Skip to main content
Log in

Epistemic Objects as Interactive Loci

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Axiomathes Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Contemporary process metaphysics has achieved a number of important results, most significantly in accounting for emergence, a problem on which substance metaphysics has foundered since Plato. It also faces trenchant problems of its own, among them the related problems of boundaries and individuation. Historically, the quest for ontology may thus have been largely responsible for the persistence of substance metaphysics. But as Plato was well aware, an ontology of substantial things raises serious, perhaps insurmountable problems for any account of our epistemic access to such things. Physical things are subject to change, and as such, they are poor objects of knowledge—if knowledge is to be more reliable than mere opinion. There is a reading of Plato’s Theaetetus on which knowledge may be understood as a relation between an epistemic subject and a logos, where logoi are intrinsically dialectical, and where dialectic is a kind of intersubjective activity. Insofar as this epistemology may be attributed to Plato, the project of this paper is Platonic in spirit. It is also, in a sense, Kantian, in that it divorces ontology from the search for things-in-themselves, redirecting our attention from things to objects: epistemic objects. Such objects can be understood, as Maurice Merleau-Ponty proposed, as shared by multiple subjects by virtue of their participation in an intersubjective world, constituted by what Shaun Gallagher calls “participatory sense-making.” On an epistemology constructed in this way, the fact that both epistemic objects and their subject are mutable is no obstacle to knowledge. Far-from-equilibrium systems are forever mutable; at thermodynamic equilibrium, there would be neither subject, nor object. Epistemic objects, on this picture, are metastable loci of interactive potential.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Murdoch (1987), for an account of the importance of the gamma ray microscope thought experiment to the evolution of Bohr’s understanding of complementarity. My treatment of this example is heavily indebted to Murdoch’s interpretation of it. My understanding of Bohr on complementarity is even more heavily indebted to Hoyningen-Huene (1994).

  2. Paul Hoyningen-Huene also introduced me to Bohr’s “Light and Life.” For his interpretation of Bohr’s irreducibility argument, see Hoyningen-Huene (1994).

  3. By “functional analysis” I have in mind the process described by Cummins (1975).

References

  • Bickhard M (2002) Critical principles: on the negative side of rationality. New Ideas Psychol 20:1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohr N (1933) Light and life. In: Kissmeyer A (ed) Deuxième congrès international de la lumière. Conference proceedings. Engelsen and Schrøder, Copenhagen

  • Campbell R (2009) A process-based model for an interactive ontology. Synthese 166(3):453–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell R, Bickhard M (2010) Physicalism, emergence, and downward causation. Axiomathes. doi:10.1007/s10516-010-9128-6

  • Cummins R (1975) Functional analysis. J Philos 72:741–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desjardins R (1981) The horns of dilemma: dreaming and waking vision in the Theaetetus. Anc Philos 1:109–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Gettier E (1963) Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis 23:121–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyningen-Huene P (1994) Niels Bohr’s argument for the irreducibility of biology to physics. In: Faye J, Folse H (eds) Niels Bohr and contemporary philosophy. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost J, Bertschinger N, Olbrich E (2010) Emergence. New Ideas Psychol 28:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine A (2009) Partition epsitemology and arguments from analogy. Synthese 166:593–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller M (1992) Unity and logos: a reading of Theaetetus 201c–210a. Anc Philos 12(1):87–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch D (1987) Niels Bohr’s philosophy of physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine WVO (ed) (1977) Epistemology naturalized. In: Ontological relativity and other essays. Columbia University Press, New York

  • Resnik M (1997) Mathematics as a science of patterns. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibt J (2004) Free process theory: towards a typology of occurrings. In: Seibt J (ed) Process theories: crossdisciplinary studies in dynamic categories. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Shani I (2010) Representation and aspectual shape. New Ideas Psychol 28:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex Levine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Levine, A. Epistemic Objects as Interactive Loci. Axiomathes 21, 57–66 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-010-9132-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-010-9132-x

Keywords

Navigation