the judgment and investigations concerning reality are held apart. But had Hägerström really untied the knot? One might well ask. The objectivistic bias inherent in Hägerström’s revolution does not, however, mean that Hägerström’s belief that knowledge should be founded upon a sole pillar of objects is fully warranted, for such a belief might well constitute a repetition of the dogmatic mistake of so-called empiricism.139 According to my analysis, the spirit of theUmwälzung, in comparison with subjectivism, entails a shift of perspective from that of a philosophical disjunction between mind or matter, to that of a philosophical conjunction of, or at least conncetion between, mind and matter. For any philosophy attempting to distance itself from both epistemological idealism and epistemological realism, must either become nihilistic or embrace an harmonious (but nevertheless critical) view of the ideas present in idealistic and realistic epistemology,140 thereby setting mind and matter in a epistemological relationship towards each.141 Accordingly, by shifting the perspective from one excluding to one of including, Hägerström once again emphasizes the central role of correspondence between mind and matter in the establishment of true synthetic a posteriori judgments. p a r t i 1 , c h a p t e r 2 78 2 . 9 the sp i ri t of the “umwälzung”, a shi ft of pe r spect ive 139 Cf. Kant, Cr. P. R., pp. A vii-xi, B xxxiv-xxxvi, et passim. 140 See Hägerström,“Filosofien som vetenskap,” pp. 8-10. Here Hägerström characterizes his philosophy as critical with reference to the concepts of philosophy and science, but without any anthropomorphic tendencies. 141 Thord Silverbark describes Hägerström’s and the Uppsala School’s philosophy,“objectivism”, as a philosophy inseparable from both realism and rationalism. Silverbark, Fysikens filosofi, pp. 127-129 and 392. Silverbark’s underlying objection to Hägerström’s ideas seems to be the premiss that either realism or rationalism is true, but not that both realism and rationalism may be false, whereupon Hägerström’s “objectivism” must be invalid since it is inseparable from both realismand rationalism, as well as contending that both realism or rationalism are false.A further alternative is that Hägerström’s philosophy is rationalistic materialism. See Sigurdson, Den lyckliga filosofin: etik och politik hos Hägerström,Tingsten, makarna Myrdal och Hedenius, pp. 46-52.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=