Philosophy

Discussions related to the detection of objective reality, the truth and lie are still a heated topic in the domain of philosophical epistemology. While certain philosophical contexts and theories suggest that the notion “reality as an independent category” should not be engaged, instead, interpretations, including reciprocal, should be used, others hold it that philosophical discussion cannot continue without reference to the said notion. Different philosophers and scolars approach this problem from different angles, e.g., they attempt to find answers to such questions, as: whether realism can be applied in philosophy and science, how to localize and describe occurances correctly, whether or not ultimate knowledge exists, how our universe can be explained with the help of ontology of quantum physics, etc. When discussing these topics, philosophers often resort to certain thought experiments, engaging an important concept, which can broadly be identified as “the global observer.” This concept has something in common with such concepts as the God’s Eye (Putnam H.), Omniscient Interpreter (Davidson D.), Ultimate Observer (quantum physics), Agent of logical omniscience (game theories), Ideal Observer (ethics and meta-ethics), God (analytic theology). Despite the abundance of works on the topic and scrupulosity of arguments, there still remain many uncertainties in such discussions, mostly related to a great number of logical paradoxes, associated with the problem. Therefore, in view of the current situation, the focus of the research paper is on the deliberation of consistency of the notion “global observer” from the standpoint of logic and philosophy. The results of the analysis of the issue at stake are expected to clarify the notion and to enrich current discussions on the topic.

> Problem • I examine certain difficulties in the philosophical assumptions concerning one of the philosophical concepts, which could be collectively named as the “global observer.” The article below explores the notion of the global observer as the guarantor of the determinability and configuration of events in the world. There is explained the meaning of this concept and attempt to show that, despite variations in the wording, it is used in many philosophical contexts related to epistemology. The core issue of the present research paper is the analysis of the consistency of the notion “global observer” from the standpoint of logic and philosophy. The paper discusses why application of this notion in some contexts poses challenges and appears to be paradoxical.

I expand the notion of PL-metaphysics by introducing the approach of Hegel, who I regard as the chief PL-metaphysician. Also, I propose another substantiation of the division of metaphysics, namely, the criterion of the transparency/opacity of system settings, which I consider the most symptomatic for the differentiation of epistemologies, and believe plays the key role in understanding the status of constructivism itself. By applying this criterion, we can differentiate transcendentalism and naturalism as two substantial epistemological meta-programs and show that constructivism will still remain a part of the transcendental program, even when there is an orientation towards PL-metaphysics, while Hegel’s version of PL-metaphysics will be considered a part of naturalism.

I focus on the group of ideas concerning the nature of the global observer and discuss some important terms regarding the idea of global observation. Furthermore, I address the meta-philosophical problem of how the presence or absence of the global observer influences various philosophical and scientific contexts.

The famous French philosophers Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze are often called the philosophers of Difference to emphasize the importance of the Difference concept in their works (Vernon, 2012: p. 47-51). I will dedicate this article to the description of the said concept as well as to its role in the conception of the so-called Philosophy of Difference. But to fully understand the logics of these two philosophers, we will need to steer away from one of the strongest prejudices addressed to many post-modernist philosophers. That is, we have to give up the idea of considering them the opponents of any Metaphysics. I will try to prove that Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze begin as heirs of metaphysics and only then come to the impossibility of Metaphysics, the statement of which, however, requires paradoxical formulations – the Metaphysics points at its own impossibility and simultaneously at the impossibility of impossibility.

A man, at least partly enlightened with the knowledge of contexts, which in their combination gave rise to the collective name “Postmodern Philosophy,” is well aware that an extensive Post-Enlightenment turns into Anti-Enlightenment development is, in fact, the true underlying concept lying at the heart of this philosophy. In other words, postmodern philosophy primarily focuses on the experience of re-thinking of the ideals of the Enlightenment.
How should the objectives of the Anti-Enlightenment be understood? Ultimately, the prefix “anti” can be interpreted in two ways. On the one hand, from the prospective of Rousseau’s philosophy, it could be interpreted as a kind of call “Go back to barbarism!” On the other – it could mean that the attempt to educate the West has failed, while hinting that the Enlightenment has never been truly accomplished. We should note, however, that criticism of the Enlightenment’s agenda has a well-defined metaposition and a set of tenets associated with it; actually, the point from which the Enlightenment is being criticized can be described fairly accurately. This is the point where the idea that the Enlightenment was not quite enlightening stems from. The Anti-Enlightenment has a dialectical imprint on many of its aspects: enlightenment of the Enlightenment turned out to be the Anti-Enlightenment (by analogy with the “negation of the negation” (Hegel 1977), which, though not being a return to the previous point, has moved to a new synthetic level, as a result of its “cancellation”).
Then, the Anti-Enlightenment is, on the one hand, weeping over the failed Enlightenment, but on the other hand, a rebellion against the Enlightenment, which, though having been accomplished, fell short of hopes and expectations associated with it. This is also an affirmation that the Enlightenment has some “back” or “shady” side, a kind of “devil’s conditions” – the cost of its alleged benefits. The Anti-Enlightenment, in its most radical version, declares: the Enlightenment is a dangerous and harmful agenda in the form, in which it sets the course of development for the Western European civilization from Plato to the present day, since its consequences are devastating and prospects are frightening. Then, the idea of enlightening the Enlightenment shall mean to detect and disclose all of its secrets. In the end, people have a right to know what the true cost of their enlightenment is – the “rights to know.”
However, before we continue our exploration, we should answer the question, “What is the Enlightenment?" The best answer was given by Kant, “The Enlightenment is the courage to use your own understanding” (Kant 1996: 12). A person can consider himself to have reached a maturity if one day he dared to use his own mind without anybody’s guidance (without the help of the “Other” in the terminology of postmodern philosophy). Otherwise, even if a person reaches an old age, he would still remain a “minor.” “The Enlightenment is a way for a person to end his minority, in which he stalls due to his own fault. Minority is inability to use own intellect without a guidance from someone else. Minority due to own fault is a phenomenon that is caused not by the lack of intelligence, but by the lack of determination and courage to use it without guidance from someone else. Sapere aude! – have the courage to use your own mind! – is, therefore, the motto of the Enlightenment” (Kant 1996:12). The definition offered by Kant would become absolutely canonical, and, if one tries to contest the Enlightenment, it would largely mean nothing else, but an attempt to challenge Kant’s definition.