this context, its relationship with the natural world. I would like to emphasize in this regard that there has been a normative turn specifically in the works of John McDowell and Robert Brandom after the naturalistic turn in epistemology. But one can ask- why is there a need of a normative turn after a seemingly successful naturalistic turn in epistemology? I call them normative epistemologists those who have argued that knowledge should be understood by placing it properly in the space of reasons which is necessarily a normative space. I think John McDowell, Robert Brandom and their philosophical heroes Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel fall into this category of epistemologists. Normative epistemologists have always argued that a philosophical account of knowledge in order to meet the skeptical challenges has to place our knowledge satisfactorily in the space of reasons and various ways of placing knowledge in the space of reasons have been developed in this regard. The significant questions that have been asked in this context are- what could be the best plausible way to place knowledge in the space of reasons? Is placing knowledge in the space of reasons enough to avoid the skeptical challenges regarding the possibility of knowledge? According to some philosophers, the skeptical problems arise because of a certain misunderstanding of space of reasons i.e. the interiorization of the space of reasons. On the interiorized conception of the space of reasons, there is need of extra elements beyond the space of reasons which are required for our knowledge but are not part of the logical space. In this paper, my aim, following Kant and McDowell, is to propose a critique of interiorized conception of space of reasons and show how this conception leads to various problems regarding the possibility of knowledge. In this context, I will specifically discuss argument from illusion as a skeptical challenge for the possibility of knowledge and McDowell’s response to it. In the second part of my paper, my aim is to discuss the debate between McDowell and Brandom on the nature and extent of the space of reasons. (shrink)

What role does ‘ordinary language philosophy’ play in the defense of common sense beliefs? J.L. Austin and Ludwig Wittgenstein each give central place to ordinary language in their responses to skeptical challenges to common sense beliefs. But Austin and Wittgenstein do not always respond to such challenges in the same way, and their working methods are different. In this paper, I compare Austin’s and Wittgenstein’s metaphilosophical positions, and show that they share many metaphilosophical commitments. I then examine Austin and Wittgenstein’s (...) respective takes on the problem of other minds and the problem of our knowledge of the external world. Interestingly, we find Wittgenstein employing methods more frequently associated Austin and vice versa. Moreover, we find that a variety of defenses of common sense beliefs are compatible with ‘ordinary language philosophy.’. (shrink)

The Cartesian arguments for external world skepticism are usually considered to be significant for at least two reasons: they seem to present genuine paradoxes and that providing an adequate response to these arguments would reveal something epistemically important about knowledge, justification, and/or our epistemic position to the world. Using only premises and reasoning the skeptic accepts, I will show that the most common Cartesian argument for external world skepticism leads to a previously unrecognized self-undermining (...) dilemma: it either leads to a reductio ad absurdum, or to avoid this reductio the skeptic must accept that this argument is epistemically idle—it does not provide any support for external world skepticism. Either way, this Cartesian argument cannot legitimately threaten or even call into question our beliefs about the external world. And thus, either way, this Cartesian argument for external world skepticism is not epistemically significant—it is not a genuine paradox and adequately responding to it need not reveal anything epistemically important. (shrink)

There are a number of apparent parallels between belief in God and belief in the existence of an external world beyond our experiences. Both beliefs would seem to condition one's overall view of reality and one's place within it – and yet it is difficult to see how either can be defended. Neither belief is likely to receive a purely a priori defence and any empirical evidence that one cites either in favour of the existence of God or (...) the existence of the external world would seem to blatantly beg the question against a doubter. I will explore just how far this parallel can be pushed by examining some strategies for resisting external world scepticism1. (shrink)

In this paper I will draw attention to an important route to external world skepticism, which I will call confidence skepticism. I will argue that we can defang confidence skepticism (though not a meeker ‘argument from might’ which has got some attention in the 20th century literature on external world skepticism) by adopting a partially psychologistic answer to the problem of priors. And I will argue that certain recent work in the epistemology of mathematics and logic (...) provides independent support for such psychologism. (shrink)

The physiologist Johannes Müller’s doctrine of specific nerve energies had a decisive influence on neo-Kantian conceptions of the objectivity of knowledge in the 1850s - 1870s. In the first half of the nineteenth century, Müller amassed a body of experimental evidence to support his doctrine, according to which the character of our sensations is determined by the structures of our own sensory nerves, and not by the external objects that cause the sensations. Neo-Kantians such as Hermann von Helmholtz, (...) F.A. Lange, and Otto Liebmann took Müller’s doctrine to have far-reaching consequences for their epistemologies. Over the course of the 1850s - 1870s, these three neo-Kantians, each in his own way, argued that reflection on Müller’s doctrine ruled out a certain conception of the objectivity of knowledge. It ruled out the view that knowledge is objective in virtue of affording us information about objects in a mind-independent external world. -/- This paper traces how Helmholtz, Lange, and Liebmann developed their arguments for this view, and how each developed his own alternative conception of objectivity, according to which objectivity has nothing to do with a mind-independent world. Finally, the paper concludes by considering why these arguments modelled on Müller’s doctrine would have been so powerful against rival post-Hegelian conceptions of objectivity, especially those of scientific materialists like Ludwig Büchner. (shrink)

