Definition of Metaphysics: Knowledge By Acquaintance

By Times of India

Definition of Metaphysics: Knowledge By Acquaintance

We are normally acquainted with anything of which we are directly aware, without any inference or knowledge of truth.

Am I acquainted with sensations, or with physical objects, or with myself, or with other people?

We know something by description if we know that it exists and what it is like, and are not acquainted with it.

If I am not acquainted with the table, but know that there exists a thing, which causes my table-sensations, then I know that thing by the description 'the cause of my table sensations.'

Besides sense data, memory is also a source of immediate knowledge (knowledge by acquaintance). So is introspection.

And memory is itself finite and not stable. It is susceptible to loss or even decay with time.

Thus, most of what there is, we know at best by description...this includes the Self (if that exists), and other minds (if they exist).

We shall now take it for granted that matter, physical objects, the external world exist e.g. that there is a real table which exists independently of our sensations and of which the sensed qualities are the appearances.

The question is then: What is that matter like? To this question science provides one answer and it is very different from the answer of common sense belief.

The physical objects cause our sensations and those sensations reveal something about the objects in the sense that effects generally reveal something about their causes. The cause must be complex enough and have the sort of complexity sufficient to account for the complexity and structure of the appearances.

The physical space is not the same as our private experienced space, but must be connected with our private spaces in a certain way. Similarly for the time of physics as related to our experience of time.

Physical space and time must correspond to private spaces and times, but all we can know about them (about the structure of the external world) is that it must be such as to account for the correspondence. Thus we can assert similarity of structure, on a rather abstract level, but not that the objects and our sensations are alike (have common properties).

The general rule we normally accept is: "All things which I perceive/conceive clearly and distinctly are true."

But one can easily raise the objection that: "Does God exist, is he a deceiver who gives us the sense of clear and distinct perceptions of unreal things?"

With respect to a clear and distinct idea, the intellect can only agree or withhold assent...it cannot assent to the opposite.

With respect to ideas not clearly and distinctly perceived or conceived, the will can assent when both assent and dissent are open to it.

God not being a deceiver, the material world is, as I clearly and distinctly conceives of it (though not corresponding to the unclear, indistinct, confused perceptions to which my 'will' assents).

The general rule is: It is sufficient that I am able clearly and distinctly to conceive one thing apart from another, in order to be certain that the one is different from the other. Thus I am entirely and truly distinct from my body.

The totality of all physical things is matter.

"Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?"

This sounds like the question confronted in Descartes' Meditations. But despite the similarity, the problem raised has changed little over the intervening 250 years.

Does such knowledge derive from sense experience? What precisely is it that our experiences make us know? Not at all what one might think at first instance.

Example of the table:

If we are to know anything about the table, it must be by means of sense data - but what, precisely is the relation between the table and the sense data?

The table, if it really exists, is a physical thing; the totality of all physical things is matter.

The senses actually perceive the table. But scientifically the table is made up of atoms. These atoms are made up of electrons. And these electrons are not stationary. They are in a state of constant motion...as vibrating energy!

So does the table really exist as a vibration in space?

Thus we arrive at two more general questions:

-       Is there any such thing as matter?

If so, what is its nature?

Our fixed point of reference is the existence of our sense data, and what they are like.

But the existence of the Self, the 'subject' of those sense data, is as questionable as that of the physical objects, the 'objects' of those sense data.

Different people looking at the same thing consider the physical object as accounting for the unity of various perspectives.

This begs the question, as to whether anything at all exists beyond my sense data.

The existence of physical objects (and other people) can be considered as a hypothesis, similar to scientific hypotheses.

Some hypotheses are better than others, namely if they account for the data and do so more adequately and/or more simply. The hypothesis that life is but a dream cannot be ruled out on logical grounds, but there is no reason to believe it, for we can account for our sense data with a better, simpler hypothesis.

We do not come by our belief in the external world through argument; it is an instinctive belief.

We need good reason to change our beliefs from what they are, or to give up our instinctive beliefs. There is so far no good reason to give up the instinctive belief in the external world.

