End of Part 52

"For the curse did not make creation entirely and forever rebellious; but in virtue of that ordinance 'in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread,' by every kind of effort . . . it will at length in some measure be subdued so as to provide man with his bread, that is, the necessities of human life."

Professor Affeldt suggested Bacon's intentions for regaining the power of dominion over nature as a kind of Babel Tower approach.  I have two thoughts on this:

In the above quote, Bacon is not hoping to overthrow the curse of the Fall.  His thought is something like this: "We are supposed to have bread by the sweat of our brow, but we don't even have that!  We must sweat in natural philosophy so as to feed ourselves!  The curse did not say that we would starve!"

We, on the other hand, have taken his method (or the foundation it laid) and divorced it from necessity.  None of us are fed by the sweat of our brow; we rely on technology and the surpluses it allows, as well as the "free market" and the distribution of labor it generates, so that we can go to school, watch movies, eat tomatoes in January, and so on.  Also, we do not believe that women should be ruled by their "husbands," which is part of the curse.  Is this actually the dominion Bacon had in mind, to overthrow the curse?  Or did he only intend to make use of human efforts in a more effective way?

"For man by the fall fell at the same from his state of innocence and from his dominion over creation.  Both of these losses, however, can even in this life be in some part repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by arts and sciences...it is now by various labors (not certainly by disputations or idle magical ceremonies, but by various labors) at length and in some measure subdued to the supplying of man with bread, that is, to the uses of human life" (189).

These closing lines put an interesting cap on what we were talking about in the last class how Bacon despairs of just sitting around and contemplating things but charges Christians to seize their full humanity back as it was in the Garden of Eden through both faith and works.  He proclaims that "arts and sciences" can repair humanity's relationship with God, and I wonder how the arts fit into this given our discussion of how Bacon seems only preoccupied with experiment, data, and tv ratings.

This is an interesting progression from Sem III and the Julianesque "all will be well" mentality of throwing oneself over to the will of God.  Is it Bacon's frustration with exactly such thinking that makes him so action-oriented?  

Also, Bacon only alludes to men's punishment during the fall, that they must sweat for their bread, and Bacon offers redemption through faith and works only in terms of overcoming this punishment.  Where is women's role in his New Organon?

Ridiculous?

Is Bacon's elaborate method of exploring the essence of heat really the best way to go about re-structuring the knowledge of the world? It seems that his investigation of heat is unnecessarily involved, as well as plausibly rather incomplete. Just when looking at the sources of heat he used, I found his selections somewhat questionable, and rather than the experiment driven foundation, which he so adamantly advocated in Book 1, his selections seemed to be slightly experience based, but mostly whatever Bacon could think of that did or could involve heat. If Bacon's purpose is to build new foundations upon which a better, truer (more fact based) society can rest, is this really the best/only way to go about it? Why does Bacon use this method?

To God, truly, the giver and Architect of Forms, and it may be to the angels and higher intelligences, it belongs to have an affirmative knowledge of Forms immediately and from the first contemplation. But this assuredly is more than man can do, to whom it is granted only to proceed at first by negatives and at last to end in affirmatives, after exclusion has been exhausted. 2:15

For most of Book Two, Bacon had been discussing matters of science, in particular the details of heat. Rarely, at any point, does Bacon mention the idea of God. Generally, it seems that with most scientific experiments the unique and innovative ideas that are created are rarely identified with a spiritual element. At what point does religion start to answer the more advanced questions of science? Why is Bacon attributing the "knowledge of forms" to God? Is religion, i.e. God, an easy answer to the questions that we do not know about science, and what is the true separation between God and Science?

The end of the Bacon

"But of these the final cause rather corrupts than advances the sciences, except such as have to do with human action" (2.2).

After recycling the phrase "True knowledge is knowledge by causes" (2), Bacon attempts to qualify it by speaking on Aristotle's four causes. In the interest of his science, he immediately dispenses with the final cause, the telos or 'that for the sake of which' a thing exists (also called the 'end'). His claim is that the final cause is inhibiting the progress of his scientific method, seemingly due to its connection with the (supposedly subjective) human viewpoint, and therefore it should be eliminated from all serious science aimed at human betterment.

In my opinion, he is causing himself some problems. First of all, Bacon does not seem to claim that the final cause does not exist, although in 1.60 he asserted the non-existence of the Prime Mover. If the final cause does exist, how can he ignore it in his "quest to find a way at length into [Nature's] inner chambers" (preface, p89)? He himself admitted that "no one can endow a given body with a new nature, or successfully and aptly transmute it into a new body, unless he has attained a competent knowledge of the body" (2.7). In other words, the quote expresses his 'obey nature to control nature' principle; apparently the final cause is not included in the competent knowledge, and it need not be obeyed or hearkened.

Now it is clear that Bacon proposes to serve humanity. A (if not the) major goal of his is to facilitate the kind of human action which was referenced in the opening quote, in which case the final cause was helpful. Does he plan to ignore the final cause until a question of human action comes up, and then beg for it back as Bacon pushes for humanity's bacon? Or does he intend to substitute the line "what in operation is most useful, that in knowledge is most true" (2.4) in place of the final cause? If so, how can he ignore a thing's intended, natural meaning in relation to the person (for this is the core of the telos) in order to let it better serve that same person? Is it wise or even possible for utility to sidestep the natural purpose of something?

What he does do is make formal laws (only to be distilled by pains) the highest level of causal significance and mental unity (2.3). His Metaphysics is the investigation of these formal, natural laws (2.9). (The invesitgation is quite difficult in comparison to other alternatives such as contemplation or, not explicitly mentioned, revelation: see the end of 2.15). Does not even these formal laws presuppose a rational ordering--complete with causal connections--of the universe which is possible only with the purposeful final causes? How does he know that the universe is even intelligible without a final cause?

Finally, I think that Bacon eliminates the final cause because he sees it as connected with the "Idols of the Tribe," through his own statement that "the human understanding is of its own nature prone to suppose the existence of more order and regularity in the world than it finds" (1.45), among other impeding human affections. I would argue that the final cause answers such deep expectations of the person for order and meaning, involving how all things are ordered in relation to the inquirer (or to a group of inquierers, such as a Church or humanity in general). How can Bacon help anyone if he chooses blindness to the deepest level of significance of a natural thing for the sake of thorough data collection? Does he think that he can still contribute to the happiness of the person or help them to their own telos, or destiny?

If my name shows up as Patt-man, its because I have another blog. This is Patrick Johnson.

Bacon: The New Organon, Preface and Book I

The human understanding is moved by those things most which strike and enter the mind simultaneously and suddenly, and so fill the imagination, and then it feigns and supposes all other things to be somehow, though it cannot see how, similar to those few things by which it is surrounded. (47)

In this passage and several others, Bacon describes what he views as an erroneous method of pursuing the truth. Bacon would prefer that the mind proceed from a first axiom to a second and then to a third, rather than skip the middle step and proceed either from the first to the third or the third to the first. He claims that trying to generalize from a few axioms or trying to deduce axioms from a hypothesized generalization is not productive. Bacon's proposed method certainly has its appeal; the mind would proceed in a perfect, logical progression. However, I wonder if this method is possible for a finite, human being. How far can a single individual travel (or even a billion united humans) towards complete truth? Bacon's method is the more cautious route - its conclusions would certainly be true - but perhaps it is better to take risks and try for a greater leap in knowledge. I might even argue that Bacon's method would result in complete stasis (wouldn't each individual have to "re-travel" the same road of his teachers? he would have to understand every step that led to the present conclusions, wouldn't he?), in which case, our original method might be the superior. Even if we don't always reach the correct conclusion, we reach that conclusion much more quickly and with greater ease, and it is far better to have movement of any kind (whether forward or back) then to remain motionless without hope of any hope of moving forward. In this sense, I think that intuition, imagination, and inspiration have their place in the pursuit of knowledge, and that maybe they offer the only feasible "help" to drag our slow minds towards truth.

So in summary: is Bacon's method (about which I admit we haven't actually read yet) feasible for finite beings? is there any place for imaginaiton, intuition, and inspiration when we seek the truth? and if the conclusions drawn from these sources are built on shaky foundations, are they worth the risk of error?

"A natural philosophy pure and unmixed"

Therefore from a closer and purer league between these two faculties, the experimental and the rational (such as has never yet been made), much may be hoped for. (Bk 1, Aphorism 95)

Bacon's method often identifies an ideal middle ground between two less-desirable extremes. In this case, he defines natural philosophy as that which is "pure and unmixed."  For Bacon, the true natural philosopher utilizes both his faculties of understanding and those of sense perception.  A common theme in past seminars has been finding the balance between reason and experience.  In the subsequent aphorism, Bacon states that "we have as yet no natural philosophy that is pure."  Philosophers are threatened by other academic pursuits that cloud the search for wisdom.  Aside from logic, natural theology, and mathematics, what other diversions have challenged the natural philosophers?  Is Bacon's ideal natural philosophy attainable?   

The New Organon, Book I

But Idols of the Marketplace are the most troublesome of all--- idols which have crept into the understanding through the alliances of words and names (Book 1.59)

Bacon claims that the Idols of the Marketplace are the most dangerous type of his four idols which keep men from understanding the truth. Why, though, are they the most dangerous, rather than Idols of the Tribe, Idols of the Cave, or Idols of the Theater, each of which he spends a significant amount of time discussing? What is it about the false ideas that come from one's peers that makes them so dangerous, and why are these people more influential than those considered experts, oneself, or even human nature itself?

Knowing for the sake of knowing?

Nor again is it a lesser evil, that in their philosophies and contemplations their labor is spent in investigating and handling the first principles of things and highest generalities of nature; whereas utility and the means of working result entirely from things intermediate. Hence it is that men cease not from abstracting nature till they come to potential and uninformed matter, nor on the other hand from dissecting nature till they reach the atom; things which, even if true, can do but little for the welfare of mankind. (Bk 1, Aphorism 66)

Bacon, with his method, seeks to form a middle ground between two philosophies dealing with knowledge: one claiming that humanity knows everything and the other claiming that humanity knows nothing. The first is or should be universally rejected, and the second seems like it should be rejected as well, due to the possible interpretation that we can do nothing since we know nothing.

However, with the first principles and "highest generalities of nature," Bacon seems to advocate adopting the second extreme rather than his middle ground. He appears to reject delving into the universals, even if one were to correctly use his Baconian method. He argues this not because of the sheer difficulty of discovering a universal and asserting its validity, but because of the apparent uselessness of the endeavor, "even if true." Before even applying the scientific method, should we ask if the science is useful? Or should we consider all knowledge unconditionally good - to know for the sake of knowing? Knowing for the sake of knowledge was a theme brought up in the Tempest; Prospero lost his kingship since he dedicated his time to reading and obtaining knowledge. Before allocating resources and sacrificing time for a scientific project, should we first consider the project's potential utility?

The New Organon

And for myself, I am not raising a capitol or pyramid to the pride of man, but laying a foundation in the human understanding for a holy temple after the model of the world... For whatever deserves to exist deserves also to be known, for knowledge is the image of existence

An important part of Bacon's philosophy seems to be his interest in resisting the human temptation to 'fly off to universals,' and likewise in this work he seems to present simply a methodology, keeping predictions about a world in which his philosophy is followed vague at best (cf. his "idle wishes" in aphorism #129). This separates him from any one of the authors we've read in past seminars who have set up some image of a utopian commonwealth. Instead, he takes a very realistic approach: he does not intend his work to immediately penetrate "common apprehension," but he does seem hopeful that his methodology will, eventually, serve as a guide into new discoveries and inventions for humanity. How does this work fit in with other works like "The Republic," "On Cannibals," "The City of God," "Utopia," etc.? What would a 'Baconian' city look like?