The Postmodern Razor - Epistemological Analysis Of The Early Buddhist Texts

Author: Rouslan Stian Stormoen, member of Buddhist Federation Of Norway (BFN).

This blog post explores the application of epistemological razors to the early buddhist texts for analysis.

1. Problem Statement:

In the landscape of philosophical and religious thought, there’s a recurring debate about the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity, as well as the nature of knowledge and truth.

Traditional philosophical frameworks like Hume’s Guillotine and Kantian epistemology  have laid the groundwork for understanding this relationship.

The emergence of radical postmodern thought further complicates the matters by challenging the very merit of looking for foundations of objectivity.

Amidst this philosophical turmoil, there’s a need for a robust epistemological tool that can cut through the ambiguity and identify the fundamental flaws in various interpretations of reality.

2. Thesis Statement:

The Postmodern Razor offers a powerful framework for evaluating philosophical and religious claims by asserting the impossibility of deriving objective truth about subjective experience exclusively from subjective experience.

Building upon Hume’s Guillotine and Kantian criticism of religion, The Postmodern Razor sharpens the distinction between analytical truths derived from objective reality and synthetic interpretations arising from subjective experiences.

By emphasizing the limitations of reason and the subjective nature of knowledge, The Postmodern Razor provides a lens through which to critically examine diverse philosophical and religious doctrines.

Through this framework, we aim to demonstrate that certain claims, such as those found in Early Buddhist Texts regarding the attainment of enlightenment and the nature of reality, remain impervious to logical scrutiny due to their reliance on a supra-empirical verification rather than empirical evidence, logic or reason.

3. Thesis:

I've made something of an epistemological razor, it is called "The Postmodern Razor". I will explain things in brief, as and in as far as I understood. 

It is very similar to Hume's Guillotine which asserts that: 'no ought can be derived from what is'

The meaning of Hume's statement is in that something being a certain way doesn't tell us that we ought to do something about it. 

Example: The ocean is salty and it doesn't follow that we should do something about it.

Analogy: Suppose you are playing an extremely complicated game and do not know the rules. To know what to do in a given situation you need to know something other than what is the circumstance of the game, you need to know the rules and objectives.

The Guillotine is also used with Hume's Fork which separates between two kinds of statements 

Analytical - definitive, eg a cube having six sides (true by definition)

Synthetic - a human has two thumbs (not true by definition).

One can derive that 

Any variant subjective interpretation of what is - is a synthetic interpretation.

The objective interpretation of what is - an analytical interpretation.

It folllows that no objective interpretation of existence can be derived from studying subjective existence exclusively.

The popularized implication of Hume's Law is in that: no morality can be derived from studying what is not morality.

In other words, what should be cannot be inferred exclusively from what is.

I basically sharpened this thing to be a postmodern "Scripture Shredder", meant to falsify all pseudo-analytical interpretations of existence on principle.

The Postmodern Razor asserts: no objectivity from subjectivity; or no analysis from synthesis.

The meaning here is in that 

No analytical truth about the synthesized can be synthesized by exclusively studying the synthesized. To know the analytical truth about the synthesized one has to somehow know the unsynthesized as a whatnot that it is.

In other words, no analytical interpretation of subjective existence can arise without a coming to know the not-being [of existence] as a whatnot that it is.

The Building Blocks Of Postmodern Theory: Kantian Philosophy

Kant, in his "Critique of Reason", asserts that Logos can not know reality, for it's scope is limited to it’s own constructs. Kant states that one has to reject logic to make room for faith, because reasoning alone can not justify religion.

This was a radical critique of logic, in western philosophy, nobody had popularized this general of an assertion before Kant.

He reasoned that the mind can in principle only be oriented towards reconstruction of itself based on subjective conception & perception and so therefore knowledge is limited to the scope of feeling & perception. It follows therefore that knowledge itself is subjective in principle.

It also follows that minds can not align on matters of cosmology because of running into contradictions and a lack of means to test hypotheses. Thus he concluded that reasoning about things like cosmology is useless because there can be no basis for agreement and we should stop asking these questions, for such unifying truth is inaccessible to mind

Post Kantian Philosophy 

Hegel thought that contradictions are only a problem if you decide that they are a problem, and suggested that new means of knowing could be discovered so as to not succumb to the antithesis of pursuing a unifying truth.

He theorized about a kind of reasoning which somehow embraces contradiction & paradox. 

Kierkegaard agreed in that it is not unreasonable to suggest that not all means of knowing have been discovered. And that the attainment of truth might require a leap of faith.

Schopenhauer asserted that logic is secondary to emotive apprehension and that it is through sensation that we grasp reality rather than by hammering it out with rigid logic.

