Why Perspective and Context Are Features - Not Bugs - Of Human Reason

[DocWatts]

Thought I might  add this follow up section, which touches upon the misconception that a Transcendental interpretation of categories is 'scientific'.

_________________________________________________

Why Our Limitations Matter

The first of these potential pitfalls involves a misconstrual of what this ‘shot across the bow’ to absolute knowledge actually entails. The assertion that conceptual categories aren’t a retrieval of mind-independent distinctions that are ‘out there’ in the world may seem strange. This strangeness is understandable. We live in a scientific culture that’s long since dethroned mankind from the center of the universe, and the suggestion that categories aren’t external to us may seem as if it flies in the face of established knowledge. Naturally, this rejection of mind-independent categories raises some questions, chief among them: doesn’t it resurrect the outdated idea that we occupy a privileged position at the center of Reality? After all, our everyday categories certainly seem to correspond to external, mind-independent distinctions. 

Before we tackle these concerns, let’s introduce some shorthand that will be helpful going forward. We’ll use ‘Transcendental Categories’ to refer to the tacit assumption that conceptual categories are fixed features of Reality which transcend our human perspective. By contrast, recall that phenomenology is a methodology for scrutinizing how the world shows up for us in the directness of our lived experience. ‘Phenomenological Categories’, then, refers to the idea that categories are anthropocentric schemas that arise from our embodied interactions with the world. With this shorthand in mind, let’s return to the issues that are raised by this phenomenological interpretation of categories. The key question is whether it contradicts well-established observations that we have good reason to trust. To that end, let’s look at it from the perspective of modern science.

One of the underlying assumptions of modern science, known as the Mediocrity Principle, holds that we have no inherently privileged position within the cosmos. It’s a denial that our cosmic vantage point holds any special importance within the grand scheme of the universe, just because we happen to be occupying it. Essentially, the principle aims to avoid introducing unintentional anthropocentric bias into our study of the natural world. This is a noble intention, not just for scientific inquiry, but for philosophical investigation as well. 

Given its emphasis on how conceptual categories are unavoidably anthropocentric, it may be surprising to discover that this phenomenological approach doesn’t contradict the Mediocrity Principle. Instead, it extends it in a more fundamental way. By emphasizing how categories are grounded in a human perspective, we can avoid projecting our own needs, interests, and capacities onto nature. Counterintuitively, by acknowledging the anthropocentric origins of our categories, we gain the ability to critically examine their limitations. This is important because it facilitates a far less biased interpretation of their meaning and significance. 

Consequently, this phenomenological perspective stands in sharp contrast to the unrealistic assumption that our categories are transcendent representations of a mind-independent Reality. In sum, we gain notable clarity by questioning this insistence that there’s a single correct understanding of Reality that transcends the human perspective. By embracing this human vantage point, and incorporating its underlying limitations into our abstractions, we more effectively safeguard ourselves against self-deception as we interpret Reality through these frameworks.

Edited August 10, 2024 by DocWatts