by Giano Rocca
Chapter 28:
The degree of development of the sciences of structural reality historical and human nature
We must start from the intuition of everything, namely, in the specific case, by structural reality historical, to arrive at the understanding of the parties (which we define: the structural universes, the phases statual and the social systems) and to the detailed analysis of the all and of the various parts (1).
General Characters of Science are:
- delimitation of their field of research,
- functioning of its concepts,
- corrigibility autonomous of the reason, that by itself exerts,
- intersubjective validity of its conclusions (2).
Immanuel Kant theorized one shape of scheme scientific adapted at analyze the natural reality, shape of concept not be alien to the same object (3), and it do not change or does not affect, even indirectly, on the object of knowledge. Vittorio Mathieu stated that any object of science, such as that which we have defined the structural reality, for be thought, must be based on categories own of natural sciences. The structural reality historical is, in fact, established in its substance, by the experience. It is, however, composed of extraneous parameters to human nature and the cosmic nature, in general: not for this cannot be conceived and analyzed scientifically. Kant had poses at basis of shapes of schema, scientific, measuring of the time, while for the shapes of schema of judgment, reserved to the study of structural reality, he posed at basis, the space (which is, moreover, the existential base of the universe structural statual). Kant had recognized as the structural reality constitutes an “indirect object at favor of direct”. Kant, then, had attributed an greater importance to the natural reality human with respect to the structural reality historical. The philosopher of science Percy Williams Bridgman had defined “constructs”: the objects of the shapes of scheme of judgment, where “their reality, is not that of an object of direct experience, but is given by the capability of connecting, in systems increasingly vast and unitary, the phenomena of experience” (4). The Kantian metaphysics, consisted, as he himself had defined the same: in the “doctrine of pure intellect” (5). He had considered “pure ideas” or necessary laws of the intellect: the needs of natural, or instinctual, characteristic to each animal being. Kant proposed to itself the aim to discover “on what basis is founded the ratio of what is said, in us, the representation, with the object” (6), namely, what is the base of the knowledge. He stated that the nature of knowledge and the cause of its evolution are “simply intellectuals” (7). Kant refused to expose reasons or hypothetical arguments, but merely those theories that have reached the scientific validity or can be considered “necessary” (8). Kant defined “logic”: the science of “formal rules of all thought” (9). He thought that this science is perfectly a priori with respect to experience (where for experience, he intended: what we call the structural reality historical). Stated that the science “logic” constitutes the “vestibule” of other sciences “properly so called”. Kant defined “theoretical knowledge”: the determination a priori of the object of the sciences; and “practice knowledge”: the realization of the object of science (10). Since, for “priori knowledge” he pointed to the a priori with respect to structural reality, he intended, essentially, lay the foundations of the knowledge of human nature. Kant defined: analytical judgments, those derived from the experience or inherent in the structural reality, and: “synthetic a priori”, those concerning the human nature or the potential non-structural that he sensed that was existing and that it was of fundamental importance (11). With the term of: “synthetic reviews a priori”, he pointed to the possibility - need to make scientific the knowledge of nature human, which is antithetical to the structural reality (12). He defined his own metaphysics, as survey of the human essence natural, divorced from structural reality (“Natural metaphysics”, because dictated by a “natural disposition”). For the fact that his metaphysics has as its object the nature, he has deduced the conviction of the possibility of the attainment, for its part, of the category of scientificity (13). He defined the own metaphysical as: “Critique of Pure Reason” (14) or, better, “system of pure reason” (15), of which its written on “criticism” was supposed to be a prerequisite. He stated that the field of metaphysics is the mind, in its natural essence, namely, “a priori” of the structural reality, namely, ultimately, consists in the study of human nature (16). Thought that the human knowledge about the nature of the intellect may be distinguished in two gills: sense and intellect. Stated that the sense, since “contains representations a priori” (17), which form the condition for which are data the objects, belongs to the transcendental philosophy. Had defined this first part of the study of the elements of human nature: theory “transcendental of the sensitivity”. Stated, then, that the second part is constituted by the intellect, the its conditions and conditions of its objective approach to the reality (18). The human intellect, being the part of human nature more prone to conditioning of structural reality, needs to reach the condition of scientific knowledge of nature, the knowledge of reality structural, and the mechanisms, even psychological, that determine the rise and the evolution of the historical structures. To do this, he thought necessary make themselves as mentally free, as much as it is possible, from the conditioning of the same historical structures. Only thus, he claimed, would become possible to know the profound nature of the human intellect and the conditions for its further development, conditions that he, unfortunately, did not do everything necessary that it was being materialized the analysis, in a complete way.
Also Popper had recognized as, to create an “objectivist epistemology” (19), in order to realize the science of structural reality, is necessary, to the researcher: “becoming autonomous” from “2° world”, namely, from the structural reality. Only in this way it’s possible analyze, with sufficient effectiveness, the reality of “2° world”.
