Participatory Coherence and Real Abstraction, I

Could the key to the conceptual estrangement of our time be found, not with better systems of analysis, but with a Person?

Setting Course

This post, the beginning of a series of posts on the topic, is meant to propose and explore a theory of knowledge which seeks to provide two important points of reference for the epistemological task, those being:

1.  Grounds for knowability.

2. A coherent way out of the circularity that haunts the human level of epistemic justification and philosophical inquiry.

The criterion solution proposed is a direct, personal participation, by love, in the mind of the knowing, triune God of Scripture as a covenantal and ontological inheritance, in and through the person of Jesus Christ in Whom “all things consist” (Colossians 1:7).

Introduction

It may well be said that the business of philosophy is to question assumptions. In this respect, philosophical notions such as metalogic and epistemic justification, while often seeming too abstract or elusive to warrant serious inquiry, are in fact made all the more serious the more one inquires into them. Instead of being merely empty speculations, these issues concern the very way in which one is able to make sense of himself and the world around him. 

How can I know I am not believing an illusion? 

Can I really know something if I cannot explain it? 

What does it mean to know something, anyway? 

Questions such as these confront us with the very kind of issues with which the aforementioned philosophical notions attempt to engage. It is the quest for mental clarity which many times spurs one on to the seemingly endless search for knowledge; combing through old and elaborate texts, and racking his brain over itself.

This series of posts will offer a directive as to how this quest may be taken, so as to avoid the abyss of despair and the fog of delusion on either side of the road to coherence. Though this imagery may seem too romanticized or vague for the present purpose, it is meant to illustrate the stakes which attend the philosophical enterprise, so to say. As such, these posts are more of a journal or exploration of the relevant ideas as they appear useful to me, and by which the Lord has blessed me—though, of course, not every single idea upon which one could tarry; too rich is His bounty, and too meager my capacity.

One must therefore be content with mystery at his boundaries, since there is no alternative for us—we, that is, who do not yet know as we are known (1 Corinthians 13:12).

While mankind awaits the Resurrection, he cannot attain a knowledge that is both complete and coherent; this knowledge, as the Apostle says, is one to which we do not have access for the time being. This means, on the one hand, that one is not able in this life to synthesize all of his knowledge together in a coherent system that entirely removes ambiguity from itself. On the other hand, it also means that coherence must be held as simultaneously real along with those points concerning which one is ignorant or confused. Part of this series’ goal is to elucidate how this is possible, and the way in which it does not compromise one’s ability to justifiably know. 

This restriction is primarily due to mankind’s present spiritual state rather than to his intellectual capacity. This identification is a matter of emphasis, and does not claim that the mental, intellectual or psychological components of any given person is uninvolved in the problem of knowing. Rather, it simply states that none of these in themselves are the main location whence this problem stems, even though their receiving and perpetuating the consequences of it are undeniable. 

Objectives

As already noted, two objectives are together the aim of this series. It intends to offer and explore a theory of knowledge which accomplishes two overlapping but distinct epistemic tasks:

1. To provide grounds for knowability

2. To provide a solution to the problem of circularity

Procedure

In order to accomplish these tasks this series will attempt to:

1. Define and examine terms 

2. Establish criteria 

3. Demonstrate coherence 

These three objectives will be applied to both epistemic tasks respectively. It is not absolutely necessary to demonstrate how other, supposedly non-revelatory theories fail to address these issues. But, a glimpse at the various shortcomings—to put it lightly—of these theories will be given nonetheless.