Fascinating article, and du Bois-Reymond's thesis has obvious parallels to Colin McGinn's position that the 'hard problem' of consciousness remains, in principle, insoluble to the limited ken of our human brains. This is an echo of the traditions of negative theology, suggesting that God (and by extension Reality) remains forever closed off to us - for example the Cloud of Unknowing of mediaeval Christian mysticism or the Ein Sof of Kabbalah.
Thanks! I agree with your insight about negative theology; in fact, I used the term "negative epiphany" at one point in my book. I regard du Bois-Reymond's arguments as secular response to his father's Calvinism.
For more on the connection between EdBR and McGinn, see Neil Tennant, "Mind, Mathematics, and the Ignorabimusstreit," British Journal for the History of Philosophy 15(4) 2007: 745 – 773. It's a great essay.
Hello Awais, Josh and all. Please see/share our research from Prof. Graeme MacQueen, Captain Rob Balsamo, Captain Dan Hanley, Amber Quitno, Prof. Tony Martin, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, and others and help us improve it if you can. Thank you!
I think it's a recurring problem that people who argue that there are limits to what we can possibly know, and provide arguments for why this or that specific domain is in principle unknowable (certain metaphysical issues for Kant, the phenomenology of those very different from us for Nagel, etc, many examples) are met with such hostility from certain quarters. Like, obviously it's fine to issue counter arguments against such claims. But it's like some people only hear the phrase "we can't know everything" (or something like it) and IMMEDIATELY go "oh so you hate science and rationality then????"
Fascinating article, and du Bois-Reymond's thesis has obvious parallels to Colin McGinn's position that the 'hard problem' of consciousness remains, in principle, insoluble to the limited ken of our human brains. This is an echo of the traditions of negative theology, suggesting that God (and by extension Reality) remains forever closed off to us - for example the Cloud of Unknowing of mediaeval Christian mysticism or the Ein Sof of Kabbalah.
Thanks! I agree with your insight about negative theology; in fact, I used the term "negative epiphany" at one point in my book. I regard du Bois-Reymond's arguments as secular response to his father's Calvinism.
For more on the connection between EdBR and McGinn, see Neil Tennant, "Mind, Mathematics, and the Ignorabimusstreit," British Journal for the History of Philosophy 15(4) 2007: 745 – 773. It's a great essay.
Thank you for the further references, much appreciated!
Hello Awais, Josh and all. Please see/share our research from Prof. Graeme MacQueen, Captain Rob Balsamo, Captain Dan Hanley, Amber Quitno, Prof. Tony Martin, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, and others and help us improve it if you can. Thank you!
https://michaelatkinson.substack.com/
Sincerely,
Michael
🦖
So interesting!
I think it's a recurring problem that people who argue that there are limits to what we can possibly know, and provide arguments for why this or that specific domain is in principle unknowable (certain metaphysical issues for Kant, the phenomenology of those very different from us for Nagel, etc, many examples) are met with such hostility from certain quarters. Like, obviously it's fine to issue counter arguments against such claims. But it's like some people only hear the phrase "we can't know everything" (or something like it) and IMMEDIATELY go "oh so you hate science and rationality then????"
As if that RESPONSE were in any way rational.