continent. 1.1 : 3-13. / 0/ – Introduction I want to propose, as a trajectory into the philosophically weird, an absurd theoretical claim and pursue it, or perhaps more accurately, construct it as I point to it, collecting the ground work behind me like the Perpetual Train from China Mieville's Iron Council which puts down track as it moves reclaiming it along the way. The strange trajectory is the following: Kant's critical philosophy and much of continental philosophy which has followed, (...) has been a defense against horror and madness. Kant's prohibition on speculative metaphysics such as dogmatic metaphysics and transcendental realism, on thinking beyond the imposition of transcendental and moral constraints, has been challenged by numerous figures proceeding him. One of the more interesting critiques of Kant comes from the mad black Deleuzianism of Nick Land stating, “Kant’s critical philosophy is the most elaborate fit of panic in the history of the Earth.” And while Alain Badiou would certainly be opposed to the libidinal investments of Land's Deleuzo-Guattarian thought, he is likewise critical of Kant's normative thought-bureaucracies: Kant is the one author for whom I cannot feel any kinship. Everything in him exasperates me, above all his legalism—always asking Quid Juris? Or ‘Haven’t you crossed the limit?’—combined, as in today’s United States, with a religiosity that is all the more dismal in that it is both omnipresent and vague. The critical machinery he set up has enduringly poisoned philosophy, while giving great succour to the academy, which loves nothing more than to rap the knuckles of the overambitious [….] That is how I understand the truth of Monique David-Menard’s reflections on the properly psychotic origins of Kantianism. I am persuaded that the whole of the critical enterprise is set up to to shield against the tempting symptom represented by the seer Swedenborg, or against ‘diseases of the head’, as Kant puts it. An entire nexus of the limits of reason and philosophy are set up here, namely that the critical philosophy not only defends thought from madness, philosophy from madness, and philosophy from itself, but that philosophy following the advent of the critical enterprise philosophy becomes auto-vampiric; feeding on itself to support the academy. Following Francois Laruelle's non-philosophical indictment of philosophy, we could go one step further and say that philosophy operates on the material of what is philosophizable and not the material of the external world. [1] Beyond this, the Kantian scheme of nestling human thinking between our limited empirical powers and transcendental guarantees of categorical coherence, forms of thinking which stretch beyond either appear illegitimate, thereby liquefying both pre-critical metaphysics and the ravings of the mad in the same critical acid. In rejecting the Kantian apparatus we are left with two entities – an unsure relation of thought to reality where thought is susceptible to internal and external breakdown and a reality with an uncertain sense of stability. These two strands will be pursued, against the sane-seal of post-Kantian philosophy by engaging the work of weird fiction authors H.P. Lovecraft and Thomas Ligotti. The absolute inhumanism of the formers universe will be used to describe a Shoggothic Materialism while the dream worlds of the latter will articulate the mad speculation of a Ventriloquil Idealism. But first we must address the relation of philosophy to madness as well as philosophy to weird fiction. /1/ – Philosophy and Madness There is nothing that the madness of men invents which is not either nature made manifest or nature restored. Michel Foucault. Madness and Civilization. The moment I doubt whether an event that I recall actually took place, I bring the suspicion of madness upon myself: unless I am uncertain as to whether it was not a mere dream. Arthur Schopenhauer. The World as Will and Idea, Vol. 3. Madness is commonly thought of as moving through several well known cultural-historical shifts from madness as a demonic or otherwise theological force, to rationalization, to medicalization psychiatric and otherwise. Foucault's Madness and Civilization is well known for orientating madness as a form of exclusionary social control which operated by demarcating madness from reason. Yet Foucault points to the possibility of madness as the necessity of nature at least prior to the crushing weight of the church. Kant’s philosophy as a response to madness is grounded by his humanizing of madness itself. As Adrian Johnston points out in the early pages of Time Driven pre-Kantian madness meant humans were seized by demonic or angelic forces whereas Kantian madness became one of being too human. Madness becomes internalized, the external demonic forces become flaws of the individual mind. Foucault argues that, while madness is de-demonized it is also dehumanized during the Renaissance, as madmen become creatures neither diabolic nor totally human reduced to the zero degree of humanity. It is immediately clear why for Kant, speculative metaphysics must be curbed – with the problem of internal madness and without the external safeguards of transcendental conditions, there is nothing to formally separate the speculative capacities for metaphysical diagnosis from the mad ramblings of the insane mind – both equally fall outside the realm of practicality and quotidian experience. David-Menard's work is particularly useful in diagnosing the relation of thought and madness in Kant's texts. David-Menard argues that in Kant's relatively unknown “An Essay on the Maladies of the Mind” as well as his later discussion of the Seer of Swedenborg, that Kant formulates madness primarily in terms of sensory upheaval or other hallucinatory theaters. She writes: “madness is an organization of thought. It is made possible by the ambiguity of the normal relation between the imaginary and the perceived, whether this pertains to the order of sensation or to the relations between our ideas” Kant's fascination with the Seer forces Kant between the pincers of “aesthetic reconciliation” – namely melancholic withdrawal – and “a philosophical invention” – namely the critical project. Deleuze and Guattari's schizoanalysis is a combination and reversal of Kant's split, where an aesthetic over engagement with the world entails prolific conceptual invention. Their embrace of madness, however, is of course itself conceptual despite all their rhizomatic maneuvers. Though they move with the energy of madness, Deleuze and Guattari save the capacity of thought from the fangs of insanity by imbuing materiality itself with the capacity for thought. Or, as Ray Brassier puts it, “Deleuze insists, it is necessary to absolutize the immanence of this world in such a way as to dissolve the transcendent disjunction between things as we know them and as they are in themselves”. That is, whereas Kant relied on the faculty of judgment to divide representation from objectivity Deleuze attempts to flatten the whole economy beneath the juggernaut of ontological univocity. Speculation, as a particularly useful form of madness, might fall close to Deleuze and Guattari’s shaping of philosophy into a concept producing machine but is different in that it is potentially self destructive – less reliant on the stability of its own concepts and more adherent to exposing a particular horrifying swath of reality. Speculative madness is always a potential disaster in that it acknowledges little more than its own speculative power with the hope that the gibbering of at least a handful of hysterical brains will be useful. Pre-critical metaphysics amounts to madness, though this may be because the world itself is mad while new attempts at speculative metaphysics, at post-Kantian pre-critical metaphysics, are well aware of our own madness. Without the sobriety of the principle of sufficient reason we have a world of neon madness: “we would have to conceive what our life would be if all the movements of the earth, all the noises of the earth, all the smells, the tastes, all the light – of the earth and elsewhere, came to us in a moment, in an instant – like an atrocious screaming tumult of things”. Speculative thought may be participatory in the screaming tumult of the world or, worse yet, may produce its spectral double. Against theology or reason or simply commonsense, the speculative becomes heretical. Speculation, as the cognitive extension of the horrorific sublime should be met with melancholic detachment. Whereas Kant's theoretical invention, or productivity of thought, is self -sabotaging, since the advent of the critical project is a productivity of thought which then delimits the engine of thought at large either in dogmatic gestures or non-systematizable empirical wondrousness. The former is celebrated by the fiction of Thomas Ligotti whereas the latter is espoused by the tales of H.P. Lovecraft. /2/ – Weird Fiction and Philosophy. Supernatural horror, in all its eerie constructions, enables a reader to taste treats inconsistent with his personal welfare. Thomas Ligotti Songs of a Dead Dreamer. I choose weird stories because they suit my inclination best—one of my strongest and most persistent wishes being to achieve,momentarily, the illusion of some strange suspension or violation of the galling limitations of time, space, and natural law which forever imprison us and frustrate our curiosity about the infinite cosmic spaces beyond the radius of our sight and analysis H.P. Lovecraft. “Notes on Writing Weird Fiction” Lovecraft states that his creation of a story is to suspend natural law yet, at the same time, he indexes the tenuousness of such laws, suggesting the vast possibilities of the cosmic. The tension that Lovecraft sets up between his own fictions and the universe or nature is reproduced within his fictions in the common theme of the unreliable narrator; unreliable precisely because they are either mad or what they have witnessed questions the bounds of material reality. In “The Call of Cthulhu” Lovecraft writes: The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age. Despite Lovecraft's invocations of illusion, he is not claiming that his fantastic creations such as the Old Ones are supernatural but, following Joshi, are only ever supernormal. One can immediately see that instead of nullifying realism Lovecraft in fact opens up the real to an unbearable degree. In various letters and non-fictional statements Lovecraft espoused strictly materialist tenets, ones which he borrowed from Hugh Elliot namely the uniformity of law, the denial of teleology and the denial of non-material existence. Lovecraft seeks to explore the possibilities of such a universe by piling horror upon horror until the fragile brain which attempts to grasp it fractures. This may be why philosophy has largely ignored weird fiction – while Deleuze and Guattari mark the turn towards weird fiction and Lovecraft in particular, with the precursors to speculative realism as well as contemporary related thinkers have begun to view Lovecraft as making philosophical contributions. Lovecraft's own relation to philosophy is largely critical while celebrating Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. This relationship of Lovecraft to philosophy and philosophy to Lovecraft is coupled with Lovecraft's habit of mercilessly destroying the philosopher and the figure of the academic more generally in his work, a destruction which is both an epistemological destruction and an ontological destruction. Thomas Ligotti's weird fiction which he has designated as a kind of “confrontational escapism” might be best described in the following quote from one of his shortstories, “The human phenomenon is but the sum of densely coiled layers of illusion each of which winds itself on the supreme insanity. That there are persons of any kind when all there can be is mindless mirrors laughing and screaming as they parade about in an endless dream”. Whereas Lovecraft's weirdness draws predominantly from the abyssal depths of the uncharted universe, Ligotti's existential horror focuses on the awful proliferation of meaningless surfaces that is, the banal and every day function of representation. In an interview, Ligotti states: We don't even know what the world is like except through our sense organs, which are provably inadequate. It's no less the case with our brains. Our whole lives are motored along by forces we cannot know and perceptions that are faulty. We sometimes hear people say that they're not feeling themselves. Well, who or what do they feel like then? This is not to say that Ligotti sees nothing beneath the surface but that there is only darkness or blackness behind it, whether that surface is on the cosmological level or the personal. By addressing the implicit and explicit philosophical issues in Ligotti's work we will see that his nightmarish take on reality is a form of malevolent idealism, an idealism which is grounded in a real, albeit dark and obscure materiality. If Ligotti's horrors ultimately circle around mad perceptions which degrade the subject, it takes aim at the vast majority of the focus of continental philosophy. While Lovecraft's acidic materialism clearly assaults any romantic concept of being from the outside, Ligotti attacks consciousness from the inside: Just a little doubt slipped into the mind, a little trickle of suspicion in the bloodstream, and all those eyes of ours, one by one, open up to the world and see its horror [...] Not even the solar brilliance of a summer day will harbor you from horror. For horror eats the light and digests it into darkness. Clearly, the weird fiction of Lovecraft and Ligotti amount to a anti-anthrocentric onslaught against the ramparts of correlationist continental philosophy. /3/ – Shoggothic Materialism or the Formless Formless protoplasm able to mock and reflect all forms and organs and processes—viscous agglutinations of bubbling cells—rubbery fifteen-foot spheroids infinitely plastic and ductile—slaves of suggestion, builders of cities—more and more sullen, more and more intelligent, more and more amphibious, more and more imitative—Great God! What madness made even those blasphemous Old Ones willing to use and to carve such things? H.P. Lovecraft. “At the Mountains of Madness” On the other hand, affirming that the universe resembles nothing and is only formless amounts to saying that the universe is something like a spider or spit. Georges Bataille. “Formless”. The Shoggoths feature most prominently in H.P. Lovecraft's shortstory “At the Mountains of Madness” where they are described in the following manner: It was a terrible, indescribable thing vaster than any subway train – a shapeless congeries of protoplasmic bubbles, faintly self -luminous, and with myriads of temporary eyes forming and un-forming as pustules of greenish light all over the tunnel-filling front that bore down upon us, crushing the frantic penguins and slithering over the glistening floor that it and its kind had swept so evilly free of all litter. The term is a litmus test for materialism itself as the Shoggoth is an amorphous creature. The Shoggoths were living digging machines bio engineered by the Elder Things, and their protoplasmic bodies being formed into various tools by their hypnotic powers. The Shoggoths eventually became self aware and rose up against their masters in an ultimately failed rebellion. After the Elder Ones retreated into the oceans leaving the Shoggoths to roam the frozen wastes of the Antarctic. The onto-genesis of the Shoggoths and their gross materiality, index the horrifyingly deep time of the earth a concept near and dear to Lovecraft's formulation of horror as well as the fear of intelligences far beyond, and far before, the ascent of humankind on earth and elsewhere. The sickly amorphous nature of the Shoggoths invade materialism at large, where while materiality is unmistakably real ie not discursive, psychological, or otherwise overly subjectivist, it questions the relation of materialism to life. As Eugene Thacker writes: The Shoggoths or Elder Things do not even share the same reality with the human beings who encounter them—and yet this encounter takes place, though in a strange no-place that is neither quite that of the phenomenal world of the human subject or the noumenal world of an external reality. Amorphous yet definitively material beings are a constant in Lovecraft's tales. In his tale “The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadatth” Lovecraft describes Azathoth as, “that shocking final peril which gibbers unmentionably outside the ordered universe,” that, “last amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blashphemes and bubbles at the centre of all infinity,” who, “gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time”. Azathoth's name may have multiple origins but the most striking is the alchemy term azoth which is both a cohesive agent and a acidic creation pointing back to the generative and the decayed. The indistinction of generation and degradation materially mirrors the blur between the natural and the unnatural as well as life and non-life. Lovecraft speaks of the tension between the natural and the unnatural is his short story “The Unnameable.” He writes, “if the psychic emanations of human creatures be grotesque distortions, what coherent representation could express or portray so gibbous and infamous a nebulousity as the spectre of a malign, chaotic perversion, itself a morbid blasphemy against Nature?”