IntroductionA philosophical understanding focuses on the most general issues about reality, human knowledge, human conduct, community affairs and aesthetics. All these would need to be laid out and shown to be right. Yet whatever amounts to being right will have to be established first because that issue is in the greatest of disputes. It is not my goal to convince sophisticated skeptics who want a final proof of a claim such that no imaginable objection could be raised against it. It is sufficient for knowledge, as I have argued in numerous works, that what one takes as something one knows be correct beyond any reasonable doubt. In line with this aim, knowledge is not understood to be the final word on any topic that may be known but the best or most comprehensive, up to date apprehension of it.One can appreciate this position by considering, for example, raising children. What is the truth about it? Not some final view since none of us is in the position to provide that. Knowledge cannot amount to the impossible - not human knowledge, at any rate. One can know how to raise a child without giving the final word on the topic. (Here no big difference exists between knowing how and knowing that!) This holds true of physics, geometry, politics and ethics as well. Knowledge is not ever a finished product. Moreover, what one knows when one knows an apple or the nature of the big bang is not the same as being the apple or the Big Bang. It is knowledge of it, which is something else. If one applies the criteria of being something to knowing it, one will end in skepticism because the being of it is fundamentally different from knowing it. (Here is where I believe Kant went wrong, expecting that our knowledge of a thing amount to what it is to being that thing. That is what seems to be meant by asking whether one knows something absolutely.)In this discussion metaphysics will be laid out in what I call its minimalist form. Only the most general, universal facts of reality count as metaphysical facts. An example is the law of identity, as Aristotle understood it. That law is about what it takes for something, anything, simply to be, not about what the thing is which is the purview of the special sciences. Epistemology, too, will deal here only with the most basic elements of human knowledge, what it is for someone to know something, anything. Yes, there can be many details about knowing one or another thing but only what amounts to knowing anything at all will be my focus of attention. Despite this limitation of the scope of my exploration, one of the points that I will be defending is that the nature of human knowledge is very much under the influence of the type of being that is known; so knowing something in mathematics will differ from knowing something in biology or musicology. Context is vital for understanding the nature of knowledge.Both the issue of free choice and that of differentiating right from wrong conduct are highly controversial and in nearly every age subject to much disputation. Most recently it is neuroscience that poses challenges to the first, while multiculturalism to the second. In earlier eras reductive materialism challenged the first and varieties of subjectivism and relativism the second. Yet it is also rather plain to most of us when we are not being artificially theoretical about it that one can freely decide to act a certain way or another and that some of the ways one might act are wrong, others are right. Even the choice between the two ideas, determinism and free will, is a choice that unless it is free carries no meaning at all. A robot does not choose how to think about these sorts of issues but human beings do. They evidently have a capacity to do so. And whether they should choose determinism over free will, or vice versa, is itself a matter of doing the right or the wrong thing (albeit only in this limited sphere of what kind of view of human nature one ought to embrace). …
Read full abstract