How We Know
How We Know
A critique of Dr. Harry Binswanger’s “How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation”.
According to Randy’s comments else where, this series of articles included virtually all of Randy’s epistemology.
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Basic Principles of Ontology
- The Nature of Life
- Animal Life
- Consciousness
- Perception
- Dr. Binswanger's View of Perception
- The Human Mind—Volition, Reason, Intellect
- Feelings and Emotions
- Desires
- Concepts
- Dr. Binswanger's View of Concepts
- Cause, Induction, and Mathematics
- Dr. Binswanger's View of Cause
- Axioms
- Knowledge, Perception, and Sensation
- Knowledge Methods
- Propositions
- Dr. Binswanger's View of Propositions
- Logic and Reason
- Dr. Binswanger's View of Logic
- Principles
- Volition
- Dr. Binswanger's View of Volition
- Science, Evolution, and Philosophy
- Evolution
This Foreword pertains only to the online version of this critique of Dr. Harry Binswanger’s How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation. [Please see the Introduction.] I have chosen to make this book available online because I wish to find out if anyone is interested in philosophy, or more precisely, the truth. This book may be considered a predecessor to my complete philosophy which will be entitled, Philosophy If You Want It, which will not be published online, and if no interest is shown in the current book, will most likely not be published at all.
Dr. Harry Binswanger’s How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation is intended to be an “uncompromising defense of reason, logic, and objectivity,” demonstrating how it is, “possible to achieve rational certainty.” The book is addressed, “to the intelligent layman,” who has “a definite interest in understanding how we know.” Since he believes the epistemology of Ayn Rand best explains how we know, it is her epistemology that he uses as a foundation for his own, and since Ayn Rand called her views on philosophy Objectivism, Dr.
Metaphysics is the study of the nature of existence. Ontology is the branch of metaphysics which deals specifically with the nature of material existence. Since this book is about epistemology, this chapter will be confined to those aspects of ontology which are fundamental to understanding the nature of knowledge. Ontology identifies the nature of that which all knowledge is knowledge of. Material existence is all that exists independently of anyone’s knowledge or awareness.
In the chapter, “Animal Life,” Dr. Binswanger writes a lot about biology and the purpose of consciousness and the nature of animals, but never gets around to explaining exactly what life is. The actual nature of life, from an ontological perspective, is another aspect of ontology neglected by Objectivism. The purpose of this chapter is provide that ontological explanation or description of life. What is Life? The existence of life is manifest as a process.
Dr. Binswanger’s view of knowledge is wrong and it is partly based on his wrong understanding of the nature of animal life and its differences from human life, and he wrongly uses evolution as the ultimate argument for these views. Everything Biology Dr. Binswanger has reduced everything to biology. He regards all aspects of life, including, consciousness, conceptualization, and rationality, as well as pleasure and pain, survival mechanisms which evolved through natural selection.
By consciousness I mean perception, which is the only kind of consciousness we or any creature has. Physical existence is that existence we are directly conscious of, the world we see, hear, feel, smell, and taste. By perception, I mean the seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting as well as interoception (the direct perception of internal states). Perception, as we experience it, is taken for granted. It is very much like looking at the garden through a window.
As popularly used, the word perception refers to two different things: The first is defined as the way in which something is regarded, understood, interpreted, evaluated, or believed to be. Examples are, “he perceives the situation to be dangerous,” and, “the importance depends on one’s perception,“and, “old age may be perceived either negatively or positively.” Some dictionaries include words like, “insight,“or, ” intuition,” in their definitions. This is the more common use of the word today.
Dr. Binswanger’s view of perception is somewhat perplexing. In some places he seems to be describing a physicalist view of perception, in spite of the fact, he explicitly states that consciousness is not reducible to the physical. From the section, “Consciousness as Irreducible” (Pages 42-48) Dr. Binswanger’s defense of consciousness as non-physical is very good. his clearest statement on page 45 is, “Consciousness exists and matter exists. Each is what it is, and neither is a form of the other.