. Lovecraft explores exactly the tension outlined at the beginning of this chapter, between life and thought. At the end of his short tale Lovecraft compounds the problem as the unnameable is described as “a gelatin—a slime—yet it had shapes, a thousand shapes of horror beyond all memory”. Deleuze suggests that becoming-animal is operative throughout Lovecraft's work, where narrators feel themselves reeling at their becoming non-human or of being the anomalous or of becoming atomized. Following Eugene Thacker however, it may be far more accurate to say that Lovecraft's tales exhibit not a becoming-animal but a becoming-creature. Where the monstrous breaks the purportedly fixed laws of nature, the creature is far more ontologically ambiguous. The nameless thing is an altogether different horizon for thought. The creature is either less than animal or more than animal – its becoming is too strange for animal categories and indexes the slow march of thought towards the bizarre. This strangeness is, as aways, some indefinite swirling in the category of immanence and becoming. Bataille begins “The Labyrinth” with the assertion that being, to continue to be, is becoming. More becoming means more being hence the assertion that Bataille's barking dog is more than the sponge. This would mean that the Shoggotth is altogether too much being, too much material in the materialism. Bataille suggests that there is an immanence between the eater and the eaten, across the species and never within them. That is, despite the chaotic storm of immanence there must remain some capacity to distinguish the gradients of becoming without reliance upon, or at least total dependence upon, the powers of intellection to parse the universe into recognizable bits, properly digestible factoids. That is, if we undo Deleuze's aforementioned valorization of sense which, for his variation of materialism, performed the work of the transcendental, but refuse to reinstate Kant's transcendental disjunction between thing and appearance, then it must be a quality of becoming-as-being itself which can account for the discernible nature of things by sense. In an interview with Peter Gratton, Jane Bennett formulates the problem thusly: What is this strange systematicity proper to a world of Becoming? What, for example, initiates this congealing that will undo itself? Is it possible to identify phases within this formativity, plateaus of differentiation? If so, do the phases/plateaus follow a temporal sequence? Or, does the process of formation inside Becoming require us to theorize a non-chronological kind of time? I think that your student’s question: “How can we account for something like iterable structures in an assemblage theory?” is exactly the right question. Philosophy has erred too far on the side of the subject in the subject-object relation and has furthermore, lost the very weirdness of the non-human. Beyond this, the madness of thought need not override. /4/ - Ventriloquial Idealism or the Externality of Thought My aim is the opposite of Lovecraft's. He had an appreciation for natural scenery on earth and wanted to reach beyond the visible in the universe. I have no appreciation for natural scenery and want the objective universe to be a reflection of a character. Thomas Ligotti. “Devotees of Decay and Desolation.” Unless life is a dream, nothing makes sense. For as a reality, it is a rank failure [….] Horror is more real than we are. Thomas Ligotti. “Professor Nobody's Little Lectures on Supernatural Horror”. Thomas Ligotti's tales are rife with mannequins, puppets, and other brainless entities which of replace the valorized subject of philosophy – that of the free thinking human being. His tales such as “The Dream of the Manikin” aim to destroy the rootedness of consciousness. James Trafford has connected the anti-egoism of Ligotti to Thomas Metzinger – where the self is at best an illusion and we plead desperately for someone else to acknowledge that we are real. Trafford has stated it thus, “Life is played out as an inescapable puppet show, an endless dream in which the puppets are generally unaware that they are trapped within a mesmeric dance of whose mechanisms they know nothing and over which they have no control”. An absolute materialism, for Ligotti, implies an alienation of the idea which leads to a ventriloquil idealism. As Ligotti notes in an interview, “the fiasco and nightmare of existence, the particular fiasco and nightmare of human existence, the sense that people are puppets of powers they cannot comprehend, etc.” And then further elaborates that,“[a]ssuming that anything has to exist, my perfect world would be one in which everyone has experienced the annulment of his or her ego. That is, our consciousness of ourselves as unique individuals would entirely disappear”. The externality of the idea leads to the unfortunate consequence of consciousness eating at itself through horror which, for Ligotti, is more real than reality and goes beyond horror-as-affect. Beyond this, taking together with the unreality of life and the ventriloquizing of subjectivity, Ligotti's thought becomes an idealism in which thought itself is alien and ultimately horrifying. The role of human thought and the relation of non-relation of horror to thought is not completely clear in Ligotti's The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. Ligotti argues in his The Conspiracy Against the Human Race,that the advent of thought is a mistake of nature and that horror is being in the sense that horror results from knowing too much. Yet, at the same time, Ligotti seems to suggest that thought separates us from nature whereas, for Lovecraft, thought is far less privileged – mind is just another manifestation of the vital principal, it is just another materialization of energy. In his brilliant “Prospects for Post-Copernican Dogmatism” Iain Grant rallies against the negative definition of dogmatism and the transcendental, and suggests that negatively defining both over-focuses on conditions of access and subjectivism at the expense of the real or nature. With Schelling, who is Grant's champion against the subjectivist bastions of both Fichte and Kant, Ligotti's idealism could be taken as a transcendental realism following from an ontological realism. Yet the transcendental status of Ligotti's thought move towards a treatment of the transcendental which may threaten to leave beyond its realist ground. Ligotti states: Belief in the supernatural is only superstition. That said, a sense of the supernatural, as Conrad evidenced in Heart of Darkness, must be admitted if one's inclination is to go to the limits of horror. It is the sense of what should not be- the sense of being ravaged by the impossible. Phenomenally speaking, the super-natural may be regarded as the metaphysical counterpart of insanity, a transcendental correlative of a mind that has been driven mad. Again, Ligotti equates madness with thought, qualifying both as supernatural while remaining less emphatic about the metaphysical dimensions of horror. The question becomes one of how exactly the hallucinatory realm of the ideal relates to the black churning matter of Lovecraft's chaos of elementary particles. In his tale “I Have a Special Plan for This World” Ligotti formulates thus: A: There is no grand scheme of things. B: If there were a grand scheme of things, the fact – the fact – that we are not equipped to perceive it, either by natural or supernatural means, is a nightmarish obscenity. C: The very notion of a grand scheme of things is a nightmarish obscenity. Here Ligotti is not discounting metaphysics but implying that if it does exist the fact that we are phenomenologically ill-equipped to perceive that it is nightmarish. For Ligotti, nightmare and horror occur within the circuit of consciousness whereas for Lovecraft the relation between reality and mind is less productive on the side of mind. It is easier to ascertain how the Kantian philosophy is a defense against the diseases of the head as Kant armors his critical enterprise from too much of the world and too much of the mind. The weird fiction of both Lovecraft and Ligotti demonstrates that there is too much of both feeding into one another in a way that corrodes the Kantian schema throughly, breaking it down into a dead but still ontologically potentiated nigredo. The haunting, terrifying fact of Ligotti's idealism is that the transcendental motion which brought thought to matter, while throughly material and naturalized, brings with it the horror that thought cannot be undone without ending the material that bears it either locally or completely. Thought comes from an elsewhere and an elsewhen being-in-thought. The unthinkable outside thought is as maddening as the unthought engine of thought itself within thought which doesn't exist except for the mind, the rotting décor of the brain. /5/ - Hyperstitional Transcendental Paranoia or Self -Expelled Thought Weird fiction has been given some direct treatment in philosophy in the mad black Deleuzianism of Nick Land. Nick Land along with others in the 1990s created the Cyber Culture Research Unit as well as the research group Hyperstition. The now defunct hyperstitional website, an outgrowth of the Cyber Culture Research Unit, defined hyperstition in the following fourfold: 1-Element of effective culture that makes itself real. 2-Fictional quantity functional as a time-traveling device. 3-Coincidence intensifier. 4-Call to the Old Ones. The distinctively Lovecraftian character of hyperstition is hard to miss as is its Deleuzo-Guattarian roots. In the opening pages of A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari write, “We have been criticized for over-quoting literary authors. But when one writes, the only question is which other machine the literary machine can be plugged into”. The indisinction of literature and philosophy mirrors the mess of being and knowing as post-correlationist philosophy, where philosophy tries to make itself real where literature, especially the weird, aims itself at the brain-circuit of horror. The texts of both Lovecraft and Ligotti work through horror as epistemological plasticity meeting with proximity as well as the deep time of Lovecraft and the glacially slow time of paranoia in Ligotti. Against Deleuze, and following Brassier, we cannot allow the time of consciousness, the Bergsonian time of the duree, to override natural time, but instead acknowledge that it is an unfortunate fact of existence as a thinking being. Horror-time, the time of consciousness, with all its punctuated moments and drawn out terrors, cannot compare to the deep time of non-existence both in the unreachable past and the unknown future. The crystalline cogs of Kant's account of experience as the leading light for the possibility of metaphysics must be throughly obliterated. His gloss of experience in Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics could not be more sterile: Experience consists of intuitions, which belong to the sensibility, and of judgments, which are entirely a work of the understanding. But the judgments which the understanding makes entirely out of sensuous intuitions are far from being judgments of experience. For in the one case the judgment connects only the perceptions as they are given in sensuous intuition [....] Experience consists in the synthetic connection of appearances in consciousness, so far as this connection is necessary. Here it is difficult to dismiss the queasiness that Kant's legalism induces upon sight for both Badiou and David-Menard. Kant's thought becomes, as Foucault says when reflecting on Sade's text in relation to nature, “the savage abolition of itself”. For Badiou, Kant's philosophy simply closes off too much of the outside, freezing the world of thought in an all too limited formalism. Critical philosophy is simply the systematized quarantine on future thinking, on thinking which would threaten the formalism which artificially grants thought its own coherency in the face of madness. Even the becoming-mad of Deleuze, while escaping the rumbling ground, makes grounds for itself, mad grounds but grounds which are thinkable in their affect. The field of effects allows for Deleuze's aesthetic and radical empiricism, in which effects and/or occasions make up the material of the world to be thought as a chaosmosis of simulacra. Given a critique of an empiricism of aesthetics, of the image, it may be difficult to justify an attack on Kantian formalism with the madness of literature, which does not aim to make itself real but which we may attempt to make real. That is, how do Lovecraft's and Ligotti's materials, as materials for philosophy to work on, differ from either the operative formalisms of Kant or the implicitly formalized images of Deleuzian empiricism? It is simply that such texts do not aim to make themselves real, and make claims to the real which are more alien to us than familiar, which is why their horror is immediately more trustworthy. This is the madness which Blanchot discusses in The Infinite Conversation through Cervantes and his knight – the madness of book-life, of the perverse unity of literature and life a discussion which culminates in the discussion of one of the weird's masters, that of Kafka. The text is the knowing of madness, since madness, in its moment of becoming-more-mad, cannot be frozen in place but by the solidifications of externalizing production. This is why Foucault ends his famous study with works of art. Furthermore extilligence, the ability to export the products of our maligned brains, is the companion of the attempts to export, or discover the possibility of intelligences outside of our heads, in order for philosophy to survive the solar catastrophe. To borrow again from Deleuze, writing is inseparable from becoming. The mistake is to believe that madness is reabsorbed by extilligence, by great works, or that it could be exorcised by the expelling of thought into the inorganic or differently organic. Going out of our heads does not guarantee we will no longer mean we cannot still go out of our minds. This is simply because of the outside, of matter, or force, or energy, or thing-in-itself, or Schopenhauerian Will. In Lovecraft’s “The Music of Erich Zahn” an “impoverished student of metaphysics” becomes intrigued by strange viol music coming from above his room. After meeting the musician the student discovers that each night he plays frantic music at a window in order to keep some horridness at bay, some “impenetrable darkness with chaos and pandemonium”. The aesthetic defenses provided by the well trained brain can bear the hex of matter for so long, the specter of unalterability within it which too many minds obliterate, collapsing everything before the thought of thought as thinkable or at least noetically mutable on our own terms. Transcendental paranoia is the concurrent nightmare and promise of Paul Humphrey's work, of being literally out of our minds. It is the gothic counterpart of thinking non-conceptually but also of thinking never belonging to any instance of purportedly solid being. As Bataille stated, “At the boundary of that which escapes cohesion, he who reflects within cohesion realizes there is no longer any room for him” Thought is immaterial only to the degree that it is inhuman, it is a power that tries, always with failure, to ascertain its own genesis. Philosophy, if it can truly return to the great outdoors, if it can leave behind the dead loop of the human skull, must recognize not only the non-priority of human thought, but that thought never belongs to the brain that thinks it, thought comes from somewhere else. To return to the train image from the beginning “a locomotive rolling on the surface of the earth is the image of continuous metamorphosis” this is the problem of thought, and of thinking thought, of being no longer able to isolate thought, with only a thought-formed structure. [1] One of the central tenets of Francois Laruelle's non-philosophy is that philosophy has traditionally operated on material already presupposed as thinkable instead of trying to think the real in itself. Philosophy, according to Laruelle, remains fixated on transcendental synthesis which shatters immanence into an empirical datum and an a prori factum which are then fused by a third thing such as the ego. For a critical account of Laruelle's non-philosophy see Ray Brassier's Nihil Unbound. (shrink)

