cognition

Originally published 4/8/22, Revised 6/15/22

     Idealism is a metaphysical doctrine that typically makes many ontological claims such as solipsism and free will. Solipsism is the belief that the individual is the only perception that exists and free will is the belief that the individual has the ability to act in a purely autonomous and spontaneous manner. What happened was the pragmatists and logical positivists came around and reduced the metaphysical claims of idealism to cognition. This means, for example, that the behaviors induced by solipsism are either seen as mental illness or are reduced to a cognitive maneuver. Under pragmatism, therefore, the claim will not be that he is the only perception that exists, but that one should act in a way as though he is the only perception that exists because it enhances your cognition in your maneuvering in the world.

Fichte’s Metaphysical Claim

     We now examine this in the case of one idealistic claim made by the German idealist Johann Fichte in the late 1700s. Fichte’s claim is that the I posits the world. When this is translated into a more common language, this is saying that the world is set up precisely for the individual- one of the most widely adopted metaphysical claims in the Western world over the last 400 years. This metaphysical claim, that the world is set up just for me- and this is really a metaphysical claim when it comes down to it- was responsible for most of the major advancements that took place over the last 300 years such as with, for example, all of the buildings that were made and technological advancements that occurred. What happened was that in the early 1900s, the pragmatists and logical positivists came around and switched this claim up from an ontological claim to a cognitive claim. What I am now arguing is that the ontological claim is stronger than the cognitive claim-making pragmatism more suited for the common man and Fichteanism more suited for the intellectual elite.

     What does Fichte mean by this. Does he mean the world is really set up for the individual- an ontological claim- or does he mean that this is simply a maxim for the individual to adopt- a cognitive claim. Fichte is generally considered to come between Kant an epistemologist- and Schelling who was an ontologist. The question is where to place Fichte, who is in between the two. It is my original analysis that Fichte is in fact to be regarded as an ontologist and not an epistemologist. But it is common among contemporary professionals to regard there as being two Fichtes- one who is making an ontological claim and one who is making an epistemological claim. Under the second interpretation, Fichte would not be considered to be a whole of a lot far off from the common man today. But the fundamental assumption behind continental philosophy is that people thought differently at different times in history

Idealism and Cognition in the Case of Fichte’s Claim

     It should be noted that Fichte sets up the sciences as contained within the posited world. The brain exists for the Fichtean with most of its features, and so the Fichtean does not fair as poorly when it comes to having a lack of brain as is initially thought. Fichte is in essence retaining the brain but splicing on some additional features such as free will and identicality of the intellect. Under the ontological variant, the world truly is posited by the mind, and the brain is embedding within the sciences within the world. In the cognitive variant, the brain exists as part of the world and the maxim is simply language in the mind.

     In order to figure out which claim is actually stronger- the cognitive claim or the ontological claim- we must analyze the situation under four cases- (1) the ontological case is true and one accepts the ontological case. (2) the ontological case is true and the person accepts the cognitive case, (3) the ontological case is false and one accepts the ontological case, (4) the ontological case is false and one accepts the cognitive case. (1) Let’s say the ontological case is true and one accepts the ontological case. Then every man on the planet is theoretically capable of having a high degree of success in the world subject to the amount of effort they are willing to put in. Thus any person accepting the ontological variant will be able to have a very high degree of success. (2) The person, in this case, will lose sight of the truth and perhaps give up after a while if he finds his cognitive assumption is not working since nothing is guaranteeing the cognitive assumption is ontological. Thus the person will miss out on the truth. (3) The person who assumes the ontological variant, in this case, will have a stronger sense of the claim assuming the ontological variant than the cognitive variant. Thus one’s cognitions will be further improved by viewing it as an actuality than a cognitive maneuver. However, there is the chance of oversight. (4) The person is not by nature designed to get anywhere in the world. the person will perhaps be slightly more successful using the cognitive maneuver. He will probably give up after a while.

     Finally, when it comes to neuroplasticity- only invented 5 to 10 years ago- the only thing I can say is that neuroplasticity does not have the same effect as the metaphysical claim. How does one make business deals using neuroplasticity? It is in reality a weaker variant as well than the rationalistic Fichteanism. Neuroplasticity helps with science but not with rationalistic maneuvers in the world. on top of that, the scientific claims invented using neuroplasticity do not have the same disjointed leaps of discovery that occur with Fichteanism. A good example would be Benjamin Franklin- born a decade before Fichte wrote his Wissenschaftslehre but acting in its spirit. Look at the disjointed leaps of thought that occurred through the use of Fichteanism. The fact is the same argument occurs comparing any rationalistic theory to any scientific theory. The scientific theory cannot be conflated with the rationalistic theory. Additionally, Fichte’s method is also a method of combating paganism. Also, the fact is that neuroplasticity comes into conflict with empirical tests of intelligence and so one is not in any better of a position following science. One must give a scientific antirealism and the power will shift into the hands of the rationalists.