Man as

Knowing
 Man as Knowing
Phenomenology
of Knowledge
by William A. Luijpen OSA

Fidelity to Truth
by Robert O. Johann

Cognitional
Structure
by Bernard Lonergan SJ
 EPISTEMOLOGY
SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

Idealism Empiricism

Realism Rationalis
m
Relativism Criticism
Subjectivis Pragmatis
m m
Phenomenology of Knowledge
Phenomenology of Knowledge

• Were there times that you were asked about

something that you know by heart but could
not put them into words upon trying to
explicitate it?
Phenomenology of Knowledge
What is it to know?
(What is knowing?)

How can we know that we know

what we know?
(What is Truth?)
Objective
1.Know knowing
2.Verification of knowledge: Truth
What is knowing?
What is Truth?
Phenomenological approach What is this something? The
phenomena. The appearance.
“Knowing” in the phenomenological
approach leads us to the primordial HUMAN KNOWING IS THE DIALECTICAL
insight of the intentionality of UNITY OF THE SUBJECT’S OPENNESS TO
consciousness: REALITY AND THE SELF-GIVENNESS OF
REALITY IN AN ENDLESS BUT UNIFIED
CONSCIOUSNESS IS CONSCIOUSNESS SERIES OF PROFILES AND AGAINST THE
OF SOMETHING OTHER THAN HORIZON OF OTHER POSSIBLE
CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF. OBJECTS.
Subject | Object
Knower | Known

Subject knows the object – Active voice

.

Object is known by the subject – Passive voice

ZU DEN SACHEN SELBST!
HOW CAN WE KNOW THAT WE
KNOW WHAT WE KNOW?
Expression of Knowledge

EXPLICITATIO
N
I. Explicitation
Pre-reflective Consciousness. What is it really
to know what knowing is without being able to express
this knowledge?

ONE KNOWS WHAT IT IS TO KNOW BUT

UNAWARE OF HIS ACT OF KNOWING

WE TEND TO FOCUS ON THE OBJECT OF

KNOWING BUT OMIT THE ACT OF KNOWING
ITSELF.
 When we know something, it ends there.

When we know knowing (what it is to know), we

are equipped with infinite potentials to know vast
amount of knowledge.

When we know how to explicitate, we can

disclose what the things themselves have to tell us.
ZU DEN SACHEN SELBST!
Knowing what is already revealing!

Do the things teach us? Or Do we learn

things?
Is meaning inherent to things? Or is the
meaning of a thing pre-given by the subject
that knows?
Consciousness is called reflective when I pass from
being-in-the-presence to placing-myself-in-the-
presence.
Thus, it is called pre-reflective consciousness for
nothing was in the mind before. This is the
preliminary stage to knowledge. Knowledge is
when one places-himself-in-the-presence
Being-in-the-presence = not yet knowledge,
thus it could not yet be expressed.

Placing-myself-in-the-presence = consciousness
of knowledge. One is able to express
Importance of Pre reflective Consciousness

It should be clear that philosophical thought

begins with it and even at first is nothing else than
expressing what we may now call in the most general
way “life.”
 LIF
E
Life being-in-the-world is a
conscious-being-in-the-
world.

Unlike things, most especially inanimate ones,

they are mere beings-in-the-world without
consciousness.
Life: irreflechi

As being in the world, life is still irreflechi

(thoughtless, unthinking)
Philosophizing
Grasping for
LIFE
Knowledge as Explicitation

In Explicitation there is nothing to be

demonstrated. All I can do is indicate. I can only
“catch” that to which I am present and give
expression to it.
 Upon transcending from the state of being-in-
the-presence to placing-myself-in-the-presence,
explicitation is possible.
Circular Procedure

“ The so-called circular procedure of explicitation is the expression of what

man himself is in his essential structure—namely, a being which in its
being-in-the-world always aims at its “TO BE” itself, a being whose “to
be” is consciousness of being. It is from this consciousness, which he
himself is, that the philosopher has to start. There is no other starting point
outside the consciousness of his existence there is nothing but
concealedness with respect to both the subject pole and the object pole.
Be-ing
Implicit

