Truth and Knowledge
GA 3
I. Preliminary Remarks
[ 1 ] Epistemology is the scientific study of what all other sciences presuppose without examining it: cognition itself. It is thus a philosophical science, fundamental to all other sciences. Only through epistemology can we learn the value and significance of all insight gained through the other sciences. Thus it provides the foundation for all scientific effort. It is obvious that it can fulfill its proper function only by making no presuppositions itself, as far as this is possible, about man's faculty of knowledge. This is generally accepted. Nevertheless, when the better-known systems of epistemology are more closely examined it becomes apparent that a whole series of presuppositions are made at the beginning, which cast doubt on the rest of the argument. It is striking that such hidden assumptions are usually made at the outset, when the fundamental problems of epistemology are formulated. But if the essential problems of a science are misstated, the right solution is unlikely to be forthcoming. The history of science shows that whole epochs have suffered from innumerable mistakes which can be traced to the simple fact that certain problems were wrongly formulated. To illustrate this, we need not go back as far as Aristotle's physics iAristotle (384–322 B.C.): Physica Auscultatio, On Nature as Cause and Change, and the General Principles of Natural Science. or Raymond Lull's Ars Magna; iiRaimon Lull (Raymond Lully), (1235–1315) Catalan author, mystic and missionary. Born Majorca. In 1266 a series of visions led to a marked change in his life and purpose. Spent 9 years studying Arabic in order to refute the heretical teachings current in his time. At Ronda he wrote his famous Ars Major and Ars Generalis. He made many journeys in France, Italy, North Africa in a burning crusade against the teachings of Mohammedanism. At Bougie, North Africa he was stoned outside the city walls and died on June 29, 1315. there are plenty of more recent examples. For instance, innumerable problems concerning the purpose of rudimentary organs of certain organisms could only be rightly formulated when the condition for doing so had first been created through the discovery of the fundamental law of biogenesis.iiibiogenesis, the teaching that living organisms come from other living organisms, as opposed to abiogenesis. The author of the modern formulation of “the fundamental law of biogenesis” was Fritz Müller (1864). Haeckel (see note 54, above) called Müller's formulation “the biogenetic fundamental law,” which can be stated briefly as the teaching that in its development from the egg to adult stage, the animal tends to pass through a series of stages which recapitulate the stages through which its ancestry passed in the development of the species from a primitive form. In other words, the development of the individual is a condensed expression of the development of the race. While biology was influenced by teleological views, the relevant problems could not be formulated in a way which could lead to a satisfactory answer. For example, what fantastic ideas were entertained concerning the function of the pineal gland in the human brain, as long as the emphasis was on its purpose! Then comparative anatomy threw some light on the matter by asking a different question; instead of asking what the organ was “for,” inquiry began as to whether, in man, it might be merely a remnant from a lower level of evolution. Another example: how many physical questions had to be modified after the discovery of the laws of the mechanical equivalent of heat and of conservation of energy! ivThe earliest statement of the law of mechanical theory of heat was formulated by the French physicist, Sadi Nicholas Lèonhard Carnot (1796–1832) in notes written about 1830, published by his brother in the latter's Life of Sadi Carnot, Paris, 1878. Further work in this direction was done by Ségun, Paris, 1839, by Julius Robert Mayer, c. 1842, and by J. P. Joule, who (1840–43) placed the mechanical theory of heat on a sound experimental basis.
Julius Robert Mayer (1814–1878), German physician and physicist, is the discoverer of the law of conservation of energy, which—within limits of the data he obtained from experiments and reasoning—he applied “with great power and insight to the explanation of numerous physical phenomena.” In short, success in scientific research depends essentially on whether the problems can be formulated rightly. Even though epistemology occupies a very special place as the basis presupposed by the other sciences, nevertheless, successful progress can only be expected when its fundamental problems are correctly formulated.
[ 2 ] The discussion which follows aims so to formulate the problem of cognition that in this very formulation it will do full justice to the essential feature of epistemology, namely, the fact that it is a science which must contain no presuppositions. A further aim is to use this philosophical basis for science to throw light on Johann Gottlieb Fichte's philosophy of science.|On Fichte, see note 13, above. Rudolf Steiner's Inaugural Dissertation for his doctoral degree before the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Rostock (Defense, beginning of May, 1891; Promotion, October 26, 1891) was titled Die Grundfrage der Erkenntnistheorie mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Fichtes Wissenschaftslehre, usw., The Fundamentals of a Theory of Cognition with Special Reference to Fichte's Scientific Teaching. When the thesis was published in book form, as it appears here in English translation, a Foreword and one chapter were added to the original by Rudolf Steiner. These latter are included in the present translation. Why Fichte's attempt in particular to provide an absolutely certain basis for the sciences is linked to the aims of this essay, will become clear in due course.
