Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:14:29.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Lonergan and Hume II: Epistemology (2)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

What binds together the three steps or stages in Lonergan’s theory of knowledge — experience, understanding, judging - and makes them into one dynamic activity, is the pressure in the inquirer to discover the truth, what Lonergan has called ‘the eros of the mind’, the free, unrestricted desire to know. Knowing is a conscious, intending activity and what is intended is the truth. It is this intention to know, this psychic drive or thrust and not sensory extroversion to what is presumed (as in Hume) to be ‘already out there now’ that is the overarching criterion of truth. What is known is related immediately to this self-transcending nisus; understanding and judgment are simply answers to the questions generated by the desire to know. Put another way, the questions leading to understanding and judgment are an unfolding of this basic intentionality. The desire to know is something that arises spontaneously and irresistibly in human beings and is present in the reader who is attending to what is being said in this article, striving to understand it and asking if this understanding is true. But while this striving for the truth is the overarching criterion of objectivity, each level of cognition has its own peculiar function to perform and so its own criterion of objectivity; or we might say that the quest for objective knowledge is manifested in different ways at the different stages of knowing.

What is peculiar to the data of experience is their givenness — they are there — and hence the criterion of objectivity at the level of seeing, hearing etc, is to see or hear what is there and not to see or hear what is not there. At the level of sensation the subject must be submissive to the givenness of the data (and not, for example, fabricate his own evidence or grounds).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 Contemporary Critiques of Religion by Nielsen, Kai, Macmillan, 1971, p 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Personal Knowledge by Polanyl, Michael, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958, p 294Google Scholar

3 Language, Truth and Logic by Ayer, A J, Gollancz, 1946Google Scholar edition, p 57

4 Hume, Treatise, pp 467–470

5 I am indebted in this paragraph not only for the idea but for much of the language and the examples to Matthew L Lamb's very fine article, The Production Process and Exponential Growth' in Lonergan Workshop I ed. by Lawrence, Fred, Scholars Press, Montana, 1978Google Scholar.