nation of any necessary predicates of reality must be inferred from facts, rather than concepts. Hence, the self-identity of reality is to be deduced from the self-identity of existing facts. In conclusion, the specific fact that Hägerström wished to establish is that the validity of reality judgments should be based upon deductive conclusions derived from inductively established truths rather than upon deductive conclusions derived from analytic truths, definitions, or axioms. In this case, the assertion of the selfidentity of reality constituted an apodictic truth supported by the actual existence of objective reality. The essence of Hägerström’s Copernican revolution of philosophy is the conclusion that the only determinable epistemological and ontological necessity is reality’s own self-identity.Thus the initial purpose of Hägerström’s work, the refutation of the subjectivistic-transcendentalistic point of view, was completed. A further consequence of Hägerström’s refutation of transcendentalism is that the foundations for necessity in or of objective knowledge must be sought not only in the constitution of the human mind (the subjectivistic standpoint), but also among the objects themselves. In any case, the subject’s certainty of its own actual existence cannot serve as the standard for certain object knowledge, because if the subjective argument is analyzed, then it collapses into solipsism, thus denying any imaginable access between the subject and the object over which the proposition is passed. Since the subject solus ipse lacks actual access to the object, it consequently lacks necessaryaccess to the object in question. Hence, if based upon subjective certainty alone, every claim of necessity in knowledge is objectively unwarranted as well as logically impossible.Thus, in order for the subject to be able to infer valid conclusions about the objective features of reality, the subject solus ipse actually must be assumed to have access to the investigated object (reality), whereby the idea of a subject solus ipse invalidates itself.88 According to Hägerström’s analysis every a ca l l f o r s c i e n t i f i c p u r i t y 63 88 Cf. ibid., pp. 9-12 and 76-77; Hägerström, Selbstdarstellungen, pp. 1-9.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=