The Limitation of Human Understanding

Living relies on sensing and experiencing the world that is relevant to us. Living well without knowing The Limitation of Human Understanding is possible.

This view came to me while I was reading Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (CPR) a few moments ago. (CPR’s Division two, Book I, B366-B377, translated by Paul Guyer of University of Pennsylvania and Allen W. Wood of Yale University, the Cambridge Edition.) 

Kant

As a scientist, inspired by the Copernicus Revolution, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) studied philosophy systematically. He combined the two opposing camps, Empiricism and Rationalism, and revolutionized it. To explain this assertion, I should start with an elaborated definition of philosophy.

Philosophy has its Greek root. It means love of wisdom. In Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, wisdom has three referential meanings: knowledge, insight, and judgment. Insight is the ability to discern inner qualities and relationships, and judgment is having a good sense, both of which are metaphysical. In contrast, knowledge, like facts and truths, is the accumulated scientific human understanding of the objects in the natural world, and human beings can learn knowledge through education.

At the time of Ancient Greece, physics and metaphysics were the two divisions of knowledge. This view still works as far as philosophy is concerned. Physics includes everything in the natural world that can be observed and studied objectively; metaphysics is about human beings’ mental quality in order to understand the natural world. According to Kant, all knowledge begins with experience, but it is not sufficient that all knowledge arises from experience. There are two kinds of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori. The a priori knowledge is metaphysical, relying on our faculty, such as judgment and insight. The a posteriori knowledge is physical, responding to our senses and our experience. Human understanding is a priori.

Subdivided into the Theory of Knowledge, Ethics, Religion, and Aesthetics, philosophy belongs to metaphysics and plays a vital role in guiding our scientific inquiries into the natural world.

Theory of Knowledge is about principles that hold for all knowledge. 

Ethics is about the moral principles that regulate human behavior related to each other or human conduct in action. 

Religion is about the belief system that guides the faith of a human being. 

Aesthetics is about the principles concerned with the appreciation and judgment of beauty in the natural world or artistic presentations of the real world.

Looking through the meanings of these four subdivisions of philosophy, we can see the importance of human understanding of knowledge in metaphysics immediately.

In Ancient Greece, metaphysics to Plato (427-347BC) was about ideas and representations of real-world objects. These representations exist in perfect forms, and the goal of philosophers is to discover them. 

By observing objects in the natural world and following Plato’s footstep, Aristotle (384-322BC) postulated that, besides perfect forms, metaphysics must have fundamental principles that could guide the human understanding of objects studied. 

Unfortunately, Aristotle’s geocentric model of the world was taken as the absolute truth until the time of Copernicus (1473-1543). Observable evidence necessary to the Copernicus Revolution had to be unattached or ignored for seventeen hundred more years. The heliocentric model of the world was finally recognized in the same year as Copernicus’ death in 1543. 

Fast forward to the 17th century, Isaac Newton (1643-1727) discovered the laws of mechanics with his insight while seeking fundamental principles. He made a real scientific breakthrough.

Similarly, Kant made a real scientific breakthrough in philosophy with his treaties: Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Critique of Pure Reason, the 2nd edition (1787), Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and Critique of Judgement (1790). Kant’s philosophical works have been gradually recognized as the first and most extraordinary effort in systematic studies of how human beings can acquire knowledge with the power of human understanding. The Copernicus Revolution, along with other significant scientific discoveries, enabled Kant to have his insight. Indeed, modern scientific disciplines about the human mind can all be traced back to Kant’s philosophical thinkings, psychology, epistemology, ontology, to name a few.

Genetics is a branch of biology. The word genetics has been included in the English dictionary since the middle of the 19th century. Genetic engineering has come much later after scientists are confident enough to apply genetics studies in theory to solve real-world problems. Both genetics and genetic engineering have been extensively studied and applied, described in popular science literature, and even involved in public discussions from time to time. Nevertheless, it is still little hope to figure out the connections between the progress made in metaphysics and the human body/mind genetically.

Human understanding about metaphysics –the word, its usage, as a study of human mental quality, or as a “branch” in philosophy– has gone through phases since Ancient Greece. For example, it was and still is condemned by governments holding the Marxist belief. Perhaps, to these governments, the word “metaphysics” still is about seeking perfect forms, as if taken by the ancient Greeks.

In Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (B368), he differentiates concepts of understanding from concepts of reason. The former guides toward human beings’ perceptions, and the latter serves human comprehension. For example, in B370, Kant states, “it is not unusual to find that we understand him even better than he understood himself.” Kant explains, “he may not have determined his concept sufficiently and hence sometimes spoke, or even thought, contrary to his intention.” Besides, let us consider “his” thought through pondering, and “his” time used to do so at “his” mental condition. All is toward building “his” experience and make impacts on “his” understanding.