Philosophers frequently refer to the human mind, but what is meant by the mind is seldom made explicit, and when it is made explicit, it is confused, or simply wrong. My purpose here is to make explicit exactly what the mind is, and ultimately to make the important distinction between the mind and what is frequently and mistakenly included in that concept, the feelings and emotions. Characteristics of Mind Perception is the only kind of consciousness that any creature has, including human beings.
Our emotions are perhaps the most profound and important of all our conscious experiences. Life could have little meaning or purpose if we could never experience joy or happiness, if nothing ever made us sad or angry, if we could never know enthusiasm or inspiration about anything, or could not be filled with the pride of accomplishment or be overwhelmed with the ecstasy of love. The kaleidescope of our emotions ought to be the means of our experiencing and enjoying our lives to the fullest, yet, for most people, the emotions are not a source of meaning, joy, and happiness, but a source of confusion, distraught, or event torment.
Desires are a subset of our emotions. The desires include all those feelings we think of as motivating, including whims, impulses, wants, cravings, and passions. The Distinction of Man’s Nature Desires in human beings are motivators of behavior. If other animals experience desire, which is something we cannot know, they would not be motivators, because animal behavior is directly determined by their instinct. In animals, if there are desires, they would simply accompany the appropriate behavior to fulfill those desires provided by instinct.
The following is a brief overview of the essential elements of knowledge, which is followed by an extended explanation of the true nature of concepts. Concepts A concept consists of two “components” with a specific “function.” The components of a concept are a “perceivable existent,” and a “specification.” The function of all concepts is to identify things. The perceivable existent is a word, its specification is a definition which isolates or differentiates (from all other things) what the concept identifies.
Rand and Binswanger both seem to think the main issue with concepts is how they are formed. The main philosophical issue is what a concept is. Until one knows what a concept is, one will never know how to form one. Until one understands what a well-built home is, one will never know how to design or build one. In most of the examples both Rand and Binswanger give of forming a concept, it is concepts formed by children, and most of the examples are wrong.
This chapter deals with the book by David Harriman entitled The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics. Dr. Binswanger makes frequent reference to concepts that are central to David Harriman’s book. The chapter itself was originally written as an article, and has been edited to shorten it and emphasize those concepts related to Dr. Binswanger’s book. The Logical Leap There is a widely held view that the validity of science, in some way, depends on the validity of induction, and Harriman’s book presents arguments which are supposed to be a defense of the inductive method in science.
There is a valid meaning of cause. It is not a scientific meaning, it is a philosophical one. Cause, meaning the explanation or reason for something, is a valid concept based on the fact that nothing happens without a reason, there are no miracles, and there is no magic. Why anything is or happens can be discovered and understood, rationally and objectively. I suspect it is this non-scientific philosophical meaning of cause that is behind Dr.
All Objectivists make much of axioms. Axioms are important, but not in the way that Objectivists make them. (Ayn Rand was the most reasonable about them.) Axioms are not about proof and not about argument. Their whole value lies in making explicit the foundation on which all objective reason and knowledge rests. Axioms explicitly identify that which all knowledge and reasoning imply, and which all knowledge and reasoning assumes, namely, that there is existence, which all our knowledge is about, and that we consciously perceive that existence, else there would be no way to know it, and that existence and our consciousness of it are distinct different things.
Dr. Binswanger is writing as a philosopher. The subject is epistemology. Epistemology is the philosophical discipline that explains the nature of knowledge, what it is, how it is acquired, and how it must be used. Philosophically, knowledge only pertains to human beings. Only human beings need knowledge, and only human beings are capable of acquiring it. It is the human mind that makes knowledge both necessary and possible. [See the chapter, “Mind.
