This is a continuation of a previous essay I have written titled That Which We Seek

My encounter with the works of Kant and Hume thrust me in a direction I seldom anticipated. Although I was acquainted with the idea of the “unknowable” written about in many great religions and myths, somehow Kant’s formulation of the noumenon made it for me a living reality. Something we can no longer evade under the pretext of dismissing age old superstitions because Kant justified its existence through purely rational means. However I remained unconvinced that it was simply the idea of the “unknowable” that had gripped me so tenaciously. Notwithstanding the fact that Kant provided many arguments vying for the noumenal world, it was still unclear what relevance it had in our earthly pursuits. By delineating the frontiers of human knowledge, Kant has once and for all given us the map beyond which no pursuit of truth could ever take place. And this seems to be its only consequence. The unknowable permeates all of life and despite our most ardent efforts, we shall forever remain ignorant of the true nature of the world.

Given that fact, it seems natural to simply content ourselves with matters where do we have a say, taking each step in view of our abject limitations. As much as Kant had formulated a problem central to the study of philosophy, this was the reaction he prevalently elicited. If the “unknowable” by its very definition cannot be understood in any meaningful sense, why does its existence even matter? In other words regardless of the fact that you believe all of reality can or cannot be known, you would conduct yourself all the same. Although I was thoroughly convinced of the paramount importance of Kant’s worldview, I could go no further than this in stating its relevance. Clearly the noumenon is of paramount importance in illuminating the nature of reality but in matters of practice where we are faced with the choice between good and bad, it appears to have little to say.

This problem of choosing in the absence of certainty, especially when the choice itself concerned another individual is, in my opinion, one of the fundamental problems of morality. Although Kant had attempted to formulate an ethical philosophy in his second publication “Critique of Practical Reason”, I found the works of another great thinker far more insightful in this respect. Being a profound admirer and an astute student of Kant’s work, Schopenhauer had done for more than any philosopher to elaborate on the former’s worldview. And he did this mostly by pointing out the fundamental error in Kant’s perception of the noumenal. According to Schopenhauer, Kant viewed the noumenon from a purely conceptual lens and rightly derived its implications in the realm of thought. However in the sphere of immediate experience, we encountered the noumenon in stark lucidity. As much the distinctions we have made to understand the nature of the world mire us in endless paradoxes, Schopanhaeur believed in direct experience a knowledge of the noumenon could still be attainable.

It would be a misnomer to call this “knowledge”, as the noumenon negates the very preconditions of understanding. Knowledge presupposes differentiation and any potential experience of the unknowable annihilates that, leaving no room for thought itself. Unlike his predecessors, Schopenhauer ascribed profound significance to the arts because he believed it was the primary means through which we obtained this knowledge. He proposed that art and especially music allowed us to transcend the limitations of the phenomenal, creating almost a fissure in time and space where we could glimpse, however fleetingly, at the unknowable. I considered this as an insight of particular genius because on some fundamental sense, it shed light on the motivations of all human beings. I could see the operation of this instinct to grasp the “unknowable” not only in art but in almost every human endeavour. The greatest of writers, artists and poets invariably proceeded on the tacit recognition that the substance of their work was always too narrowly confined by their medium of expression. Therefore through the creation of art, they perennially endeavoured to articulate the ineffable. To show the immeasurable distance between the world of representations and the world of actual things. Or rather the actual thing “in itself”.

But the existence of this distance also posed a peculiar danger. Despite the fact that a work of art allows us to pierce through the veil of the phenomenal, it still remains momentary. In light of this, it is tempting to conclude that most of life is simply a pursuit of the noumenal. An attempt to steal a glimpse at the ultimate mystery in moments scattered across time. Nonetheless it is important to remember that as much as the noumenon is a testament to the fundamental unity of all individuals, this unity is achieved by a complete eradication of differences. Differences necessary for the genesis of life itself. Therefore the very conditions of existence emerges at a crossroad. In a cradle of the primordial paradox where we are faced with two opposing instincts, one of which beckons us into the noumenal abyss while the other cautions us from being swallowed by it. The consequence of this polarity, of the need to apprehend the perennial void from the realm of what is known produces the vagaries of living. Every effort we have made since the dawn of civilization consequently serves as a monument to capture this mystery. An attempt to instantiate, atleast symbolically, the primordial calling that lies at the heart of man.