Nietzche agreed and wrote about ‘genealogy of morality’. He reasoned that the succumbing to reason entails an oppressive denial of one's instinctual drives and that this was a pitiful state of existence. He thought people in the future would tap into their deepest drives & will for power, and that the logos would be used to strategize the channeling of all one's effort into that direction.

Heidegger laid the groundwork for the postmodernists of the 20th century. He identified with the Kantian tradition and pointed out that it is not reasonable to ask questions like ‘why existence exists?’ Because the answer would require coming to know what is not included in the scope of existence. Yet he pointed out that these questions are emotively profound & stirring to him, and so where logic dictates setting those questions aside, he has a hunger for it’s pursuit, and he entertains a pursuit of knowledge in a non-verbal & emotive way. He thought that contradictions & paradoxes mean that we are onto something important and feeling here ought to trump logic.

The Postmodern Razor 

Based on these principles The Postmodern Razor falsifies any claim to analytical truth being synthesized without coming to know the not-coming-into-play of existence as a whatnot that it is.

Putting Razor To The Early Buddhist Texts

Key Excerpts:

This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Nibbāna (lit. Extinguishment): the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.” - SN45.7

‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ -AN10.7

There he addressed the mendicants: “Reverends, extinguishment is bliss! Extinguishment is bliss!”

When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is felt?”

“The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s blissful about it.  -AN9.34

'Whatever is felt has the designation suffering.' That I have stated simply in connection with the inconstancy of fabrications. That I have stated simply in connection with the nature of fabrications to end... in connection with the nature of fabrications to fall away... to fade away... to cease... in connection with the nature of fabrications to change. -SN36.11

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. - Ud8.3

The born, become, produced, made, fabricated, impermanent, fabricated of aging & death, a nest of illnesses, perishing, come-into-being through nourishment and the guide [that is craving] — is unfit for delight. The escape from that is calm, permanent, a sphere beyond conjecture, unborn, unproduced, the sorrowless, stainless state, the cessation of all suffering, stilling-of-fabrications bliss. -Iti43

Where neither water nor yet earth, nor fire nor air gain a foothold, there gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, there shines no moon, yet there no darkness found. When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this, for himself through his own wisdom, then he is freed from form and formless. Freed from pleasure and from pain. -Ud1.10

He understands what exists, what is low, what is excellent, and what escape there is from this field of perception. -MN7

"Now it’s possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, ‘Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?’ When they say that, they are to be told, ‘It’s not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.’” -MN59

‘This noble truth of the cessation of suffering is to be directly experienced’ -SN56.11

Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only suffering that I describe, and the cessation of suffering." -SN22.86

Result:

These texts don't get "cut" by the razor because they don't make objective claims about reality based solely on subjective experiences.

Instead, they offer a new way of knowing through a direct supra-empirical experience, achieving a state of "cessation of perception & feeling" which goes beyond observation and subjective experience.

This "cessation-extinguishment" is described as the pleasure in a definitive sense.

The Buddha is making an unfalsifiable statement inviting a direct verification by wise people.

It's not a hypothesis because these are unverifiable and it's not a theory because theories are falsifiable. 

He explains the detailed course for it’s attainment, requiring one to avoid holding pernicious views about cosmology. 

Furthermore making an appeal to the deep emotive drives of the likes of Nietzche, Heidegger and Schopenhauer, in proclaiming the principal cessation of feeling & perception to be the most extreme pleasure & happiness, a type of undiscovered knowing which was rightly asserted to require a leap of faith.

4. Conclusion:

In conclusion, we think that the limitation of the razor represents a significant advancement in epistemological research, and the lens of Hume's Laws a sophisticated tool for navigating the complexities of philosophical and religious discourse.

By recognizing the interplay between subjectivity and objectivity, analysis and synthesis, this framework enables a more nuanced understanding of truth and knowledge, highlighting the inherent limitations and biases that shape human cognition.

While not without its challenges and potential criticisms, The Postmodern Razor ultimately empowers individuals to engage critically with diverse perspectives, fostering a richer and more inclusive dialogue about the nature of reality and our place within it.

5. Anticipated Criticisms:

Critics may question the merit of dismissing the pursuit of analytical knowledge by means of existence and religion, having asserted that this altogether dismisses the pursuit of truth. However, it’s important to clarify that the framework offers a nuanced perspective that acknowledges the inherent limitations of human cognition while still valuing critical inquiry and empirical evidence.

Moreover, the framework provided by The Postmodern Razor encourages a deeper engagement with philosophical and religious texts, challenging readers to confront the complexities of existence rather than settling for simplistic or dogmatic interpretations.