I. Vorbemerkungen
[ 1 ] Die Erkenntnistheorie soll eine wissenschaftliche Untersuchung desjenigen sein, was alle übrigen Wissenschaften ungeprüft voraussetzen: des Erkennens selbst. Damit ist ihr von vornherein der Charakter der philosophischen Fundamentalwissenschaft zugesprochen. Denn erst durch sie können wir erfahren, welchen Wert und welche Bedeutung die durch die anderen Wissenschaften gewonnenen Einsichten haben. Sie bildet in dieser Hinsicht die Grundlage für alles wissenschaftliche Streben. Es ist aber klar, daß sie dieser ihrer Aufgabe nur dann gerecht werden kann, wenn sie selbst, soweit das bei der Natur des menschlichen Erkenntnisvermögens möglich ist, voraussetzungslos ist. Dies wird wohl allgemein zugestanden. Dennoch findet man bei eingehender Prüfung der bekannteren erkenntnistheoretischen Systeme, daß schon in den Ausgangspunkten der Untersuchung eine ganze Reihe von Voraussetzungen gemacht werden, die dann die überzeugende Wirkung der weiteren Darlegungen wesentlich beeinträchtigen. Namentlich wird man bemerken, daß gewöhnlich schon bei Aufstellung der erkenntnistheoretischen Grundprobleme gewisse versteckte Annahmen gemacht werden. Wenn aber die Fragestellungen einer Wissenschaft verfehlte sind, dann muß man wohl an einer richtigen Lösung von vornherein zweifeln. Die Geschichte der Wissenschaften lehrt uns doch, daß unzählige Irrtümer, an denen ganze Zeitalter krankten, einzig und allein darauf zurückzuführen sind, daß gewisse Probleme falsch gestellt worden sind. Wir brauchen nicht bis auf die Physik des Aristoteles oder die Ars magna Lulliana zurückzugehen, um diesen Satz zu erhärten, sondern wir können in der neueren Zeit Beispiele genug finden. Die zahlreichen Fragen nach der Bedeutung rudimentärer Organe bei gewissen Organismen konnten erst dann in richtiger Weise gestellt werden, als durch die Auffindung des biogenetischen Grundgesetzes die Bedingungen hierzu geschaffen waren. Solange die Biologie unter dem Einflusse teleologischer Anschauungen stand, war es unmöglich, die entsprechenden Probleme so aufzuwerfen, daß eine befriedigende Antwort möglich geworden wäre. Welche abenteuerlichen Vorstellungen hatte man z. B. über die Aufgabe der sogenannten Zirbeldrüse im menschlichen Gehirne, solange man nach einer solchen Aufgabe überhaupt fragte! Erst als man auf dem Wege der vergleichenden Anatomie die Klarstellung der Sache suchte und sich fragte, ob dieses Organ nicht bloß ein beim Menschen stehengebliebener Rest aus niederen Entwickelungsformen sei, gelangte man zu einem Ziele. Oder, um noch ein Beispiel anzuführen, welche Modifikationen erfuhren gewisse Fragestellungen in der Physik durch die Entdeckung des mechanischen Wärmeäquivalentes und des Gesetzes von der Erhaltung der Kraft! Kurz, der Erfolg wissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen ist ganz wesentlich davon abhängig, ob man die Probleme richtig zu stellen imstande ist. Wenn auch die Erkenntnistheorie als Voraussetzung aller übrigen Wissenschaften eine ganz besondere Stellung einnimmt, so ist dennoch vorauszusehen, daß auch in ihr ein erfolgreiches Fortschreiten in der Untersuchung nur dann möglich sein wird, wenn die Grundfragen in richtiger Form aufgeworfen werden.
[ 2 ] Die folgenden Auseinandersetzungen streben nun in erster Linie eine solche Formulierung des Erkenntnisproblems an, die dem Charakter der Erkenntnistheorie als vollständig voraussetzungsloser Wissenschaft strenge gerecht wird. Sie wollen dann auch das Verhältnis von J. G. Fichtes Wissenschaftslehre zu einer solchen philosophischen Grundwissenschaft beleuchten. Warum wir gerade Fichtes Versuch, den Wissenschaften eine unbedingt gewisse Grundlage zu schaffen, mit dieser Aufgabe in nähere Verbindung bringen, wird sich im Verlaufe der Untersuchung von selbst ergeben.
[ 1 ] Theory of knowledge should be a scientific investigation of that which all other sciences presuppose without examination: knowledge itself. This gives it the character of a fundamental philosophical science from the outset. For only through it can we experience the value and significance of the insights gained through the other sciences. In this respect, it forms the basis for all scientific endeavor. It is clear, however, that it can only fulfill its task if it is itself, as far as is possible given the nature of the human cognitive faculty, unconditional. This is generally conceded. Nevertheless, a close examination of the better-known epistemological systems reveals that a whole series of presuppositions are already made in the starting points of the investigation, which then substantially impair the convincing effect of the further explanations. In particular, one will notice that certain hidden assumptions are usually already made when the basic epistemological problems are set up. But if the questions of a science are misguided, then one must doubt a correct solution from the outset. The history of science teaches us that countless errors that have plagued entire ages can be attributed solely to the fact that certain problems were posed incorrectly. We need not go as far as Aristotle's Physics or the Ars magna Lulliana to go back to substantiate this sentence, but we can find enough examples in more recent times. The numerous questions about the significance of rudimentary organs in certain organisms could only be asked in the right way when the conditions for this were created by the discovery of the basic biogenetic law. As long as biology was under the influence of teleological views, it was impossible to pose the relevant problems in such a way that a satisfactory answer would have been possible. What adventurous ideas were held, for example, about the function of the so-called pineal gland in the human brain as long as such a function was even asked for! It was only when comparative anatomy was used to clarify the matter and to ask whether this organ was not merely a remnant of lower forms of development that a goal was reached. Or, to cite another example, what modifications were made to certain questions in physics by the discovery of the mechanical equivalent of heat and the law of the conservation of force! In short, the success of scientific investigations is essentially dependent on whether one is able to pose the problems correctly. Even if epistemology occupies a very special position as a prerequisite for all other sciences, it is nevertheless foreseeable that successful progress in its investigation will only be possible if the basic questions are posed in the correct form.
[ 2 ] The following disputes now primarily strive for a formulation of the problem of knowledge that does strict justice to the character of epistemology as a completely presuppositionless science. They also aim to shed light on the relationship of J. G. Fichte's Wissenschaftslehre to such a basic philosophical science. Why we bring Fichte's attempt to create an absolutely certain foundation for the sciences into closer connection with this task will become clear in the course of the investigation.