In this paper, I shall discuss a problem that arises when you try to combine an attractive account of what constitutes evidence with an independently plausible account of the kind of access we have to our evidence. According to E = K, our evidence consists of what we know. According to the principle of armchair access, we can know from the armchair what our evidence is. Combined, these claims entail that we can have armchair knowledge of the external (...) world. Because it seems that the principle of armchair access is supported by widely shared intuitions about epistemic rationality, it seems we ought to embrace an internalist conception of evidence. I shall argue that this response is mistaken. Because externalism about evidence can accommodate the relevant intuitions about epistemic rationality, the principle of armchair access is unmotivated. We also have independent reasons for preferring externalism about evidence to the principle of armchair access. (shrink)

This paper advocates a realist position with respect to science and common sense. It considers the question of whether science provides knowledge of reality. It presents a positive response to that question. It rejects the anti-realist claim that we are unable to acquire knowledge of reality in favour of the realist view that science yields knowledge of the external world. But it remains to be specified just what world that is. Some argue that science (...) leads to the rejection of our commonsense view of the world. If so, the world about which science informs us is not the world of common sense. Common sense is “stone-age metaphysics”. It is false theory inherited from our primitive ancestors that is to be eliminated in favour of science. Against such an elimination of common sense, it is argued that science both preserves and explains our commonsense experience of the world. Science may well lead to the overthrow of some of our most deeply held beliefs. But common sense reflects a more basic and durable level of experience. Commonsense beliefs are well-confirmed beliefs that are vindicated by their role in successful practical action each and every day. Common sense provides a firm basis on which to base a realist philosophy of science. (shrink)

