"All present systems can reasonably be considered to be nothing but tools on the carpenter's workbench. This carpenter is you. Unless you have gone stark raving mad, you will not try to make do without all these tools except one, and to stand up for the plane to the point of declaring that the use of hammers is wrong and wicked... With no eclecticism whatsoever, one ought to be permitted to have recourse to that instrument of knowledge that seems the most adequate in each circumstance." -- Andre Breton, Prolegomena to a Third Surrealist Manifesto or Not (1942)
I've begun to consider the duality between "The Mystics vs The Rationalists" on this forum, and elsewhere, as a rather absurd and sectarian concept. What this battle royale seems to boil down to is: those who insist intuition and introspection is the highest method of attaining knowledge (maybe Gnosis, even?) versus those who insist rational thinking is the highest method of attaining knowledge versus those who insist sensory experience is the highest method of attaining knowledge.
If a person intends to understand the meaning behind Herman Melville's "Bartleby the Scriver", then a great amount of speculation and introspection is going to be needed. Trying to work through a highly symbolic writing such as this, in a purely literalistic, non-speculative way, is inadequate to if you wish understand the text. In certain situations, in order to comprehend something, you have to look outside the data and try to connect subjective ideas to it. While the nature of speculation and introspection prevents us from ever coming to a solid conclusion about the 'true' theme Melville was expressing, it seems much better than having nothing at all.
Rationalism, put quite simply, is used to create cogent and logical arguments. It can be considered the most important system for accurately expressing ideas. Although, few seem to realize that deductive logic a la carte cannot tell us about reality. Many so-called rationalists, Objectivism comes to mind, appear to be practicing controlled speculation rather than logic. A syllogism can validly be used to 'prove' anything, so long as it does not contradict the laws of logic.
For those looking for a more concrete knowledge, for something firmly grounded in reality, sensory experience and empiricism is probably the best option. I have little doubt that observation is the superior method of understanding natural phenomenon. Unfortunately, empiricism covers a fairly small field of human knowledge, mostly natural science, and in this respect, is a very limited system.
Different forms of knowledge require different methods of analysis. Each of these systems of thought has its advantages and disadvantages, and the knowledge derived from each system is relative to that system. (Intuitive knowledge cannot be considered the same as empiric knowledge, etc.) As Andre Breton said in the beginning of this post, "one ought to be permitted to have recourse to that instrument of knowledge that seems the most adequate in each circumstance." Got it, punks?
|
I agree, and would add that (IMO) the highest method of attaining knowledge is the method with the greatest depth and breadth. In other words, you can cast your nets (intuition and sensory perception) upon the waters of information, but some of what you will catch may be old tires and plastic bags and tin cans. In order to sort the fish from the trash, you need to utilize logic and reasoning.
Without the sorting process, you could end up with a net full of useless trash, but without the nets, you would not be able to catch any fish.
|