Be-in
Explicit
 Being-in-the-
presence

Placing-oneself-
in-the-presence
II. Phenomenology and the
Nature of Knowledge

“
Knowledge is the object of our inquiry. We
want to discover its true nature. To attain this goal, it
is necessary, however, to place “between brackets”
all kinds of theories about knowledge. Both idealistic
and empiricist theories are provisionally set aside as
well as all the implicit assumption regarding
knowledge which are current among specialists in
positive sciences.
 THE INTERCOURSE OF
MIND AND REALITY
PROCESS: Perception

RESULT: Knowledge
“ I HAVE TO PLACE MYSELF IN PERCEPTION
AS IT IN REALITY OCCURS AND GIVE
EXPRESSION TO IT. THIS IS POSSIBLE
BECAUSE THE PERCEPTION-OF-
SOMETHING IS NOT CONCEALED FROM
ME, FOR I AM CONSCIOUS OF IT.
“ PERCEPTION IS PERCEIVING
CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE WORLD,
BUT AT THE SAME TIME
PERCEPTION-CONSCIOUSNESS.
Subject | Object
Knower | Known
Subject knows the object – Active voice
PERCEIVING CONSCIOUSNESS OF
THE WORLD
.

Object is known by the subject – Passive voice

PERCEPTION-CONSCIOUSNESS
 THE PERCEPTION OF SOMETHING

“
BELONGS TO, WHAT WE HAVE
CALLED PREVIOUSLY, THE
“IRREFLECHI,” OF WHICH I
POSSESS A “LIVED EXPERIENCE.”
REFLECTION ON PERCEPTION
MEANS THAT I PLACE MYSELF IN
THE PRESENCE OF PERCEPTION TO
WHICH I AM PRESENT, THAT I
“CATCH IT, AND GIVE EXPRESSION
 Being-in-the-
presence

Placing-oneself-
in-the-presence
Be-ing

Be-in
A. INTENTIONALITY
Consciousness is never wrapped
up in itself

Consciousness is intercourse with

reality
Consciousness is never wrapped up in itself

Consciousness is never the consciousness of

consciousness itself but always of that which is
not consciousness itself.
Consciousness is consciousness of something
other than consciousness itself.
Consciousness is intercourse with
reality
The object of consciousness is always the reality.
Perceiving consciousness is a being-with-reality,
and without reality, something which the mind
would perceive, perception is not perception but
dreaming or imagining.
B. NOESIS AND NOEMA
Consciousness is not pure passivity
Dialectic unity of Noesis and Noema
Phenomenology
Consciousness is not pure passivity

Without perceiving consciousness, things are

nothing-for-man.
Dialectic unity of Noesis and
Noema

Noesis = The act of Consciousness

Noema = The perceived
Dialectic unity of Noesis and
Noema
Noesis = The perceiving = Subject =Knower
THE SUBJECT-OF-THE-OBJECT
Noema = The perceived = Object =Known
THE OBJECT-OF-THE-SUBJECT
Dialectic unity of Noesis and Noema

KNOWLEDGE is, on the one hand, the wonderful

mystery of man’s openness to reality and, on the
other, is the mystery of reality’s-being-for-man
I FIND THINGS; THEY ARE
GIVEN TO ME.
 PASSIVE
NOEMA NOESIS
The
Intelligible
World

The
Sensible
World
 ACTIVE
NOEMA NOESIS
The
Intelligible
World

The
Sensible
World
 Dialectic unity of Noesis and
Noema
NOEMA NOESIS
The
Intelligible
World

The
Sensible
World
“
THROUGH KNOWLEDGE, MAN AND THE WORLD
“BECOME THEMSELVES.” MAN “BECOMES
HIMSELF” BECAUSE IT IS PRECISELY THROUGH
KNOWLEDGE THAT HE BREAKS THROUGH THE
DETERMINISM OF NATURE. BY VIRTUE OF THIS
BREAK-THROUGH, MAN IS MAN AND NOT A
MERE THING OF NATURE. HOWEVER, HE
CANNOT ACCOMPLISH THIS WITHOUT THE AID
OF THE THINGS OF NATURE, FOR TO KNOW IS TO
EXIST, TO-BE-WITH-THINGS. BUT THROUGH
THIS BEING-WITH-THINGS IN KNOWLEDGE A
 WORD OF PAUL

“
CLAUDEL,
CONNAITRE, TO
KNOW, IS A KIND
OF CO-NAITRE, A
BEING BORN
TOGETHER
Phenomenology

PHENOMENOLOGY IS A PHILOSOPHY
OF ENCOUNTER
C. VIEWPOINT, PROFILE, UNITY,
and HORIZON

CONDITIONS OF REAL PERCEPTION

 VIEWPOINT

The place, perspective, or attitude where the

subject perceives
 PROFILE

The aspect that is seen on the thing from the

viewpoint of a subject.
 UNITY

The totality of the entire field of perception.

