In this blog post, we will examine how philosophy explores the fundamental structure of reality and reflect on the possibility of recognizing truth through philosophy.
To discuss this, we need to ask the question, “Through what means can we know the truth?” This is not a question of epistemology. Answering the question of how we can know the truth is closely linked to answering the question, “What is philosophy?” The fact that philosophy is a discipline that explores truth implies that we can know the truth through philosophy, and answering the question of what philosophy is amounts to answering the question of how we can know the truth.
In a sense, we can say that all disciplines seek truth. Physics is the discipline that explains specific, fundamental, and ubiquitous phenomena within the realm of the natural world—that is, things existing in space and time. In other words, physics is the discipline that seeks truth about the physical world. Sociology is the discipline that explains social phenomena and seeks truth about society. If we say that philosophy seeks truth, what do we mean by the term “truth”? Here, we need to reflect on the nature of philosophical truth. Truth possesses a more fundamental and comprehensive meaning that goes beyond the factuality found in the specific domains addressed by individual disciplines. As we can see when discussing individual disciplines such as physics and sociology, the truth they investigate pertains to specific domains—for example, the physical world or society. However, the scope of philosophy’s inquiry is not limited to any specific domain. Philosophy not only investigates the nature of things existing in space and time, as physics does, but also examines time and space themselves, as well as the nature of causality. However, philosophy is not an empirical science. Philosophy does not deal solely with the nature of the physical world but also discusses matters such as the nature of abstract entities. In other words, philosophy is a discipline concerned with the entire fundamental structure of reality, and therefore, the truth referred to in philosophy signifies the entire fundamental structure of reality.
In everyday terms, we sometimes feel that philosophy is a discipline far removed from reality, or we think of it as a discipline that discusses mysterious and therefore fanciful matters. In some cases, we even regard philosophical discussions as mere wordplay. These doubts about philosophy reflect doubts regarding its function and its truth. However, we need to think more deeply about whether these doubts are truly justified. Judging the role and value of philosophy solely by everyday standards overlooks its complexity and depth. These everyday doubts can be expressed as the following question:
“How is philosophy, or metaphysics, even possible?”
There are various anti-philosophical positions that raise this question. Answering this question provides a very useful basis for addressing the original question we posed: “What can we know about truth?” One of the main reasons for questioning whether philosophy provides answers about the fundamental structure of reality is grounded in the empirical sciences. Empirical science explains the nature of our world through experiments and observations. In doing so, we possess various pieces of evidence about the world and believe we have sufficient reason to trust that the claims of empirical science are true. Since philosophy is not an empirical science, we may feel that philosophical truths are fanciful. Furthermore, we may believe that only science provides a correct description of the world and that nothing other than the scientific method can reveal the truth. If philosophy is to provide truth about the fundamental structure of reality, then from this perspective, philosophy must be a science. This position is called scientism. Opposition to philosophy from this standpoint has emerged not only in science but also within philosophy itself. Examples of this include naturalized epistemology.
However, upon closer examination, we can see that science itself—which claims to provide truth about our world—is underpinned by philosophical assumptions. When a scientist proposes a specific theory or conducts an experiment, the model he has in mind must be critically examined. What empirical scientific method could be devised for such a model? Object A collided with object B, altering B’s motion. Physics explains such phenomena through experiments and observations. However, the model itself—that the collision of A with B is causally linked to the change in B—cannot be empirically investigated. Furthermore, empirical science can, at best, only tell us what is true; it cannot speak to what ought to be true or what could be true. Philosophy deals with possibility. In fact, we can determine what is real empirically only if we can limit the scope of what is possible. This is why empirical science depends on philosophy, and why empirical science cannot assume the unique role of determining what is real.
The necessity and importance of philosophy are revealed precisely in this regard. We rely on philosophical thought when we seek to understand realms that cannot be explained by everyday experience or scientific inquiry. For example, ethical issues, aesthetic judgments, and even reflections on the methodology of science itself fall within the realm of philosophy. In our quest for truth, philosophy serves as a compass that guides our direction. When we seek to grasp the essence of truth deeply, we can pose more comprehensive and fundamental questions through philosophy.
In the case of naturalized epistemology, it is argued that human knowledge—including metaphysical knowledge—is a product of our biological nature or evolution as cognitive animals. Consequently, the fundamental structures regarding truth and reality provided by philosophy are deemed appropriate subjects for the life sciences, such as physiology or evolutionary biology. However, this very claim is itself highly metaphysical. The claim that human knowledge is a product of evolution is a statement about a world that cannot be known empirically. Furthermore, there is little difference between the question of how humans, as products of evolution, can know the structure of non-empirical reality and the question of how humans, as products of evolution, can possess knowledge about science. The fact that we cannot explain how metaphysical knowledge is possible for living beings like ourselves does not provide sufficient reason to assume that such knowledge is impossible for us. If the inability to explain implies impossibility, then we would have equally good reason to assume that scientific knowledge is impossible for living beings like ourselves.
There are also positions that oppose philosophy for reasons other than scientific intuition. These positions primarily object to the claim that philosophical truths must be universal because they constitute the fundamental structure of reality. From a cultural or historical relativist perspective, they view the idea that philosophy speaks to the fundamental structure of reality as detached from reality. They argue that truth is relative to culture and to historical periods. Different cultures and historical periods possess different and incommensurable concepts of reason and rationality. However, this claim itself is a metaphysical proposition. Their thesis concerns the fundamental structure of reality, which cannot be elucidated through the methods of individual sciences or intellectual disciplines such as cultural anthropology, history, or sociology. In other words, their position transcends the realm of more limited forms of rational inquiry.
In fact, Kant was likely the first philosopher to raise and attempt to answer the question, “How is metaphysics possible?” Unlike the two positions mentioned above, this is entirely philosophical. According to this view, metaphysics cannot tell us anything about objective reality as it exists in itself. However, metaphysics can tell us about the fundamentally necessary characteristics of our thinking regarding reality. He argues that we must regard the objects of our perception as situated in space and time and as causally related to one another. However, if we are anything at all, we are both our own thinking and, at the same time, a part of reality itself. Therefore, it is self-contradictory to refuse to make claims about the nature of reality while simultaneously seeking to make claims about the necessary characteristics of our own thinking. Furthermore, the fact that we grasp the world through such structures of thought implies that we possess such structures of thought, and in this context, the structures of thought Kant refers to are part of reality. If, as Kant said, we cannot say anything about reality, then what Kant says about our structures of thought is also quite strange.
It is actually not particularly strange to say that philosophy is a discipline that investigates the fundamental structure of reality. Each discipline has its own distinct domain and subject of inquiry. Just as physics investigates physical objects in the physical world and mathematics explores the relationships between mathematical objects, philosophy deals with the structure of reality and philosophical objects. While each individual discipline possesses its own unique domain, philosophy’s scope of inquiry encompasses the overall structure related to reality; therefore, it can play an interdisciplinary role in relation to both physics and mathematics.
Through philosophy, we can engage not only in various discussions about the real world but also in discussions about what is possible, and we can contribute to individual disciplines through meta-critical analysis of their respective discussions. To answer the question we posed at the beginning, through philosophy, we can discover the truth about the fundamental structure of reality.