All knowledge consists of propositions constructed of concepts by which all that is known is identified. Language is the primary tool of human knowledge, because all concepts are constructed of words and definitions and all propositions are constructed of concepts. But language is not the only tool of knowledge. Language, mathematics, geometry, symbolic logic, and Boolean algebra are all methods of identification. They are all human inventions that have no metaphysical existence.
There are two chapters dealing with logic, “Logic and Reason,” and “Dr. Binswanger’s View of Logic.” Since logic proceeds entirely by means of propositions the two chapters on propositions, this one and “Dr. Binswanger’s View of Propositions,” somewhat overlap and are closely related conceptually to those on logic, it is suggested the four chapters be read as close together as possible. Propositions are at least as important to understanding the nature of knowledge as concepts.
There are two chapters dealing with logic, “Logic and Reason,” and “Dr. Binswanger’s View of Logic.” Since logic proceeds entirely by means of propositions the two chapters on propositions, “Propositions,” and “Dr. Binswanger’s View of Propositions,” somewhat overlap and are closely related conceptually to those on logic. It is suggested the four chapters be read as close together as possible. Dr. Binswanger never makes the most important point that all knowledge is in the form of propositions and all thinking is done by means of propositions.
There are two chapters dealing with logic, this chapter and “Dr. Binswanger’s View of Logic.” Since logic proceeds entirely by means of propositions the two chapters on propositions, “Propositions,” and “Dr. Binswanger’s View of Propositions,” somewhat overlap and are closely related conceptually to those on logic. It is suggested the four chapters be read as close together as possible. Logic is the formalization of correct reason. It is not an exact method like mathematics, though some aspects of logic can be strictly formalized.
There are two chapters dealing with logic, “Logic and Reason,” and this chapter. Since logic proceeds entirely by means of propositions the two chapters on propositions, “Propositions,” and “Dr. Binswanger’s View of Propositions,” somewhat overlap and are closely related conceptually to those on logic. It is suggested the four chapters be read as close together as possible. I begin my comments on Dr. Binswanger’s views of logic with this quote:
Invoking, “cause-and-effect,” as the basis of principles, as Dr. Binswanger does, undercuts the entire nature of principles. Dr. Binswanger writes: “Thus, one needs principles because they provide the overview, the road map outlining the kind of consequences that follow from choosing one way or another. Principles identify cause-and-effect relationships. Acting in defiance of a valid principle means pretending that there can be causes without effects or effects without their causes.
Instinct in animals may be pictured as a complex program lying between conscious perception and overt behavior. Perception is like the input to the program, behavior is the output of the program. How an animal will behave in response to what it is conscious of (both externally and its own internal states) is provided entirely by the program. The program is capable of modifying itself in relationship to conscious experiences it stores in memory, but can only modify itself within the limits determined by the program.
Dr. Binswanger does attempt to defend the volitional nature, but his inclusion of concepts having nothing to do with that nature, and his explanation of volition itself is both confused and mistaken. “Free Will” [Page 321] It is unfortunate that Binswanger has chosen to use the term, “free will,” which is a loaded concept from religion. It is not “free will’ which humans have. The unique aspect of human consciousness is not free will, but volition, which means everything a human being does as a human being, from what one thinks to one’s overt actions must be consciously chosen.
This is not about the relationship of philosophy to science, which is a very important subject. A correct philosophy is the foundation of all disciplines, especially science, and that foundation is sorely neglected among today’s intellectuals. What this chapter addresses is the opposite relationship, that which science bears to philosophy. The general principle of either relationship is, there is no contradiction between true philosophy and true science. If a contradiction appears between any aspect of science and any principle of philosophy, either philosophy at the point, or science at that point, or both are mistaken.
Technically, this chapter is not about philosophy, and if Dr. Binswanger had not evoked evolution as frequently and forcefully as he has to support his views, it would not be necessary and would not be included. The purpose of this chapter is not to argue against evolution, but to point out those questions regarding the evolutionary hypothesis that must be answered if evolution is to be regarded as a science.