Chomsky

Regarding human understanding, the relation between thoughts and language, the subject of linguistics, became a concern inevitably among philosophers at the beginning of the 20th century. Consequently, a conference to debate/discuss among leading intellectuals of the world followed during the late-70s, featuring the two scholars on each side, the Nativist Noam Chomsky and the Behaviorist Jean Piaget. The recorded discussions were in two volumes published by the Harvard University Press. It influenced my research in Artificial Intelligence during my graduate studies in the mid-90s.

This link, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVXLo9gJq-U, leads to an interview of Noam Chomsky by Bryan Magee in 1977, posted on Youtube recently. Let me make a simpler version, based on Magee’s introduction of Noam Chomsky and the interview itself, to explain Chomsky’s hypothesis regarding language that impacts human understanding.

Chomsky has been known internationally for doing two things: one is a leader of American resistance to the Vietnam War; the other is a linguistics professor at MIT, trained to be a philosopher, with his works that had enormous implications in philosophy, especially to the behaviorist view of human understanding. 

According to Chomsky, the following questions directed to behaviorism ought to have adequate answers.

How is creativity possible?

How is the system in humans with a rigidly pre-program used?

How can we act creatively to say things that are new but not random, or prepare for occasions but not under the control of stimuli?

Seeking answers to these questions can take us into a realm of mystery where science seems impossible.

Language is unique in human beings. It is not possible to conduct scientific experiments to seek insight into the nature of language on animals. It would be unethical to experiment on humans by conducting comparable experiments we have been using on animals. 

It is incontrovertible that language expresses our knowledge of the world and enables us to ponder our thoughts about the world. From the observable evidence of human beings’ mastering language in use, especially that of young children, the language growth in a person is, like that of all body organs, such as a healthy brain, genetically endowed at birth, growing and adapting through his/her accumulated experience with the world, rather than skills, which are acquired by training and which become better by repeating to a certain extent.

I concur with Chomsky’s hypothesis based on my own experience. Further to my knowledge, philosophers, either from a couple of thousand years ago, such as Plato (427-347BC), who wrote Meno, or a hundred years ago, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), who wrote Tractatus Logico-Philosophics, have left us their writings to imply Chomsky’s hypothesis.

Genetics is a scientific discipline at the finest level, DNA, to understand the human body and mind. The relation between a human language and thoughts has not yet been discernible genetically. What would be our hope in science to discover human understanding besides philosophy, given that the differences among us at birth and the accumulations of our unique life experience can explain, more or less, the human understanding and its limits, The Limitation of Human Understanding?

American Exceptionalism

Looking through this Wikipedia link, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#cite_note-realclearpolitics.com-100) American Exceptionalism is described as a political theory and an ideology. Both are in the academic realm. 

Academics survives on inventing new conceptual words. This kind of survival is an example of the “survival of the fittest.” Capitalizing the word “Evolution” as in Evolution theory is a success in academics, even though debates among intellectuals on their understanding of Evolution theory is never-ending.

To me, American Exceptionalism is not an academic but practical term, which has always been motivational to Americans, young and old, born and naturalized American citizens. In defense of American exceptionalism, I will go through four criticisms given on the above Wikipedia page.

I. “Moral Purity”

The criticism of American exceptionalism–not being morally pure–came from unfortunate events that made severe stains in American history. For example, the Indian Removal Act, passed by Congress in 1830, decided by the Supreme Court that took the Cherokees side in 1832, nonetheless, executed as the notorious “Trail of Tears,” and enforced a deadline before 1838 during the Andrew Jackson administration. Should such kinds of incidences disqualify American exceptionalism? My answer is no. My explanation will be after the rest of the criticisms provided.

II. “Double Standards”

Like the “Moral Purity” of the American past, the apparent failures in American foreign policies of the recent decades have led to the sentiment for disqualifying the honor that American heritages are exceptional. Two examples can show this criticism as follows. Roger Cohen asked, “How exceptional can you be when every major problem you face, from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to gas prices, requires joint action?” Samantha Power asserted, “we are neither the shining example nor even competent meddlers. It’s going to take a generation or so to reclaim American exceptionalism.” Both opinions are challenging the validity of American Exceptionalism as a theory to support American foreign policies. Both deviate from the practical use of the term, American Exceptionalism, in my opinion. Whether it is misused to make a foreign policy or miscarried in the policy execution, with the attitude problem being meddlers, is debatable. 