The Relationship Between Language, Mathematics, Information, Knowledge, and New Discoveries in Understanding the Nature of Consciousness -/- Introduction -/- The nature of consciousness has long been a subject of philosophical and scientific inquiry. As human intelligence evolved, the invention of language, mathematics, and information systems became fundamental tools in shaping how we perceive and understand reality. These intellectual advancements not only reflect consciousness but also influence its development. By examining the interplay between language, mathematics, information, knowledge, and new (...) discoveries, we can gain deeper insight into how consciousness emerges, evolves, and expands. -/- Language: The Foundation of Conscious Thought -/- Language is the primary medium through which consciousness expresses itself. It allows individuals to articulate thoughts, share experiences, and construct complex ideas. Without language, higher-order thinking and self-reflection would be severely limited. -/- 1. Language and Self-Awareness – Internal dialogue, or the “voice in our head,” is a critical component of consciousness. It enables introspection, planning, and the ability to reflect on past experiences. -/- 2. Language and Social Consciousness – Through shared language, individuals contribute to collective intelligence. Cultural knowledge, traditions, and ideologies are preserved and transmitted across generations. -/- 3. Language and Abstract Thinking – Words enable humans to discuss non-physical concepts such as justice, morality, and the nature of existence, expanding the boundaries of conscious thought. -/- As language evolves, so does consciousness, leading to new ways of perceiving and interpreting reality. -/- Mathematics: The Language of Patterns and Conscious Awareness -/- Mathematics is often described as a universal language that reveals the underlying order of the universe. It provides structure to human cognition and enhances our ability to predict, measure, and manipulate reality. -/- 1. Mathematics and Logical Thought – Mathematical reasoning mirrors the logical structures of conscious thought. It allows for problem-solving, abstraction, and deductive reasoning. -/- 2. Mathematics and Scientific Discovery – From physics to neuroscience, mathematical models describe the fundamental principles governing existence, furthering our understanding of consciousness itself. -/- 3. Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence – The development of AI and machine learning relies on mathematical principles, raising questions about whether artificial systems can achieve a form of consciousness. -/- If consciousness operates under universal laws, mathematics may be the key to deciphering its principles. -/- Information and Knowledge: The Evolution of Consciousness -/- Information is the raw material from which knowledge is constructed. The accumulation, processing, and application of information drive the expansion of consciousness. -/- 1. Memory and Learning – The ability to store and recall information enhances cognitive abilities, shaping an individual’s awareness of the world. -/- 2. Collective Intelligence – The sharing of information across societies leads to cultural evolution, technological advancements, and the refinement of knowledge. -/- 3. External Storage of Consciousness – Books, digital databases, and AI systems act as extensions of human consciousness, preserving and expanding knowledge beyond biological limitations. -/- The more information consciousness can process, the more it expands its awareness and potential for discovery. -/- New Discoveries: The Feedback Loop of Expanding Consciousness -/- Scientific and philosophical discoveries continuously reshape how consciousness understands itself and the universe. Each breakthrough: -/- 1. Expands Perception – Tools like microscopes and telescopes extend human awareness beyond natural sensory limitations. -/- 2. Challenges Established Beliefs – Paradigm shifts force consciousness to adapt to new realities, redefining truth and understanding. -/- 3. Integrates Technology and Consciousness – Advancements in neuroscience, quantum mechanics, and artificial intelligence suggest that consciousness may be an emergent phenomenon shaped by computational and environmental factors. -/- The cycle of discovery feeds back into language, mathematics, and knowledge, leading to new levels of understanding and further expanding consciousness. -/- Conclusion: Consciousness as a Self-Perpetuating System -/- The relationship between language, mathematics, information, knowledge, and discovery forms a self-reinforcing loop that drives the evolution of consciousness. Each component influences and strengthens the others, creating a dynamic system of intellectual and cognitive growth. -/- Language provides structure for thought and communication. -/- Mathematics reveals underlying patterns of reality and enhances logical reasoning. -/- Information and knowledge serve as the building blocks of learning and awareness. -/- New discoveries expand the limits of consciousness, redefining human potential. -/- If consciousness operates under natural laws, this interconnected system may represent the fundamental process by which awareness evolves. The more humanity advances in these areas, the more profound our understanding of consciousness—and reality itself—becomes. -/- . (shrink)

