Epistemology and Metaphysics

I just got done reading about both epistemology and metaphysics and I really believe that I have gained an insight into how to think about certain aspects of philosophy better. The main issue that was brought up was whether epistemology should be based upon metaphysics or should metaphysics based upon epistemology. After I get done giving an explanation of what I read, many will say, “but isn’t that obvious”. I will agree that it is something that those with a philosophical background know (including me), but it is not a philosophical tool that we actively apply to understand philosophical issues that it would be relevant towards, and I believe that it should be.

The reading was mostly about the nature of words being able to give truthful statements about the Brahman; this book is about Advaita Vedanta and its application to religious discourse. The part that I really cogitated upon was the beginning in which it was stated that certain philosophers and philosophies have based metaphysics on epistemology, and certain philosophers have based epistemology upon metaphysics. The philosophers that based metaphysics on epistemology were Descartes, Locke, and Kant, whereas the philosophers that based epistemology on metaphysics were Spinoza, Hegel, and Whitehead. The philosophies that based metaphysics on epistemology were the Carvakas, Baudhas, and Vaisheshika, whereas it stated that almost all other philosophies of India based epistemology on metaphysics. It was stated almost exactly like this, with no explanation of their philosophies. Fortunately, I am familiar with all of these philosophers and schools of thought with the exception of Whitehead; therefore I was able to understand what was meant. What was instantly aroused was a mental activity that put a lot into perspective.

The common classification of these above philosophers does not fit into the mold of basing epistemology upon metaphysics or vice versa, with the exception of the Indian philosophical schools. It seems that the nastika schools seem to base metaphysics on epistemology whereas the astika schools base epistemology on metaphysics, I know that Vaisheshika is an astika darshana and it listed as the former, but besides this anomaly the above point still stands. The reason is obvious, if the Vedas and its derivatives (Upanishads, Aryanakas, and Brahmanas) are the highest source of knowledge then whatever metaphysical principles derived from these texts would clearly have veracity. The astika schools have their name from the fact that they don’t see the Vedas as giving ultimate knowledge; therefore they must get their knowledge from another source. This is my personal opinion on the difference between Buddhism and Vedanta, the Buddha relied mostly on his phenomenology, whereas the Vedantists relied mostly on Shruti and the Vedanta Sutra. I do believe that the Buddha understood his experience using the religious language of India, which included Vedanta, and that the Vedantists like Shankara meditated and reflected on what is real, but I am only saying what I believe to be their foundation, what I believe to be their starting point. I apologize if I am going on a tangent now, but there is so much that I want to say, but I promise to stick to my point now, and not deviate from it.

When Descartes, Locke, and Kant are classified in the history of philosophy, they are not grouped together, except under that title of Modern Philosophy. Descartes is labeled as a rationalist, Locke is labeled as an empiricist, and Kant is labeled as a transcendental idealist. The same goes for Spinoza, Hegel, and Whitehead. Spinoza is labeled as a rationalist, Hegel is labeled as a German Idealist, and Whitehead’s system as process philosophy. Anyone understanding their philosophy will see that these labels make sense, and I am not trying to redefine how Modern Philosophy is articulated, I will just try to give an additional insight. The method of Descartes was to use methodological doubt to question everything until he could find that one certain bit of knowledge that could not be doubted, and build his system from there. For Descartes this was the cogito, the fact that he thinks. Even if one was to doubt consciousness, they have just affirmed it through the conscious act of doubting. Then Descartes attempts to build a system based upon what he “proves” to be true using reason. The reason I placed the quotes around proves was his fallacious attempt at proving God via the ontological argument. Locke started from our experience of sensory ideas as knowledge, and then analyzes them into primary and secondary qualities, and builds a system based upon this. Kant sought out to determine what the necessary conditions of experience were and then determine based upon this epistemic condition what is the extent of out knowledge. Spinoza started from the metaphysical premise of substance as that which exists which has infinite attributes and then elaborates upon it. Hegel’s Absolute from which his system rested upon was a meta-consciousness which proceeds to lose itself in nature and then regain itself in spirit. I am unfamiliar with the philosophy of Whitehead, but I should start to study him, because from the little that I gleaned, his system could probably answer the dilemma that arose in the previous post.

The reason that I write this is because if one starts from epistemological premises, then having an actual metaphysics is problematic. Descartes’ insight has been the foundation of phenomenology, and Husserl has taken shown most metaphysical positions that he held to be in doubt, though his cogito as a phenomenological foundation is bedrock. Locke’s empiricism was used against him by Berkeley to destroy his materialism, and then later by Hume in which any metaphysics is impossible. Kant’s system divided reality, or aspects of reality, into both phenomena and noumena, leaving the ultimate nature of existence unknown. The problem with the rationalists tends to be of a different sort. Since they start with a metaphysical principle that has no ground of correspondence outside of their reason, and use reason beyond its scope to construct how this principle develops, they are accused of speculative metaphysics. The main problem is that if we start with what we know we are unable to get to knowing what is, but if we start from what is we really having now way of knowing that this is what is. I have methods that I use to try to solve this problem; it is a synthesis of transcendental idealism, phenomenology, and mysticism, which is for a later date. I leave you to do your own cogitations upon this.

Note: I will try to maintain a structure and life for this blog, and rather than having 40 posts the first month, and 1 or 2 in the sixth (I have seen this in other blogs), I will post one article every Friday, possibly two. I know that seems much less activity that its inception, but I do have other projects.

The book in question was Problems and Perspectives in Religious Discourse: Advaita Vedanta Implications by John Grimes

I am in the process of editing this post