Tag Archives: epistemology

Stanley Cavell on external world skepticism

“How do we learn that what we need is not more knowledge but the willingness to forgo knowing? For this sounds to us as though we are being asked to abandon reason for irrationality (for we know what these are and we know these are alternatives), or to trade knowledge for superstition (for we know when conviction is the one and when it is the other— the thing the superstitious always take for granted). This is why we think skepticism must mean that we cannot know the world exists, and hence that perhaps there isn’t one (a conclusion some profess to admire and others to fear). Whereas what skepticism suggests is that since we cannot know the world exists, its presentness to us cannot be a function of knowing. The world is to be accepted; as the presentness of other minds is not known, but acknowledged. But what is this “acceptance,” which caves in at a doubt? And where do we get the idea that there is something we cannot do (e.g., prove that the world exists)? For this is why we take Kant to have said that there are things we cannot know; whereas what he said is that something cannot be known — and cannot coherently be doubted either, for example, that there is a world and that we are free. When Luther said we cannot know God but must have faith, it is clear enough that the inability he speaks of is a logical one: there is not some comprehensible activity we cannot perform, and equally not some incomprehensible activity we cannot perform. Our relation to God is that of parties to a testament (or refusers of it); and Luther’s logical point is that you do not accept a promise by knowing something about the promiser. How, if this is the case, we become confused about it clearly requires explanation, and the cure will be sufficiently drastic — crucifying the intellect. But perhaps no less explanation is required to understand why we have the idea that knowing the world exists is to be understood as an instance of knowing that a particular object exists (only, so to speak, an enormously large one, the largest). Yet this idea is shared by all traditional epistemologists. (Its methodological expression is the investigation of our knowledge of the external world by an investigation of a claim that a particular object exists.) Nor is it surprising that it is the intellect which, still bloody from its victories, remains to be humbled if the truth is here to emerge. Reason seems able to overthrow the deification of everything but itself. To imagine that what is therefore required of us is a new rage of irrationality would be about as intelligent as to imagine that because heaven rejects the prideful man what it craves is a monkey. For the point of forgoing knowledge is, of course, to know.”

Stanley Cavell, “The Avoidance of Love: A Reading of King Lear,” in Must We Mean What We Say?, 2nd Ed., (Cambridge University Press, 2002), 324-5.

A Pascal Miscellany

136 I have often said that the sole cause of man’s unhappiness is that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room.

924 It is true that there is something painful in beginning to practice piety, but this pain does not arise from the beginnings of piety within us, but from the impiety that is still there.

110 We know that we are not dreaming. Yet however unable we may be to prove this by reason, this inability demonstrates nothing but the weakness of our reason, and not the uncertainty of all our knowledge, as they assert. […] Our inability must therefore do nothing except humble reason –which would like to be the judge of everything – while not confuting our certainty. As if reason could be the only way in which we can learn!”

Blaise Pascal, Pensées, (1669).

Nicholas Lash on divine and human knowledge

“The supposition that there could be a single ‘basic sense’ of ‘know,’ held constant ‘across the divine-human gap,’ risks giving the impression that bodiliness is, in the last analysis, incidental to what, in human beings, knowledge means, and to how we come to know things. It is, after all, our being in the body, being in time, being historically, socially and culturally produced and nurtured, which makes human knowing the experientially grounded interpretative and responsive negotiation of circumstances not of our creating. Whereas God’s knowledge lovingly and gratuitously creates the things God knows, ex nihilo, ours does not.”

Nicholas Lash, “Contemplation, Metaphor, and Real Knowledge,” in The Beginning and the End of ‘Religion’ (Cambridge University Press, 1996), 129.