So the general rule is: "We cannot have good reason to reject a belief except on the grounds of some other belief."

Thus sceptical doubts do not suffice to force rejection of our beliefs.

Hence, the modest but important function of metaphysics is, not to give us new knowledge but to help us to systematise our beliefs.

Dictionaries usually describe God as the Supreme Being. Since we cannot put God on a table for a thorough investigation, God and his nature is still seen by some as belonging to a belief system.

Scholars, who believe in the theory of evolution, naturally think that this system of belief must also have undergone its own evolution. They say that ' animism ' (a belief in souls) slowly developed into ' polytheism ' (the belief in many Gods) and from there developed into a belief of one God.

However, it is clear from ancient scriptures of India, which go back four to six thousand years (longer if we add oral tradition), that their polytheism is indeed a very precise belief in only one God.

The many Gods , we hear about, are according to their own explanation no more than qualities and externalisations of the single Supreme Being. Thus the oldest book on this globe, the Rig-Veda, tells us:

"The wise speak of the same One as Indra, Mitra, Varuna , and Agni ... There is one Truth but the wise call it by different names." (164.46)

This sentence alone should be sufficient to clear up another result of ignorance. Polytheism can rather be compared with Trinity, the threefold God of the Christians. Generally, Christians, Jews, and Moslems agree: There is only one God. But there are still many Christians and Non-Christians who believe that Trinity means three Gods. That is definitely not true since Jesus himself explains that there is only one God and we are all part of the One.

The Trinity itself is not - as most Christians think - uniquely Christian. The Trinity, like religion itself, originated from India where it was called 'Trimurti' . Hindus call the Absolute Being ' Brahman ' The Son, as the creative force of cosmic vibration, is called ' Vishnu' . The returning, ingoing, attracting, dissolving, involutionary force is called ' Shiva ' . That is the exact equivalent of God the Father , God the Son and God the Holy Spirit .

To picture all three as persons is somewhat childish because then we are thinking in terms of human families. An omnipresent Being should not be pictured in terms of Fathers, Mothers, Uncles, Sons, Daughters, etc. In fact, it should be clear that God is not a person and that when we talk about an Absolute Being or Supreme Being it refers rather to a condition of perfect Beingness. Knowledge of this fact is found in all genuine religions and systems of belief, which also includes that of the American Natives.

Beingness, as the nature of God, is expressed when we hear American Natives refer to God as the 'Great Spirit.' 'Jahwe' (JHVH\Jehovah), the Jewish name for God, translates as 'I am who I am' which is the perfect description of Beingness. Beingness, then is the nature of God...in fact, Beingness is God.

Since God is self-reliant and the world is a manifestation of God's energy, we could call God: 'Self-energetic Beingness'. From the accounts of the many saints, sages, and self-realised persons, who have encountered this condition of Being, we may add that this condition is a blissful state of Being.

Idealism is the doctrine that whatever exists, or at least everything that can be known to exist, is mental. (Opposed to materialism: "All there is, is matter")

On this view, tables may be real, and independent of our sensations of tables, as long as they are something like ideas - and provided ideas can cause sensations.

Our sensations of tables are to some extent subjective, the sensations cannot exist except in perception. Therefore, nothing can be immediately known except what is in the mind.

We cannot know that anything exists which we do not know. Therefore, if matter is something which we cannot know (by being acquainted with) then we cannot know that it exists and cannot be said to be real.

The term 'know' has two senses. You can know a thing or person (be acquainted with that thing or person). You can also 'know 'that something is the case (for example, that a certain person is happy).

Hence there is knowledge of things and knowledge of truths, and the two must be clearly distinguished.

Using this distinction, we must restate the apparent truism, which is the premise of the above as:

"We can never truly judge whether something, with which we are not acquainted, actually exists!"

.

.

More from same author see: Times of India

See also: Metaphysical Principles, Definition of Metaphysics, Metaphysical Techniques, Miracles, Creating Miracles Faith and Belief, Spiritual Guidance, Peace of Mind, Life and Beyond, Body Mind and Soul