Kant defined “transcendental logic” the science “that contains the principles of pure thought” (20), namely, the science of the functioning of the human intellect, that is independent, totally, from structural logic. He stated that the difference between: sense and intellect is not purely logical, but transcendental, namely, inherent “the origin and the contents of they” (21). Kant, namely, had believed that the sense belongs to human nature, while the intellect would be connected with the structural reality historical. Stated that knowledge, if it is the subject of itself (apperception), does not concern the human essence spiritual, but regards the way, namely, “as internally it is modified" (22) the subject, namely, relate to the essence of the reality structural (namely, where occurs the dependence of the individual subject from the abovementioned: reality structural historic). He, affirming that the sensitivity is not a fact original, but derivative, and affirming that the sense determines the human existence “in relation to data objects” (23), did of the sense, the vehicle of the structural reality. He stated that the intuitions a priori does not go “beyond the objects of the senses, and can only apply to objects of a possible experience” (24). He, therefore, had thought that the sense can be not only the vehicle of structural reality historical, but can be the vehicle for a reality the authentically human. Kant recognized the inseparable relationship between the sense and the intellect, since "Without sensitivity, not there would be given any object, and without the intellect no object it could be thought" (25). He made a distinction between the “general logic” (26) and the psychology, having identified the first with the study of the nature of the intellect or “Rules of the intellect” (27) and the second with the study of the acquisitions of the structural reality, or acquisitions “empirical” of the psyche, and had defined the latter, also, “logic applied” (28). Defined, also the first: "transcendental logic" (29), where concern only a priori knowledge. Defined "transcendental knowledge" the "possibility of knowledge or the use of it a priori" (30). This demonstrates how Kant had considered to superable the structur
al reality historical. Kant had distinguished between: logic, or exposure of general laws and necessary of the intellect, and truth, namely the “agreement of a knowledge with his object” (31), with the meaning, for the second, of science of structural reality. Kant stated that there are concepts a priori, existing “virtually” (32) in the human intellect, and that manifest themselves on the occasion of the experience”, if one is freed “from the empirical conditions that at their have corresponded” (33). He defined as a function of the intellect, create the order the representations in concepts: this is its base or the function of the intellect (34). He had defined the thought: “knowledge for concepts” (35). He stated that the concepts a priori, not being founded on experience, cannot show no object “on which base their synthesis” (36). Kant stated that he wanted to replace to the term “ontology”, the term “Analytical of the intellect pure” or “systematic doctrine of the knowledges synthetic a priori of things in general” (37), and this since “the intellect a priori can never do anything else that anticipate the shape of a possible experience in general”. He, since he had a tendency to theorising a reality, foreign to the reality structural, he defined the concepts relative (at an reality actually consistent with human nature) such as “noumena” (38), in opposition to the “phenomena” or concepts relating to tangible reality or material (namely: the structural reality). He identified the firsts with the concepts of the a priori origin, the which, since more appropriate to human nature, can be considered as nonstructural. Kant considered the concept of “noumeno” only in negative (39). This, although he had recognized there can be a experience natural, or psychic, made exclusively through the senses (40). He stated that each object is composed only of “relationships” (41). Had confirmed, so, of know the true nature of one of the objects of his studies: the structural reality historical. Kant stated that he had aim to achieve a “knowledge that accords completely with the laws of the intellect” (42). He tended, namely, at discover the laws of the functioning of the human brain, in order to make possible the existence of a society that is in accord with the human nature.
Kant had recognized as the “ratiocination” is pinned down within limits speculative very precise, in addition to recognizing the danger of further limitations imposed by state power (43). The Kantian category of logic, as process “synthetic a priori”, was assimilated (by the same Kant) at to the mathematical axioms, if deduces its concepts by the rationality, namely from the true nature of human beings.
The historic structural reality, because reality can be an object of science. Because is an contradictory reality with human nature can be the object of a science only partially rational, because its object is not rational. Correspond, therefore, at to an non-rational logic.
Durkheim stated to study the social events “as if they were things” (44). This does not mean, as some believe, that he identified the structural reality with nature, but that he, empirically, he had analyzed the various phenomena and structural facts (45). For example, about the “Marxism”, had put in evidence its valence (46) unscientific, namely, alien to any scientific theory, while he analyzed, with scientific method, the structural facts, including the Marxism itself and the “Socialism”, precisely, because structural facts (47). He had recognized as the “social sciences” are still “young” and not able to serve as the scientific support of the structural movements such as the “socialism” (48). Durkheim showed how to “social science” does not you want to indicate the sociology but the set of the “sciences” structural, whose development has given rise to the birth of sociology, as “science” autonomous, which was, at the origin, a study of the “elements that may have influenced events related to the social structure of the facts of human activity” (49). The “academics” does not identify the sociology with all the “Social Sciences”, and this, because they recognize as sociology does not enclose the entire series of the “Social Sciences” (50), and this, not only for the variety of disciplines of study of structural reality, but especially because you recognizes that, until now, not reached the status of science.
The sociologist Alvin Goùldner had recognized as the theories of the past contain valid parts, which could be assimilated to new systematic theories (51). Durkheim stated that a theory or “doctrine”, to be scientific, should derive from a scientific research. Otherwise, it has little scientific connotations, being in fact an ideology, connected to an analysis of the history, so to speak: tamed (52).
Jacques Heers stated that, when the terms used are scientifically defined and delimited, may also be derived from the vocabulary of the ideologies a priori. For example, Heers had used the term “orders” (53), instead of castes, but highlighting the legal status of the same: the nobility, the clergy and the people, rather than the real social status: dominant castes, castes intermediate and castes subservient. The latter condition (the social status) is well diverging from the first (the juridical condition), as also recognized the same Heers (54).