III. “Americanist Heresy”

Facing the popular trend of the white protestant domination in America at the end of the 19th century, Americanist heresy was coined by the Catholic leader, Pope Leo XIII, in 1898. However, American exceptionalism has its most salient beginning- – individualism, tolerance of other religions, and separation of church and state — the three of which are inseparable and guarded by the American Constitution. As long as our Constitution stands, this criticism bears little impact.

IV. “Pre-emptive Declinism”

The term was defined as a postmodern belief that “the United States is not an exceptional nation and is not entitled by virtue of history to play a role on the world stage different from other nations.”

Lead by Paul Krugman’s philosophical analysis of American destination. An empire rises; then, it falls. Therefore, pre-emptive solutions must be followed, which, in turn, has caused the “declinism.” Is the United States the Empire of Liberty, or the Empire of Domination of the world? Does it a subject to Limitation of Human Understanding? On the other hand, an alternative view made by Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek is that “not about the decline of America, but rather about the rise of everyone else.”

My Defense

Having described the four criticisms above, you might have sensed that I want to say. American Exceptionalism is a practical term that can motivate Americans about our history and our present role on the world stage. This term will serve the purpose as long as it continues to be motivational to Americans. It has been so many generations of the past, young and old, born and naturalized American citizens. It does not matter how our leaders (both the 43rd and 44th POTUS) use the term to make their persuasions to other nations’ leaders while confronting particular world problems. Without a doubt, the outstanding values of this American exceptionalism, applicable to any human society on the earth, i.e., the principles underlie the nation’s building shown by fighting in the American Revolution and debating to ratify the American Constitution. The glory of fighting the American Civil War (1861-1865) is the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments ratification and adoption into the American Constitution. The glory of resolving civil rights issues via the Supreme Court decisions and making corrections if deemed wrong is apparent; both are forever shinning on American Exceptionalism.

Human Progress

Human beings are in one world. We are one as people on the earth.
Although there are geographical, demographical, historical differences, we share the same knowledge in philosophy, politics, economics, and all other social and natural sciences.

Philosophically, we make progress perpetually and endlessly. Progress is the truth.

For example, my upbringing was in mainland China, where its ruling party worships Marxism and Leninism. The party is called the Chinese Communist Party, built and led by Mao Zedong, the Chairman and one of the party founders. He aimed to defeat three great oppressions on Chinese people–imperialism, feudalism, and capitalism. As a philosopher himself, the CCP Chairman Mao Zedong envisioned human progress and determined to build a modern China by learning from each country globally, including useful things from the Chinese past after taking over mainland China in 1949.

The truth is that “in theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are different (Yogi Berra, 1925-2015.)”

A human leader can lead to either successes or failures; a charismatic leader may lead to catastrophes. The Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) was an obvious example led by Mao Zedong.

“Correcting chaos, building a modern China” was a movement led by one of the successors after Mao, Deng Xiaoping, a key leader confronting the disastrous cultural revolution. That movement enabled me to pursue my scholarship in the United States. I have become a proud citizen of this exceptional nation. As I have promised in my last piece, I will write in defense of American exceptionalism.

Leaders often use an ideology to motivate their followers. An ideology itself as a doctrine may not be the key to winning their citizens build a great country. However, human progress is that key. For example, fighting for global warming is to make human progress. So are other social movements, such as the Black Lives Matter movement, which can make human progress in theory. But, the crucial question is, “how relevant an activity to carry out the progress may be in practice?”

Philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) has figured out the best moral theory of human beings; we can put it into practice via human progress. For example, at the time of Confucius (551-479 BC), capital punishment was unimaginable cruel while Chinese civilization was relatively advanced. Leaping forward a couple of thousand years in human history, we saw the American Constitution against cruel and unusual punishments (1791). At present, many nations of the world have abandoned the death penalty entirely.

Although human understanding is not unique and depending on each personal experience, philosophically, truths about our world exist, including ourselves. Making human progress is seeking truths via studies of natural sciences and philosophy.

As truths reveal, humanity prevails.

A common sense

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Is the above saying common sense?
To me, it is the truth as in natural laws.
Common sense is about human understanding, and natural laws entail truths.

My thoughts about the “Limitation of Human Understanding” continued thanks to Frum’s Ideas article in the Atlantic on July 5, 2019, Trump’s Recessional. (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/trumps-july-fourth-speech-had-no-purpose/593401/)

Yesterday, I wrote about the three types of knowledge upon reading Frum’s article, i) knowledge and experience, ii) human understanding, and iii) languages and thoughts. (https://he98anything.wordpress.com/2021/01/) It is all-natural to follow up with some elaborations today.

