PL 772: Insight & Beyond, I Fall 2009 Patrick H. Byrne Philosophy Department Boston College

1. PL 772: Insight & Beyond, IFall 2009Patrick H. ByrnePhilosophy DepartmentBoston College Class # 14, December 16, 2009 Chapter 9 : “The Notion of Judgment” & Chapter 10: “Reflective Understanding”

2. Animal vs. Human Realism • “clear memory of its startling strangeness – • that there are two quite different realisms…” • “for unless one breaks the duality in one's knowing, one doubts that understanding correctly is knowing. • “Under the pressure of that doubt, either one will sink into the bog of a knowing that is without understanding, or else one will cling to understanding but sacrifice knowing on the altar of an immanentism, an idealism, a relativism.” (22)

3. Animal vs. Human Realism • “The naïve realist correctly asserts the validity of human knowing, but mistakenly attributes the objectivity of human knowing [to the extroversion of outer sensation].” • “The idealist is not impressed… All of that is not reality but appearance. And by reality he means what is meant by the naïve realist.” Bernard Lonergan, “Cognitional Strucutre”

4. One Single Structure of Knowing Judging values & choosing ? Questions? What good should I do? Judging facts ? Questions? Is it so? Insights (understanding) ? Questions? What, Why, How, Where, When? Experiencing (seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling,feeling …)

5. 3rd Level:Reflective Understanding & Judging Judging values & choosing ? Questions? What good should I do? Reflective Insights Judging facts ? Questions? Is it so? Insights (understanding) ? Questions? What, Why, How, Where, When? Experiencing (seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling,feeling …)

6. PL 772: Insight & Beyond, IFall 2009Patrick H. ByrnePhilosophy DepartmentBoston College Class # 14, December 16, 2009 Chapter 9 : “The Notion of Judgment”

7. Phenomenology of Judging Phenomenology (“Intentionality Analysis”) act (noesis) <— object (noema) Intentionality act (noesis) —> object (noema) Three Approaches (1) “Two distinct mental attitudes”: • Act of Understanding <—Proposition <—Uttered Statement • Act of Judging<—Proposition <—Uttered Statement • (2) Relation to Questions • Act of Judging<—“Is it so?” <—Uttered Question • (3) Act of Judging<— Personal Commitment

8. One Single Structure of Knowing Reflective Insights Judging facts ? Questions? Is it so? Direct Insights (understanding) Formulations ? Questions? What, Why, How, Where, When? Experiences, Free Images & Utterances (seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling,feeling …)

9. “Contents of Judgments” • Proper Content: Affirmation or Negation (Yes or No) • Direct Borrowed Content: “Found in the question”

10. One Single Structure of Knowing Reflective Insights Judging facts ? Questions? Is it so? Direct Insights (understanding) Formulations ? Questions? What, Why, How, Where, When? Experiences, Free Images & Utterances (seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling,feeling …)

11. “Contents of Judgments” • Proper Content: Affirmation or Negation (Yes or No) • Direct Borrowed Content: “Found in the question” • Indirect Borrowed Content: “In the reflective act linking the question and answer”

12. “Contexts of Judgments” • “Knowing is a dynamic structure” • “All we know is somehow with us; it is present and operative within our knowing; but it lurks behind the scenes, and it reveals itself only in the exactitude with which each minor increment to our knowing is effected.” (302-303)

13. PL 772: Insight & Beyond, IFall 2009Patrick H. ByrnePhilosophy DepartmentBoston College Class # 14, December 16, 2009 Chapter 10: “Reflective Understanding”

14. 3rd Level:Reflective Understanding & Judging Judging values & choosing ? Questions? What good should I do? Reflective Insights Reflective Insights Judging facts ? Questions? Is it so? Insights (understanding) ? Questions? What, Why, How, Where, When? Experiencing (seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling,feeling …)

15. Sufficient Reason for Judging • Reflective Understanding is a new kind of insight • that grasps the sufficiency of evidence for a judgment (277) • “What are the scales on which evidence is weighed? • “The whole answer cannot be given at once.”

16. INSIGHT: A STUDY OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDINGCHAPTER 10: “Reflective Understanding” 6 Probable Judgments 7 Analytic Propositions and Principles 8 Mathematical Judgments 9 Summary 1 The General Form of Reflective Insight  2 Concrete Judgments of Fact 3 Insights into Concrete Situations 4 Concrete Analogies and Generalizations 5 Commonsense Judgments 5.1 The Source of Commonsense Judgments 5.2 The Object of Commonsense Judgments 5.3 Commonsense Judgment and Empirical Science

17. §1. The “Virtually Unconditioned”in General An event as virtually unconditioned: • Event as conditioned; • Link between conditioned and conditions • Fulfillment of conditions For example: Ice on reservoir supports my car

18. Reflective Understanding of the “Virtually Unconditioned” Reflective Understanding = Understanding the prospective Judgment as virtually unconditioned • Judgment as conditioned; • Consciousness of the link between conditioned and conditions • Consciousness of fulfillment of conditions

19. Reflective Understanding of the “Virtually Unconditioned” Reflective Understanding is grasping the sufficiency of evidence for affirming (or denying) that the content of an insight (direct understanding) is correct. To grasp sufficiency of evidence for affirming (or denying) a proposition means grasping the proposition as virtually unconditioned.