 HORIZON

The background where the thing lies.

 REAL PERCEPTION

IF IT IS SEEN FROM A VIEWPOINT

CONSEQUENTLY SEEING A PROFILE FROM THE
THING, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE
FIELD WHERE IT IS PLACED AMONG THE
HORIZON IT LIES.
III. IMAGE OF
KNOWLEDGE
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE WORLD-FOR-MAN

THE SUBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE

SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE
WORLD-FOR-MAN

Man becomes himself when the

world is for man.
“
Man realizes himself, achieves his
being-a-person, answers his
vocation, advances toward his
destiny, when through his creative
cultural activity, he makes the
world a dwelling place for man.
MAN WHO HAS/IS
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS ≠ being-in-the-world
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS = placing-oneself-in-
the-presence
WORLD IS
WORLD-FOR-MAN ≠ merely a habitat for
man
WORLD-FOR-MAN = “HOME”
 SUBJECTIVITY OF OBJECTIVITY

SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS + WORLD-FOR-MAN = SUBJECTIVITY OF

PLACING-ONESELF-IN-THE-PRESENCE
OBJECTIVITY
HOME = DIALOGUE OF BOTH
(IMMANENT ACT) (CREATIVE OF CULTURE) (MEANING OF EVERYTHING)
 OBJECTS AND SUBJECTS ARE
NOT MERELY RELATED ONLY.
THEY ARE THE TWO SIDES OF
THE COIN. ONE CANNOT EXIST
WITHOUT THE OTHER.
THE OBJECT THAT IS KNOWN “EXISTS” DEPENDENTLY ON THE KNOWING OF THE SUBJECT (MAN).
THE SUBJECT THAT KNOWS “EXISTS” DEPENDENTLY ON THE KNOWN, THE OBJECT (REVEALING).

X Object only
X Subject only
√ Subject + Object = Being
THE WORLD IS CONSCIOUS BECAUSE ITS PART, MAN,
IS CONSCIOUS
SUBJECTIVITY MADE MANIFEST
Image of knowledge through…
Creative of Culture – for through it, there
arises a world-for-man, a world having a
possibility of affective value and meaning
for man

Immanent act – by which knowledge

primarily perfects subject itself.
 Therefore

SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS + WORLD-FOR-MAN = SUBJECTIVITY OF

PLACING-ONESELF-IN-THE-PRESENCE
OBJECTIVITY
HOME = DIALOGUE OF BOTH
(IMMANENT ACT) (CREATIVE OF CULTURE) (MEANING OF EVERYTHING)
Subject of Knowledge
WHO EXACTLY IS THE SUBJECT OF MY KNOWLEDGE?

I
Not a supra-individual EGO

IF SO, TRUTH-FOR-ME IS ALSO TRUTH-FOR-

YOU.

I AND YOU COINCIDE IN A SUPRA-INDIVIDUAL

SUBJECT
IF SUCH IS THE CASE…

“
THIS LOSES SIGHT OF ONE OF THE
MOST PRIMARY EVIDENCES OF
KNOWLEDGE—NAMELY, THAT IT IS I
WHO KNOWS, WHILE I AM NOT THE
OTHER.
“
On the other hand, the fact that I am not the other
does not mean that the other has nothing
whatsoever to do with me when I know. The
other can be found in everyone of my cognitive
acts…However, no matter what importance this
other has, ultimately it is I who knows, and no
one else can take this task over from me.
WHAT IS THE SUBJECT-I?

STEPHAN STRASSER’S ANALYSIS ON THE SUBJECT:

RETROVERTING ACT.
THE ORIGIN AND TERMINUS

When I wash myself

When I correct myself
When I hate myself
When I love myself
When I think of myself

I MYSELF
ORIGIN: IT IS IN THIS “I” THESE
ACTIVITIES FIND THEIR
ORIGIN
TERMINUS: IT IS IN THIS “I” THESE
ACTIVITES FIND THEIR END.
ORIGIN: The same identical “I.”