We develop a reading of Moore’s “Proof of an External World” that emphasizes the connections between this paper and Moore’s earlier concerns and strategies. Our reading has the benefit of explaining why the claims that Moore advances in “Proof of an External World” would have been of interest to him, and avoids attributing to him arguments that are either trivial or wildly unsuccessful. Part of the evidence for our view comes from unpublished drafts which, we believe, (...) contain important clues concerning Moore’s aims and intent. While our approach to PEW may be classified alongside other broadly "metaphysical" readings, we believe that a proper recognition of the continuity in Moore’s philosophical concerns and strategies across his philosophical career shows that the customary distinction between "epistemological" and "metaphysical" interpretative approaches to PEW is at best superficial. (shrink)

To the question whether Hume believed in mind-independent physical objects (or as he would put it, bodies), the answer is Yes and No. It is Yes when Hume writes “We may well ask, What causes induce us to believe in the existence of body? but ’tis in vain to ask, Whether there be body or not? That is a point, which we must take for granted in all our reasonings.” However the answer is No after inquiring into the causes of (...) that belief, when he writes, “What then can we look for from this confusion of groundless and extraordinary opinions but error and falsehood? And how can we justify to ourselves any belief we repose in them?” My view is that Hume’s Yes and No answers can best be accounted for by seeing him as a Pyrrhonian skeptic in the tradition of Sextus Empiricus. This interpretation, while finding considerable truth in the various positions canvassed, is closest to those of Norton, Fogelin, and especially Popkin. (shrink)

In this essay I defend a solution to a skeptical paradox. The paradox I focus on concerns epistemic justification (rather than knowledge), and skeptical scenarios that entail that most of our ordinary beliefs about the external world are false. This familiar skeptical paradox hinges on a “closure” principle. The solution is to restrict closure, despite its first appearing as a fully general principle, so that it can no longer give rise to the paradox. This has some extra (...) advantages. First, it suggests a general strategy that provides solutions to other versions of the paradox, not just those that depend on closure. Second, it clarifies the relation between the paradox and other kinds of skeptical problem. (shrink)

