Notes on transcendence, species, naturalism etc.

-Transcendence simply needs to be noticed. Once noticed, it explains the truth of naturalism and refutes it. The reality of transcendence allows for a higher member to be nothing but a lower, for the higher is entirely the lower. At the same time, the higher cannot be considered merely the lower.

-The scientific method succeeds not by reducing all to the merely natural level, but by taking another step after this: it considers nature so far as it has something common with art (hence the importance of models in both, and the essential role of measurement). This yields an insight into nature which is as penetrating as those things that owe their whole existence to us. By this method, therefore, our insights into nature are perfectly reproducible, and so the knowledge will be perfectly publicly verifiable, and will allow us an insight into nature which will correspond to a greater and greater power over it.  

-The principle of transcendence allows us only to see four and maybe five genera of existence (we might divide animals into a higher and a lower genera, and we might want to include things which only have being per accidens, by art). Different principles will of course yield different genera and species. We should not be too quick to assume that there is any real relation between the metaphysical genera and the biological ones (this is clearer now since there living and animal beings are divided into many kingdoms). Different principles of division yield different divisions. Transcendence is simply there to be noticed in experience. It is not some fact that needs to compete with some other reality of experience that divides things in different ways and therefore gives rise to another science (or different modes of one science, since sciences are defined by their end and not their method).  

-I cannot think of a kind of knowledge of nature more proportionate to the human mind than that knowledge gained by scientific method. By proportionate I mean that the mind is most adapted to this sort of knowledge. That there are other kinds of knowing nature is in one sense a matter of experience, but in another hand it can be rigorously proven from scientific method as such. The method involves placing measurements on things (even if these are as unnoticeable as the measurements of the numeral system) but nature is not first given to us as measured. Just look at it.

-The scientific method deals with things as closer to matter, for it is closer to them in their particularity. Aristotle’s method of looking at nature, on the other hand, began with what was most confused and universal in it. Aristotle has the advantage of starting closer to intellect, the scientific method begins closer to sensation. Each will be “most known” in its own way, and will inevitable lead to one camp denying the existence of another (the infamous Aristotelians who would not look up Galileo’s telescope committed the same error as our modern naturalist thinker [like Quine]. After seeing the success of one method, they refuse to admit the possibility of another.)

%d bloggers like this: