Thursday, October 6, 2011

Categories and Beauty

We look at the world through the blurry lens of categorization. When we observe a building we do not examine every window as it is; instead, we give the building the property of having a good number of windows. In literature, words are buildings; they are skyscrapers, in fact. We may see the phrase "everlasting life" in the Epic of Gilgamesh, but we neatly categorize it without looking at the details provided in the text. We must dig deeper, observing every window, the color of the paint, the doors, the material, in order to acquire a deeper knowledge of the building (phrase) "everlasting life" in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

But here a problem arises. For although we have successfully broken down the category of “building,” for instance, now we must deal with the categories of “window,” "red," “door,” “wood,” etc. And once we have freed ourselves of our presuppositions regarding these categories we must once again categorize “glass,” “chemicals,” “color,” etc. When you look up "heaven" in a dictionary, you will not find heaven; rather, you will find other words, which point to even more words. So the categories - the skyscrapers, the words - are lost in an infinite chain of signs pointing to other signs, and never arrive at actual reality and truth.

So how do we know truth?

I will make a suggestion.

The above demonstration of categorization only deals with cognitive knowledge rather than relational knowledge. The above demonstration proves that if we are left to sheer cognitive ability one could never really know what beauty actually is. But does this mean beauty is then lost? Does this mean - in regards to beauty - there is no difference between genocide and justice? After all, genocide and justice are words, which similarly get lost in an infinite system of categorization.

Here is my suggestion: whereas cognitive knowledge alone leaves us doomed to an infinite chain of signs, relational knowledge provides a standard for actual reality and actual truth. As an example, a husband's knowledge of beauty is not lost in the infinite maze of categorization and culture; rather, it is very tangible as he knows his wife and loves her. All knowledge proceeds from relationship. The only standard for sound epistemology then is the Triune relational God of the Christian religion from whom knowledge proceeds.

2 comments:

Chris said...

Hi Jesse.

So I'm following your observations on the difficulties of epistemic knowledge, and specifically, with infinitely regressive truth claims. I suspect you're also leery of language and the imprecision of statements and words in general. Anyway, I think I'm following you.

But I have to ask what is meant by 'relational knowledge.' Are you referring to another way of "knowing" something; another epistemological category?

Also, I'm a little confused by what you mean by this statement:

"The only standard for sound epistemology then is the Triune relational God of the Christian religion from whom knowledge proceeds."

Anyway, I'd love to dialogue with you.

Jesse Califf said...

I left it a bit ambiguous. These are just some thoughts.

But what I am referring to is a distinction in head-knowledge and heart-knowledge.

This is a distinction 1 John seems to make:

1 John 2:27But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

In other words, a knowing that teachers aren't able to communicate through sheer academics; a knowledge that is brought about by the assurance of the Spirit.

And Hosea seems to refer to a relational knowledge, a theme carried through most of the Hebrew Bible.

Hosea 2:20 I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD.

This is also consistent with the imagery of men knowing their wives.

This is sort of what I am getting at by a "relational" knowledge - a distinction between mere cognitive knowledge and a heart-felt intimate knowledge.

A lot of what goes on here are "thoughts" that often need challenging. Thanks for the comment and question.