If an idea is meaningful, it provokes thoughts from different perspectives. In his July 5, 2019 article, Frum’s idea did just that: it stimulated me to think about a function within the American Presidency. The quote below jumps to my mind as a consequence.

“The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.” Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, 1863.

It is an example of words that give us a shared understanding and let us remember the historical moment of our proud 16th POTUS, President Lincoln, during the great civil war.

Not to promote his way of introducing President Trump’s 4th of July speech, let me quote Frum directly: “Yet it’s a strange thing about words. Talk long enough, and sooner or later you will say something.”

Frum did bring my attention to the speech and my pondering.

Many actions are without words, and some actions are words if those words can be meaningful. Words can create images with meanings that provoke understanding in each personal experience. Images are better to bridge personal differences in understanding with regard to the goals of communication.

Let me introduce Immanuel Kant’s idea:
“Thoughts without contents are empty; intuitions without concepts are blind.” –Critique of Pure Reason, 1787.

No doubt that Kant has revealed the truth about human understanding! To me, the word, “contents” meant actionable ideas in words.

In conclusion, with my follow-up thoughts: wisdom entails human understanding. Wisdom is passed on generation by generation with words, even if words might not be actionable to all.

The Great Communicator

Upon reading David Frum’s article, Is America Still the ‘Shining City on a Hill’? https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/is-america-still-the-shining-city-on-a-hill/617474, I felt an urge to share the story regarding our beloved 40th POTUS, Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), which reminded me of his much-deserved accolade, the great communicator. This story can also be used to illustrate the myth around the “Limitation of Human Understanding.”

First, let me introduce President Reagan with the words of the authors and scholars Frank Freidel (1916-1993) and Hugh Sidey (1927-2005):

At the end of his two terms in office, Ronald Reagan viewed with satisfaction the achievements of his innovative program known as the Reagan Revolution, which aimed to reinvigorate the American people and reduce their reliance upon government. He felt he had fulfilled his campaign pledge of 1980 to restore “the great, confident roar of American progress and growth and optimism.”

–The Presidents of the United States of America, 2006.

Now, to introduce the context of the story in Frum’s article, where “a shining city on a hill” was described as President Reagan having the “creative misquotation” of John Winthrop (1588-1649), his addition of the word “shining,” and the later mention of his initial use of the metaphor during American presidential elections in 1964, let me start by quoting David Frum directly:

“Van Engen’s book bears the to-the-purpose title City on a Hill: A History of American Exceptionalism. But what that book does is something much more wonderful than to-the-purpose. City on a Hill grasps a phrase you may think you understand—and then it turns that phrase to open the door to a huge room of rediscovered knowledge.”

Although I could not confer with Frum’s critical portrayal of President Reagan’s usage of “a shining city on a hill,” I can draw the same conclusion as he did in his article: to open and look into his huge room of rediscovered knowledge. At a thousand-feet-high, let me illustrate the story through which we may discover or rediscover the following three types of knowledge: i) knowledge and experience, ii) human understanding, and iii) languages and thoughts.

I. On knowledge and experience

“Although all knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that all knowledge raises out of experiences.” Immanuel Kant (Critique of Pure Reason, 1787.)

As an example of the view given above, President Reagan applied his knowledge about the world into his leadership skills by using the analogy that compares the United States of America, the leader of the free world as he believed, to a shining city on a hill. Therefore, there should be no doubt that the metaphoric use of the phrase “city on a hill” is a vivid image for leaders to motivate their followers. 

II. On human understanding

“Is there knowledge that is independent of experience and even of all impressions of the senses? Such knowledge is entitled a priori, distinguished from the empirical, which has its sources a posteriori, i.e., from experiences. ” Immanuel Kant (Critique of Pure Reason, 1787.)

Human understanding is a priori. Human understanding resides in our faculty of knowledge with limitations in personal differences. 

In the story regarding “city upon a hill,” I see differences in the level of human understanding, whether it is reading words literally or figuratively or having different personal experiences about the world in which we all live.

III. On languages and thoughts

A common consensus about languages and thoughts is that languages are tools to express thoughts. The clarity of thoughts relies on the clarity of a language used to express thoughts.  

 As a great communicator, President Reagan has the faculty of knowledge to ponder his thoughts and to communicate them to himself and others. 

Finally, I hope that I have illustrated a wonderful portrayal of President Reagan while showing my knowledge in an effort of opening and looking into “a huge room of rediscovered knowledge” using Frum’s metaphor quoted above. Consequently, a much-needed effort to discover or rediscover knowledge regarding American Exceptionalism should be next.