An age old question was once whether if a tree falls in a deserted forest, where no one is around to hear it, does it actually make a sound or fall silently? So, which of the two are we really, if we’re just immersed in a world that is an illusory as it is real? Am I the man who dreams about being a bird or a bird dreaming about being a man? To quote Chinese Philosopher Zhaung Zi, we don’t know if we are one or the other, just as he was unaware of whether he was a “man dreaming I was a butterfly or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man”? Perhaps the real question here is “how can I know anything”? (as cited in Yutang & Xu, 2018, p. 28). The answer to it, in part, surely lies in tracing the genesis of epistemology. A theory of knowledge, a branch of philosophy or even a study of how to know what counts as knowledge: epistemology is as multidimensional a concept as reality itself, perhaps. Man’s search for meaning is timeliness. It is also universal. We are here because someone created us. That’s what 19th century thinker William Paley (1802) proposed through his watch maker analogy likening human existence to a watch found in the middle of nowhere. But existence itself necessitates a creator, Paley believed.
Limited or Limitless? The Boundaries of Knowing
The extent of human knowledge exceeds how much we know because there are no limits or are there? Acquiring knowledge or knowing innately is the fine line between how much we know and how much we can actually know. The sceptics would disagree because we cannot or do not know anything at all. Knowledge of, how and that are at the heart of knowing. For example:
· I know Mary McAleese: Knowledge Of
· I know how to speak French: Knowledge How
· I know Cork is the second largest city in Ireland: Knowledge That
But does this mean knowledge is relative or absolute? This brings us to a proposition, a statement that can be true or false. Then, there is the inevitable gulf between belief and knowledge. Knowing something not limited to logic can be differentiated from knowing something that is certainly true. Being true to one’s self, for example, is one of the basic elements of the “many layered extent” of psychotherapy (Frankl, 1956, p. 57). But just what is truth? The Gettier’s challenge sums it up as what is justified true belief is not always knowledge (Gettier, 1963). Sceptics focus on belief rather than knowledge, concentrating on suspension of judgement. Skepsis derives from the Greek word for investigation. Ancient scepticism is about suspending belief, modern scepticism is about justified doubt and belief. The idea behind scepticism is that we must be sceptical of scepticism itself, as Bertrand Russell (1928) once remarked.
Sense or Nonsense? Making Reason of Scepticism
In contrast, the Rationalists reason with knowledge, from the Latin word for a prior knowledge before experience. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle founded this school of thought. The Rationalists held that scepticism and relativism don’t work, reason does. Imperfect images are experienced through our senses, according to Plato in 375 BC in his seminal work, The Republic (Reeve, 2004). Yet the perfect concepts resulted from innate knowledge in that the other word is more authentic. Yet Descartes, a supreme rationalist, asserted “I think. Therefore I am” (Descartes, 1637, p. 32). So does knowledge assume existence or preclude it? Empiricists held that experiential learning was at the root of knowledge and argued against the sceptics. Led by Locke and Hume, the Empiricists believed in the simple equation that experience = impressions = knowledge. Objectively speaking humans do not exist, yet everything is about sense impressions, and the limits of human understanding are entirely based on the senses. Can you describe the colour red to a blind person? How can one learn except experience, Empiricists argued.
Combining reason and experience was the basis of all knowledge, according to Kantian Constructivism (Kant, 1999). A-priori is knowledge before experience. A-posteriori is knowledge after experience. Meaning is in the world itself or not becomes a matter of debate, leading the constructivists to propose the difference between analytic and synthetic statements. The Noumenally, objects exist as themselves. Phenomenally, they present themselves to us, much like Alice through a Looking Glass (Carroll, 1909). Humans seek patterns and that lies at the heart of knowing. Kant’s thinking cap was a concept much like that embodying quantity, quality, relation and modality (Kant, 1999).
Is What’s True for You True for Me Too?
Do we see the same colour? Do we hear the same song? Are we slaves of perception or is perception simply a matter of constructing reality in ways that empower us? Life happens between perception and attitude. Knowing is part of the picture. Yalom(1974), Frankl (1962) and Heidegger (1962) were simply reflecting a reality they observed, one that involved the never ending, ever evolving quest for meaning. Depth work is at the heart of authentic psychotherapy sessions empowering the existentialists to be true to themselves. If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, where does that leave the existentialist on a quest for meaning (Gray, 1992). Understanding that gender is socially constructed frames the feminist approach, while Eastern approaches believe there should not even be a question. Science assumes hypothesis formulation and testing. Yet Existentialists believed man constructs his own meaning to deal with experiencing an existential vacuum (Frankl1962, p. 93).
Know Thyself!
Know thyself: this ancient Socratic injunction is at the heart of distinguishing between ontology or being, teleology or mission and epistemology or self. Whether it’s a movement from learned helplessness to authentic happiness, Seligman (2002) and Ellis (2011) who founded the cognitive psychotherapy movement, propose that knowing what works and what does not and what works better is the key to effective therapy and happy living. While radical behaviourists like Skinner (1974) emphasise the action behind the black box as the fulcrum of learning, Freud (1856-1939) and psychodynamic thinkers emphasise the knowledge of symbolism and inner selves. Humanism emphasises experiential knowing, encompassing the work of Rogers (1902-1987) and Maslow (1980-1970). Perhaps the answer to the question “How can we know anything” ultimately lies within us, rather than the mysterious Cosmos that surrounds us and the root of all knowledge is birthed in opening our eyes to this reality. So perhaps the tree did make a noise while falling, after all. But for us, what matters most is how can we know ourselves better? Are we dreaming or are we awake? As we struggle with knowledge and knowing, perhaps the greatest mystery lies in understanding how we can know ourselves, if the ultimate goal is to understand how we can know anything?
Constantin Tui is an Existentialist Therapist and Supervisor - in private practice (Dynamic Counselling and Psychotherapy). He is currently working towards his Doctorate in Psychotherapy in DCU.
References
Carroll, L. (1909) Through the looking-glass and what Alice found there . [New York, Dodge publishing company] [Pdf] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/09016128/.
Descartes, R. (1637). Discourse on the Method of rightly conducting one’s reason and seeking the truth in the sciences, and in addition the Optics, the Meteorology and the Geometry, which are essays in this Method. Imaginary English Press.
Ellis, A., & Ellis, D. J. (2011). Theories of psychotherapy. Rational emotive behaviour therapy. American Psychological Association.
Frankl, V. (1962). Psychiatry and man's quest for meaning. Journal of Religion And Health, 1(2), 93-103. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01532076
Frankl, V. E. (1967). Logotherapy and Existentialism. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 4(3), 138–142.
Gettier, E. (1963). “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” Analysis 23: 121-3.
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus : a practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in your relationships. HarperCollins,
Heidegger, M., Macquarrie, J., & Robinson, E. (1962). Being and time. Blackwell.
Kant, Immanuel, (1999), Critique of Pure Reason, (P. Guyer & A. Wood, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original Work Published 1781).
Paley, W. (1802). Natural theology, or, evidences of the existence and attributes of the deity. Collected from the appearances of nature. R. Faulder and Son.
Reeve, C.D. (2004) Plato. The Republic. Hackett.
Russell, B. (1928). Sceptical essays. Routledge.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfilment. Free Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviourism. Knopf.
Yalom, I. (1974). Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. International Journal Of Group Psychotherapy, 24(1), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207284.1974.11492271
Yutang, L., & Xu, M. (2018). Chuang Tzu. Independent Publishers.
Comments