iably disregard certain important features of logic. First, that logic, due to its formal nature, by definition is a discourse acting independently of factual reality. Second, that logic acts analytically, negatively, while object sciences also tend to function synthetically, positively.Third, while logic, the laws of thought, uses a subject dependent criterium veri as the basis for its validation rather than on the laws of nature, an object dependent criterium veri, non-formal, object-realted sciences use a combination of the formal and material criteria in their truth determination. And when carrying the methods of logic over to epistemology and ontology, one ventures into object sciences, requiring an objectively founded criterium veri for the validation of any judgment, which, however, Kant appears to disregard. Accordingly, since subjectivism exaggerates the subject’s cognitive autonomy with respect to the object, this is the point at which Hägerström directs his critique of subjectivism. It was René Descartes (Cartesius) (1596-1650) who formulated the most influential epistemological postulate of post scholastic philosophy: “Cogito ergo sum.” By formulating this apodictically valid proposition, Descartes asserted that absolutely certain knowledge about the epistemological subject was possible to attain.162 Hence, absolutely certain knowledge of objects was possible. A negative implication of the cogito proposition, however, is that it implies subjectivism, solipsism. Hence, the problem confronting Descartes was how the subject could reach beyond knowledge of the subject itself to knowledge of the object.Taking this problem into consideration, it was the possibilityof objective knowledge that gave Descartes an absolutely secure foundation for him to start out from on his quest for certain knowledge.163 What poses a problem is that the possibility of knowledge does not constitute definite proof of knowledge. For how can it be possible, on the basis of a single inductive inference based upon a ca l l f o r s c i e n t i f i c p u r i t y 85 162 Russell, History, pp. 547-548. 163 Descartes, Valda skrifter, pp. 47-49.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=