20. Reflective Understanding of the “Virtually Unconditioned” Grasping a proposition as virtually unconditioned means knowing what you would have to know in order to reasonably affirm (or deny) the proposition, and knowing that you know that.

21. Reflective Understanding of the “Virtually Unconditioned” The proposition merely as understood, as merely a possible way things might be = the conditioned: knowing what you would have to know in order to reasonably affirm or deny the proposition = the link: knowing that you know that = fulfilling the conditions

22. Example of Syllogism If X is material and alive, X is mortal. But humans are material and alive. Therefore, humans are mortal. (306)

23. Reasoning Beyond theLimitations of Logic • “The remarkable fact about reflective insight is that it can make use of those more rudimentary elements in cognitional process to reach the virtually unconditioned. Let us now see how this is done in various cases.” (306)

24. Reflecting Toward Reflective Understanding Examples from Literature Sherlock Holmes and “The Adventure of the Dancing Men” C. P. Snow, The Search

25. §2. Concrete Judgments of Fact “Something happened.” = Conditioned Judgment • Knowing change: “The link between the conditioned and the fulfilling conditions is a structure immanent and operative within cognitional process.” (307) • “If there is change, there has to be a concrete unity of concrete data extending over some interval of time, there has to be some difference between the data at the beginning and at the end of the interval, and this difference can be only partial, for otherwise there would occur not a change but an annihilation and a new creation.” (272)

26. §3. Insights into Concrete Situations • Knowing Sameness: “by direct insights he refers both sets of data to the same set of things, which he calls his home.” (307)

27. §3. Insights into Concrete Situations • Insights are vulnerable when there are further questions to be asked on the same issue. For the further questions lead to further insights that certainly complement the initial insight, that to a greater or less extent modify its expression and implications, that perhaps lead to an entirely new slant on the issue. • But when there are no further questions, the insight is invulnerable. For it is only through further questions that there arise the further insights that complement, modify, or revise the initial approach and explanation.

28. §3. Insights into Concrete Situations • Now this reveals a law immanent and operative in cognitional process… When an insight meets the issue squarely, when it hits the bull's eye, when it settles the matter, there are no further questions to be asked, and so there are no further insights to challenge the initial position. But when the issue is not met squarely, there are further questions that would reveal the unsatisfactoriness of the insight and would evoke the further insights that put a new light on the matter.” (309)

29. §3. Insights into Concrete Situations • “Note that it is not enough to say that the conditions are fulfilled when no further questions occur to me.” (309) • “One has to give the further questions a chance to arise.” • “Now this amounts to saying that good judgment about any insight has to rest on the previous acquisition of a large number of other, connected, and correct insights.” (310)

30. §3. Insights into Concrete Situations • Such, then, is the basic element in our solution. The link between the conditioned and its conditions is a law immanent and operative in cognitional process. The conditioned is the prospective judgment, ‘This or that direct or introspective insight is correct.’ The immanent law of cognitional process may be formulated from our analysis: Such an insight is correct if there are no further pertinent questions.” (309)

31. Exercise: Who Killed Torelli? One and only one of the men mentioned below killed Torrelli. Each one of the five men made three statements, two true and one false. Their statements were: Lefty: “I did not kill Torrelli. I never owned a revolver. Spike did it.” Red: “I did not kill Torrelli. I never owned a revolver. The other guys are passing the buck.” Dopey: “I am innocent. I never saw Butch before. Spike is guilty.” Spike: “I am innocent. Butch is the guilty man. Lefty lied when he said I did it.” Butch: “I did not kill Torrelli. Red is the guilty man. Dopey and I are old pals.” Question for judgment: Is Spike guilty?

32. §4. Analogies and Generalizations • “In the simplest possible manner, then, our analysis resolves the so-called problem of induction. It makes the transition from one particular case to another, or from a particular case to the general case, an almost automatic procedure of intelligence. We appeal to analogies and we generalize because we cannot help understanding similars similarly. This solution, be it noted, squares with the broad fact that there is no problem of teaching men to generalize. There is a problem of teaching them to frame their generalizations accurately.” (313)

33. §5. Commonsense & Scientific Judgments • “In principle, they cannot conflict, for if they speak about the same things, they do so from radically different view- points. When I say that in principle they cannot conflict, I mean of course that in fact they can and do. To eliminate actual conflict, it is necessary to grasp the principle and to apply it accurately.” (318-19)