For quick reference, here is the aphorism:
"Man, being the servant and interpreter of Nature, can do and understand so much and so much only as he has observed in fact or in thought of the course of nature: beyond this he neither knows anything nor can do anything."
My initial goal is to dissect this exactly. Then to raise potential problems that I could not find the answers to later.
First, Bacon seems to assume a purpose to man's (human's) existence. This is apparently drawn from the only capacity that man has for understanding; observation of nature. As such, the purpose of man's reasoning ability is to do the only thing it is capable of. That is the capability to understand nature. One can immediately raise the question of why. Why is man only capable of understanding nature? In fact, can't man understand phenomena better then nature? I think the response that Bacon would give would definatly include the arguement that the more practical knowledge that one would gain from nature would be preferable and more usable. From this could he conclude that the usable is primary in our task? If so the nature of philosophy in general is under question. The purpose to discover the empirical truth seems secondary to what is immediatly most practical; is this not the opposite goal to what Bacon intends? I thought his goal was to describe another method of understanding that would clarify problems with past methods. I am more confused by making a large jump to observations being primary than I am concerned by the use of the knowledge gained by phenomenology. I would claim that one cannot know any of nature truely, but one can use the assumptions that understanding nature brings more than one can use the more exact study of phenomenology.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When do you mean to say something ceases to be a phenomenon: after you posit an "in-itself" or once you posit some kind of fundamental metaphysical reality?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument, as I think Bacon's system does- it seems phenomenology is a specific kind of observation and interpretation, doesn't it?
Heidegger, I think, would agree with your conclusion as well, but he would just think it would be a different kind of phenomenology- he says something like: when tools break down or we want to approve them, then we look at them present-at-hand substances with properties.
"Can't man understand phenomena better than nature?"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure at what point you could distinguish between phenomena and nature. In fact, at least from my understanding, the one is the result of the other running its course. One can understand phenomena by observing nature.
"From this could he conclude that the usable is primary in our task? If so the nature of philosophy in general is under question. The purpose to discover the empirical truth seems secondary to what is immediatly most practical; is this not the opposite goal to what Bacon intends?"
In aphorism 70, Bacon's distinction between the experiments of light and those of fruit, he implies that his preference isn't the usable to the truth, but he instead realizes that the goal of utility depends on the correct focus of the experiments: truth. That is, he knows truth is imperative as a means to utility.
To the first paragraph, your use of nature here seems to be too ambiguous for what I was intending. Perhaps if I clarify what I mean by nature it will help. Nature in this sense is the observable by senses. Phenomena by definition are not; well they aren't by the "sensory apparatus" anyways. They are discovered through recolection of thought, memory, or something experiential in our minds.
ReplyDeleteSo when we discuss nature, we are making judgements about that which phenomena show us, and not the phenomena itself. In this way it seems that the more empirical thing to study would be the phenomena itself, and not the nature.
One cannot understand phenomema by observing nature, one can only understand the thing phenomena is showing us.
As for the second paragraph, I think I agree with some of that; I'm just a little confused.
I am confused when you say that "the goal of utility depends..." I would argue that Bacon's goal is not the "truth for itself" or "The Truth" but instead to control nature (using nature in the same way as I did before). I would go as far as to say that if the truth of higher axioms were conflicting with some observations that Bacon would not care about the higher truths, and he would use the "useful" instead. I think he would say, (to your last sentence) that God created matter, so it would make sense that the discoveries in material observation would be in agreement with the discoveries in higher axioms.
To Mr. Bodayle, I think that my point focused on the difference between studying phenomena and studying the secondaries to them; such as nature. So I would say that I think that something never ceases to be a phenomenon, but that one needs to be careful in studying the actual phenomenon, and not something that it gives us. Then again I am a little confused by the question.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I said anything that implied that Bacon's goal was "truth in itself." What I said was that he believed that one must not, as in experiments of fruit, focus on utility, but rather, as in experiments of light, focus on truth (because only in this way may one achieve something usable). Only with the correct focus (truth) will one reach the ultimate goal, which, as you said, is to control nature (and thus endow humanity with new powers).
ReplyDeleteI understand, I think. There seems to be a difference that I'm having trouble with between focus and goal. I think that we are agreeing though. Your point (I think) concerns focus; my point concerns goals. And as my last sentence said, I agree that he would say it would make sense that the higher axioms and nature are in tune. On another read of your past post, I realize that I misread what you wrote. (I thought you were talking about goals and not focuses)
ReplyDelete