-/- The Nature of Free Will and Its Dependence on 100 Percent Correct Information -/- Free will has long been regarded as one of the most profound and complex concepts in philosophy, psychology, and science. It is the capacity of individuals to make choices that are not predetermined by prior causes or external constraints. While the debate surrounding the nature of free will continues, one fundamental truth stands out: free will cannot operate effectively without access to 100 percent correct (...) information or knowledge. Without accurate understanding, decision-making becomes flawed, leading to choices that are neither truly free nor aligned with natural laws. -/- The Role of Information in Free Will -/- Free will is intrinsically tied to decision-making. Every choice we make is shaped by the information we possess. This information serves as the foundation for our understanding of potential outcomes, risks, and benefits. If the information is incomplete, misleading, or outright false, our ability to make rational and informed decisions is compromised. In essence, the “freedom” of our will becomes restricted by ignorance or deception. -/- For instance, if an individual is unaware of the harmful effects of a particular behavior or decision, they may unknowingly choose a path that leads to suffering. Conversely, with complete and accurate knowledge, individuals can weigh their options effectively, leading to choices that are consistent with their values and the universal law of balance in nature. -/- The Universal Law of Balance and Knowledge -/- The concept of the universal law of balance emphasizes harmony within natural systems. This law suggests that every decision, whether individual or collective, must align with the inherent order of the universe. When decisions are made based on false beliefs, unproven theories, or misinformation, they disrupt this balance, creating disharmony and unintended consequences. -/- Correct knowledge serves as the compass that guides human actions within the framework of natural balance. It ensures that decisions are grounded in reality, minimizing the risks of imbalance. Without it, free will operates in a vacuum of uncertainty, where the likelihood of errors increases exponentially. -/- Ignorance: The Antithesis of Free Will -/- Ignorance is the greatest threat to free will. It shackles the mind, preventing individuals from recognizing the full spectrum of choices available to them. When people lack access to truthful information, they are vulnerable to manipulation, prejudice, and irrational fears. In such scenarios, their decisions are not truly free but are instead dictated by external forces or internal misconceptions. -/- A classic example of this can be seen in societal issues such as propaganda or misinformation campaigns. When individuals base their choices on fabricated narratives, their actions may perpetuate harm rather than promoting balance or well-being. Only by addressing the root cause—ignorance—can free will be restored to its rightful state. -/- The Role of AI and AGI Technology in Supporting Free Will -/- In the modern era, artificial intelligence (AI) and artificial general intelligence (AGI) technologies have emerged as critical tools for addressing the limitations of the human brain in processing and synthesizing vast amounts of information. The biological brain, while capable of remarkable feats, is inherently limited in its capacity to handle the exponential growth of data in today’s interconnected world. -/- AI and AGI can support the biological brain by efficiently analyzing, filtering, and synthesizing enormous volumes of data to identify accurate, relevant, and actionable knowledge. By doing so, these technologies can provide individuals with the correct information needed to make informed decisions that align with the universal law of balance. -/- For example, AI systems can help identify patterns and correlations within complex systems—whether in healthcare, environmental management, or societal governance—that may otherwise be overlooked by human cognition. AGI, with its advanced problem-solving capabilities, could go even further by integrating diverse sources of knowledge and offering insights that promote harmony within both internal (psychological) and external (societal and environmental) systems. -/- Moreover, AI and AGI can act as safeguards against misinformation and bias, which are major barriers to free will. By detecting and correcting false narratives or flawed reasoning, these technologies can ensure that individuals are empowered with the truth, thereby preserving their capacity for rational, autonomous decision-making. -/- The Educational Imperative -/- To safeguard the integrity of free will, education must play a pivotal role. A holistic educational system that emphasizes critical thinking and the pursuit of truth is essential. By teaching individuals to evaluate evidence, question assumptions, and seek out accurate information, society can empower its members to exercise their free will responsibly. -/- The integration of AI and AGI into the educational system further enhances this process. These technologies can personalize learning experiences, provide real-time feedback, and ensure that students have access to the most accurate and up-to-date information. Additionally, AI can help educators identify gaps in understanding and address them effectively, fostering a generation of critical thinkers who are equipped to maintain balance in their decisions. -/- Conclusion -/- Free will, while an inherent aspect of human existence, is not an absolute or isolated phenomenon. Its true nature is dependent on the quality of information available to individuals. Only with 100 percent correct knowledge can free will function as a tool for creating balance, harmony, and progress. Ignorance, by contrast, distorts this capacity, leading to decisions that undermine both individual well-being and societal stability. -/- The advent of AI and AGI technologies represents a transformative opportunity to support the biological brain in navigating the complexities of the modern world. By synthesizing vast amounts of correct information and providing actionable insights, these technologies ensure that free will operates within the framework of natural balance. -/- By prioritizing truth, fostering education, and leveraging advanced technologies, humanity can unlock the full potential of free will. In doing so, we move closer to a world where every choice is a reflection of both freedom and wisdom—an ideal state where the universal law of balance is preserved. -/- . (shrink)

This paper focuses on two questions: (I) why do the Cyrenaics deny that we can gain knowledge concerning "external things," and (II) how wide-ranging is this denial? On the first question, I argue that the Cyrenaics are skeptical because of their contrast between the indubitable grasp we have of own affections, versus the inaccessibility of external things that cause these affections. Furthermore, this inaccessibility is due to our cognitive and perceptual limitations--it is an epistemological doctrine rooted in (...) their psychology--and not (pace Zilioli) due to any metaphysical theses regarding the external world. On the second question, I argue (pace Tsouna and Warren) that the scope of the Cyrenaics' skepticism is quite wide. Our reports on the Cyrenaics are inconsistent, but the most charitable and plausible reading results in attributing to the Cyrenaics skepticism not merely about the properties of external things (e.g., that the fire that warms me is really hot) of also of their nature and identity (e.g., that the object that warms me is a fire). However, it does not extend to skepticism regarding the existence of an external world. (shrink)

