The theory of knowledge (TOK) and the unity of thinking and being both grapple with the fundamental questions of how we understand the world around us and how our minds contribute to that understanding. The nature of the relationship between thinking and being (unity of thinking and being) can influence our understanding of how we acquire knowledge. For instance, if we believe there’s a fundamental separation between mind and world (dualism), we might emphasize the limitations of our knowledge. Conversely, if we believe in a more unified relationship (monism), we might be more optimistic about the possibility of attaining true knowledge. One possible approach is that of the German Neo-Kantian Ernst Cassirer (1874-1945), which I will discuss below.
Modern physics, starting with Galileo and Bacon, aimed to create a theory of nature free from metaphysical biases. Instead of deriving nature from abstract concepts, it should be understood through unbiased observation and description. This replaced philosophical speculation with the ideal of pure description, or as Bacon called it, the phenomenology of nature.
However, it became clear that describing nature physically is only possible by translating it into the symbolic language of mathematics. As Edmund Husserl later phrased it, nature was clothed in the “ideal garment” of mathematics. Even in elementary forms of scientific understanding, mathematics plays a central role. Its abstract conceptual language allows describing natural phenomena by removing everyday connotations. For instance, a moving body can only be physically grasped if expressed numerically in terms of space and time.
Counting and measuring aren’t just for describing nature, but for expanding, refining, and correcting theories. Even measuring time relies on theoretical assumptions in mechanics, like the idea that objects travel equal distances under the same driving and motion conditions. Measurements and experiments are conducted to verify, falsify, or improve hypotheses and laws. Physical concepts don’t describe reality in isolation; they form networks or sequences. It’s the ensemble of concepts, not singular ones, that accurately describes physical experiences. Physical knowledge is a dynamic process structured and driven by the “triad” of measurement statements, law statements, and principle statements. Principles form the dynamic center for developing scientific theories.
Scientific understanding of nature as a dynamic interplay of functionally related operations: Induction and deduction, variable and constant, resolution and composition are all factors that mutually influence and necessitate each other.
All empirical science involves both “resolution” (analytically breaking down complex phenomena) and “composition” (synthetically connecting parts into a whole). These processes are complementary, just like induction and deduction. Scientific inquiry aims to understand constants, which in other contexts can act as variables
The experience is a continuous flow, free from polar opposites like subject and object, or inner and outer world. In experience, we simply grasp things as existing, without temporal differentiation between past and present. This unity of experience is only broken down through later logical reflection, which questions the value of individual elements of experience. Scientific experience is the ultimate goal of experience in general. The recognition of a plurality of experience modes refers to a wider term of experience in a cultural philosophy. Meaningful distinctions only arise within a structured system. The logical differentiation of experience content and its organization into a system of dependencies form the core of the concept of reality. The relationship between individual experience and the totality of experience is seen as representation. The “individual” element exists within the context of a “system” to which it refers and which it represents.
Questions about the unity of thinking and being also raise questions about the validity of logic and its principles. Neither Bertrand Russell, who viewed logic as independent of subjective activity, nor John Dewey, who saw logic as purely instrumental, are right. Two alternative principles shall help:
Convergence of the Series: The unity of thinking and being is ultimately grounded in the principle of convergence of the series. The truth of theories isn't guaranteed by their correspondence to an external reality independent of knowledge relations. Instead, it's based on their internal coherence and the correct processing of factual data. The convergence of the series is always a projected unity and functions as a regulative principle in the Kantian sense.
Continuity of Experience: The dynamic development of theories is secured by the principle of continuity of experience. Although experience is fundamentally open-ended, its systematic unity must be sought at every historical moment. Theories encounter limitations, but these are never entirely arbitrary; they are usually historically and systematically motivated.
We can never say with complete certainty what reality is as a whole. This would require the systematic unity of experience to be something positively given. On the other hand, any valid theory always grasps a piece of reality. Theories can be partially falsified and thus improved, but they never completely go astray.
The principle of convergence of the series corresponds to Peirce’s principle of “consensus omnium,” the consensus among researchers that would emerge if research on a specific problem reached a successful conclusion. This “consensus omnium” constitutes the “ultimate opinion,” the accurate representation of the world’s being.
Ernst Cassirer later in his “Philosophy of Symbolic Forms” argued that we don’t directly experience the world but interact with it through symbolic forms (like language, math, myth). Cassirer rejects the notion that we have unmediated access to reality. Our senses alone don’t provide complete understanding. This relates to Kant’s categories (transcendental deduction) that are necessary for any experience to be possible. Without them, we wouldn’t be able to make sense of the world around us. However, Kant’s categories are universal and unchanging, applying to all human experience while Cassirer’s symbolic forms are more diverse and can vary across cultures and historical periods.
In addition, these forms are not just arbitrary labels but actively shape how we understand the world. Symbolic forms are not just passive labels for things. They actively shape how we categorize, interpret, and make sense of the world around us. Different symbolic forms offer different ways of understanding reality (e.g., science focuses on causal relationships, while art focuses on emotional expression). Yet, Cassirer also believed there’s an underlying reality that these forms point to.