Bee on a rose by lalylaura
Shakespeare may have believed that a rose by any other name would still smell just as sweet, but the rose as it is seen or smelled by a bee gathering pollen is very different from the Valentine rose I received .
This example of Immanuel Kant’s epistemology has had a very big influence on my understanding of the world. Kant said was that what we perceive is always a result not just of the object we are perceiving, but also of the organism which is perceiving it. There is no way, he argued, to get around that. We will always be limited to perspectives we are capable of taking. So a color-blind person can’t see the difference between red and green. He might believe other people when he is told there is a difference. But he cannot himself perceive it. When I hear a foreign language, I don’t hear the meaning that someone who speaks that language can hear.
I am not a philosopher, however, and I was shocked to learn that Kant had also argued that music could never be anything more than entertainment, because it did not deal with ideas. I am sure that any well-read philosopher knows this, but I had no idea Kant was such an intellectualizer.
This matters to me because I often intellectualize. If I can’t think something through intellectually, I haven’t been convinced I know it. I often haven’t, in other words, trusted my feelings or my intuition.
I love music, but it is only in my very adult years that I have come to appreciate that I learn something through music that I can’t learn by logic or by applying the scientific method. The same can be said for all sorts of other kinds of experience which are not strictly-speaking rational or logically arrived at, or which I don’t have the opportunity to examine scientifically. Being open to my intuitions has almost been like discovering a brand new universe.
I’m not suggesting that intuition is somehow better than scientific reasoning or logical conclusions. But it is different. We can understand differently depending on how we arrive there.
And both approaches are subject to error. Our religious, ethical, or moral convictions may be based on intuition or reasoning. Either way, we can be wrong. Obviously sometimes we are, because not only do we personally sometimes change our minds, but the world even today is rife with examples of people defending with their very lives opposing beliefs and principles. We know that sometimes, somebody is horribly wrong somewhere.
I am not a believer in any religion. But I am beginning to wonder if we do not need what many people may call their religious convictions, and which I might, these days, call my intuitions. This whole question of intuition and thinking seems to me to be related to the issue of science and religion.
A subject on which I suspect I am going to risk embarrassing myself by blogging in upcoming days.