TERMINUS: Plurality of Termini

RECONCILIATION OF PLURALITY
OF TERMINI

“
THEY ARE NOT PURELY A PLURALITY, FOR
HEAD, MISTAKES, MISDEEDS, CAPACITIES,
ETC, ARE

MINE
SUBJECT-EGO – Identical with itself

QUASI-OBJECTIVIVE EGO – these are the

plurality of the self, i.e., the parts of the whole. They
are called quasi-object for they do not show the
same distantness from the subject as it is shown by
the objects of my world. They are almost-object, as
it were object, because they are not identical with
the subject-ego, without, however, being object
 Subject-ego – I am myself

Quasi-objective ego – I have

myself
HAVING YOURSELF IS HINGED
WITH HISTORICITY AND
FACTICITY

“ The subject-I is not Nothingness. It is

a positive reality, from which facticity
and history derive their unity and are
my Body, my World, and my History.
“
The knowing subject does not reduce itself to
the affirmation of the object. Otherwise, I
would have said everything that can be said
about the subject as soon as I explicitate it as
the affirmation of the object. Evidently, this is
not the case, for in one and the same act I
affirm both the object-which-I-am-not and the
subject-which-I-am.
 Subject of the Knowledge is

An Embodied subjectivity. A subject that can know object. An object that is concurrently a
subject.

HAS IS
 ONCE THIS PROPER AND

“
POSITIVE MEANING OF THE
SUBJECT-I IS UNDERSTOOD,
THE POSSIBILITY IS GIVEN
THAT IT IS PRIMARILY THE
SUBJECT WHICH GAINS
PERFECTION THROUGH THE
ACT OF KNOWING.
 Through the life of knowledge

“ • I make reality my personal possession.

• I affirm myself as person, every act of
knowing means a phase in growth of my
personal being.
• Reality does not gain in perfection, but it
is I who benefits.
As a knowing subject

I acknowledge that reality has its own mode

of being, and this recognition means primarily an
enrichment order progressively my own, I achieve
my being-a-person.
Knowing

is an immanent act, for it is an act

which originates from the subject which I
am and remains in me as my perfection
IV. SENSITIVE AND SPIRITUAL
KNOWING

SENSITIVE AND SPIRITUAL KNOWING ARE

INSEPARABLE

SENSITIVE AND SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE

ARE NOT REDUCIBLE TO EACH OTHER
SENSITIVE AND SPIRITUAL
KNOWING ARE INSEPARABLE

Have you looked but have not seen?

Have you heard but have not listened?
Have you uttered but have not spoken?
Have you sensed but have not perceived?
“ It is perfectly impossible to isolate certain
facets of knowing from one another and,
therefore, it is not permissible to present
sensitive and spiritual knowing as separable.
Man does not have PURELY SENSITIVE
seeing which is not impregnated with
spiritual consciousness or understanding.
Sense-Know-
Understand
SENSITIVE AND SPIRITUAL
KNOWLEDGE ARE NOT
REDUCIBLE TO EACH OTHER

SENSE KNOWING IS NOT SPIRITUAL KNOWING

SPIRITUAL KNOWING IS NOT SENSE KNOWING
Real Perception

It is real perception when these are present:

THE VIEWPOINT
PROFILE
UNITY
HORIZON
Real Understanding

TEMPORALITY
FACTICITY
HISTORICITY
GRASPING THE COGNITIVE
ASPECT:
THE ABSOLUTE.
WE MEAN: UNDERSTANDING TRANSCENDS THE
RELATIVITY WHICH AFFECTS PERCEPTION.

IN THIS SENSE, UNDERSTANDING ESCAPES

RELATIVITY AND IS ABSOLUTE.
The Distinction

Sense Knowing:
grasps the thisness, here, and now.

Spiritual Understanding:
grasps the essence, the nature,
the quiddity of something.
SENSE KNOWING AND SPIRITUAL
UNDERSTANDING
ARE INSEPARABLE BUT ARE NOT
REDUCIBLE TO EACH OTHER
Sense Knowing = Accidents

Spiritual Knowing = Essence

My spiritual understanding is never disconnected from sensitive
knowing