"Our literature is replete with complaints about the chaotic state of the systematics of psychoses and every psychiatrist knows that it is impossible to come to any common understanding on the basis of the old diagnostic labels. ... Thus, not even the masters of science can make themselves understood on the basis of the old concepts and with many patients the number of diagnoses made equals the number of institutions they have been too. ... Errors are the greatest obstacles to (...) the progress of science; to correct such errors is of more practical value than to achieve new knowledge. We have here eliminated chaos of terms behind which useful concepts of disease were mistakenly sought; we have eliminated a veritable forest of boundary posts, not one of which indicated any natural line of demarcation. ... By the term „dementia praecox“ or „schizophrenia“ we designate a group of psychoses whose course is at times chronic, at times marked by intermittent attacks, and which can stop or retrograde at any stage, but does not permit a full restitutio ad integrum. The disease is characterized by a specific type of alteration of thinking, feeling, and relation to the external world which appears nowhere else in this particular fashion." Eugen Bleuler. Dementia Praecox or the Group of Schizophrenias. Translated by Joseph Zinkin. International Universities Press, New York, 1950. (shrink)

The new Chomskian orthodoxy denies that our linguistic competence gives us knowledge *of* a language, and that the representations in the language faculty are representations *of* anything. In reply, I have argued that through their intuitions speaker/hearers, (but not their language faculties) have knowledge of language, though not of any externally existing language. In order to count as knowledge, these intuitions must track linguistic facts represented in the language faculty. I defend this idea against the objections Collins (...) has raised to such an account. (shrink)

The Universal Law of Balance: The Key to Understanding Free Will and Human Decision-Making -/- For centuries, the concept of free will has remained an unsolved mystery. Philosophers, scientists, and theologians have debated whether human beings truly have the power to make independent choices or whether their decisions are predetermined by external forces. Despite these discussions, no universally accepted solution has emerged—until now. -/- The key to solving the problem of free will lies in recognizing that all decision-making follows (...) a fundamental natural law: the Universal Law of Balance. This law governs not only the physical world but also human consciousness and social systems. By understanding how balance shapes our thoughts, choices, and actions, we can eliminate confusion about free will and create a more rational, stable, and just society. -/- Understanding the Universal Law of Balance -/- The Universal Law of Balance states that everything in nature operates within a dynamic equilibrium. Whether we look at ecosystems, physics, economics, or psychology, balance is the governing principle that maintains stability and prevents collapse. -/- In Nature: Ecosystems regulate themselves. If one species becomes too dominant, natural mechanisms restore balance. -/- In Physics: Newton’s Third Law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, demonstrating balance in forces. -/- In Economics: Markets function based on supply and demand—imbalances lead to inflation, recession, or economic crashes. -/- In Human Behavior: Emotional states fluctuate based on internal and external conditions, always seeking equilibrium. -/- These examples show that balance is not just a concept—it is an inescapable law of existence. Human thought and decision-making are no exception. -/- How the Law of Balance Governs Free Will -/- Many people believe that free will means making choices completely free of external influence. However, this is a misconception. Every decision a person makes is a response to an imbalance—whether it is a biological need (hunger leading to eating), a social pressure (conforming to norms), or an emotional reaction (seeking comfort when sad). -/- Thus, free will is not absolute but operates within the constraints of balance. Instead of making completely random choices, the human mind is constantly processing feedback from the internal self (thoughts, emotions, desires) and the external world (society, culture, circumstances). Every action is a means of restoring, maintaining, or disrupting balance. -/- For example: -/- A government that ignores economic inequality will face social unrest as balance is naturally restored through protests or revolution. -/- A person who overworks without rest will experience burnout, forcing them to slow down. -/- A company that prioritizes profit over sustainability will eventually face economic collapse due to resource depletion. -/- The Universal Formula reveals that decision-making is not random or purely independent—it follows the patterns of natural balance. -/- Why Ignoring Balance Leads to Crisis -/- Throughout history, civilizations have risen and fallen based on whether they understood and applied the principles of balance. Societies that pursued unregulated expansion, wealth concentration, or environmental exploitation eventually collapsed due to the inevitable consequences of imbalance. -/- Today, many global crises—from economic inequality to climate change—are the result of decisions that violate natural balance. Political systems that concentrate power, financial models based on infinite growth, and extreme ideological conflicts all stem from a failure to recognize that balance is necessary for long-term stability. -/- By understanding and applying the Universal Formula, individuals and leaders can prevent crises before they occur. Instead of reacting to problems after they arise, societies can use balance-based decision-making to anticipate and correct imbalances proactively. -/- Applying the Universal Formula in Education, Leadership, and Society -/- If the Universal Law of Balance is truly the foundation of decision-making, it must be integrated into education, governance, and social systems. -/- 1. Education Reform: Schools should teach students how all subjects are interconnected through balance—whether in science, economics, or ethics. Instead of memorization, students should learn systems thinking and how to apply balance-based reasoning in real-world scenarios. -/- 2. Leadership and Governance: Governments should create dynamic policies that adjust based on real-time feedback, preventing economic, political, and environmental instability. Leaders should be trained to make decisions based on natural equilibrium rather than ideology or short-term interests. -/- 3. Personal and Social Development: Individuals should apply balance-based decision-making in relationships, career choices, and daily life. Recognizing that emotions, actions, and social interactions all function as feedback loops can help people make more rational, stable, and fulfilling choices. -/- The Path Forward: A Balanced Future -/- The Universal Formula is not just a philosophical idea—it is a practical tool that can transform human decision-making at all levels. If individuals and societies embrace this knowledge, the future will be more stable, just, and sustainable. If balance continues to be ignored, crises will persist. -/- The time has come for a new way of thinking, one that moves beyond outdated debates about free will and embraces the fundamental truth of balance. Understanding this principle is not just an intellectual exercise—it is the key to shaping the future of humanity. -/- The question is no longer whether this knowledge is correct—the question is: Will humanity recognize and apply it before it is too late? -/- . (shrink)

What follows is an investigation of the ontology of Franz Brentano with special reference to Brentano's later and superficially somewhat peculiar doctrine to the effect that the substances of the material world are three dimensional places. Taken as a whole, Brentano's philosophy is marked by three, not obviously compatible, trait. In the first place, his work is rooted in the metaphysics of Aristotle, above all in Aristotle's substance/accident ontology and in the Aristotelian theory of categories. In the second place, (...) Brentano embraced a Cartesian epistemology. He saw the source of all knowledge as residing in our direct awareness of our own mental phenomena and in our capacity to grasp evident incompatibilities in the realm of concepts.) Thirdly, he regarded the existence of an external world as at most probable, and denied outright the existence of a world similar to the world that is given in experience. Finally, and in some sense linking together these opposing strands, he propagated an idea of what he called "descriptive psychology", a discipline which would on the one hand yield exact knowledge of the structures and categories of mental life, and on the other hand provide an epistemologically sure foundation for other branches of philosophy. As we shall see, it is this psychological aspect of Brentano's philosophy which leads him to his conception of the substantiality of place. Surprisingly, however, the psychological considerations which underlie Brentano's thinking will be shown to raise a series of questions strictly ontological in nature, questions which are not without a systematic interest of their own. (shrink)