But what of the danger? In virtue of our existential positioning, we remain tethered both to the unknowable and to the ephemeral world of our senses. Kant was able to justify the concept of free will within a deterministic world because he believed our existence could not be fully encapsulated by phenomena. As much this explained human feelings such as compassion and love, it also revealed a deeper problem. Although we have grown accustomed to judging truth and falsehood by taking recourse to our senses, we cannot deny the fact that we are children of two distinct worlds. Worlds not wherein we exist but those that arise in virtue of our existence. Our situation is further complicated by our inability to obtain even the faintest of knowledge about one of these worlds. Something we have termed as the “noumenon”. Despite art providing us with a conduit to fleetingly apprehend this in experience, we can never obtain any total understanding of it and therefore remain ignorant of both the noumenon and consequently to a part of ourselves. Torn between these worlds, logic would necessitate confining our pursuits to the world of sensory apprehension. And since the advent of science this is the path we are encouraged to take. The path of reason, illumination and sober empiricism.

As a result, the contemporary landscape is characterized by an exaltation of the phenomenal. Even outside the laboratory of the scientist, rigorous experimentation has generally become the way of life. The world of today refuses to believe anything without resorting to the stock of experience, relegating notions of faith to the antiquities of the past. But in their place a new form of crass materialism has taken root. The unmitigated progress of science that epitomized rationality has paradoxically also constricted the horizons of an individual. The skepticism which was once a luminary in the pursuit of truth has now become mere pretense to remain ensconced in the luxurious comfort of the sensory world. Therefore in the place of meaning, we now seek opulence. In the place of truth, we remain content with certainty. In the name of progress and the vilification of the doctrines of the old, we have abandoned the unknowable not as a concept but as an enduring facet of human experience.

Art is perhaps the only relic of the past that remains where we become faintly aware of other modes of knowing but even that is momentary. The distance between the noumenal and the phenomenal is either too far removed so the former becomes nothing more than a bleak reminder of our limitations or it is entirely annihilated so the individual is subsumed by that which he apprehends. In both cases however, the consequences remain more or less the same. We come to blatantly deny the incommensurable conflict at the heart of being that makes us both a part of a whole and the whole itself. Faced with such a seemingly insoluble problem, we make a myriad of choices. And those reactions to the unknowable, ultimately, defines the course of our lives. In view of our individual differences, it is difficult to arrive at any viable means to discern these choices in terms of “good” and “bad”. To reasonably conclude what one “should” do in the face of the noumenon. But in another sense, there still appears to be a general answer to this problem.

Much like Schopenhauer’s understanding of the arts, the morality that emerges from our existential roots is largely devoid of rhetoric. Given our two fold nature, I think what remains to be discovered in the course of living is a process of mediation between our dichotomous roots. Similar to the immutable laws of music that distinguishes sound from rhythm, there appears to be a certain movement through life that cuts through the phenomenal and the noumenal. This movement is both general and specific and evolves quite similarly to a piece of music where the notes periodically converge to a point of symphony, eventually assuming their own individual paths. Through this light, morality appears as an attempt to liberate art from its temporal confines. To essentially trace the rhythm of life which expresses our noumenal and phenomenal nature in its entirety. As much as a study of ethics enlightens this perspective, it seems that a true understanding of morality consists of learning to hear the music rather than reading its notes. Without the melody of experience morality devolves into a science of platitudes. And without sober reflection art becomes a vessel of escape rather than a means of enlightenment. Therefore the fundamental task of art and morality appears to be one and the same. To offer a guiding lantern in the face of the primeval darkness that engulfs us all.