Reality and Reason. Dialectic and the Theory of Knowledge

by Sean Sayers

Is knowledge a reflection of reality? What role do experience and interpretation play in knowledge? Can truth be objective, or is it socially constructed and relative? In this book Sean Sayers makes an important and original contribution to the Marxist discussion of these questions.
His thesis is that all ideas - including false, illusory and irrational ones - reflect objective reality. In the course of explaining this view, Sayers develops a historical and realist account of knowledge, which he defends through a powerful critique of classical empiricist, rationalist and Kantian approaches, and with reference to current debates in analytical and continental philosophy.
The author draws substantially on Hegel's philosophy, explaining the dialectic approach in epistemology in clear and accessible terms. He demonstrates its relevance to contemporary controversies in philosophy and the social sciences, including current arguments surrounding the work of Marx and Freud.

Genres: Philosophy

240 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 1985

About the author

Sean Sayers has written extensively on Hegelian and Marxist philosophy from a Hegelian‑Marxist perspective. He has worked in the areas of social philosophy, ethics, theory of knowledge, metaphysics and logic. He has also written on Freud and psychoanalysis, and is currently working on issues in aesthetics. He studied at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford and holds a PhD from the University of Kent. His work has been translated into Chinese, French, German, Greek, Japanese, Korean, and Turkish. He has held visiting appointments in Colorado, Massachusetts, Sydney, Istanbul, Shanghai, Wuhan, and Beijing. He is currently Visiting Professor of Philosophy at Peking University (2016-18).

Reviews

[Mikel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good intro. The content is pretty basic and assumes no knowledge. It addresses these basic questions from a materialist, realist, dialectical point of view. This implies:
- unity of subject and object. Consciousness is a state of matter.
- non-reductionism (though what this entails is hardly developed).
- motion is the mode of existence of matter. contradictions are the sources of motion (what exactly this means is not really developed).
- relations are not external to a body, but constitute and determine it.
- (hence) truth is concrete, the totality and not the thing-in-itself is the end goal of knowledge.
- appearances are the non-contingent manifestation of reality. They are not identical and not a veil.
- pratice is the ultimate criterion of truth.

From these principles follow all the following:
- The argument from illusion (e.g., brain in a vat) is intelligently addressed. All sensations reveal something real about the world. If our brain is in a vat, our experiences reveal brain impulses (and the motives of the evil scientist, and maybe more). Nothing a priori prevents us from expanding that knowledge of reality though further interaction with those experiences (Truman Show style). We may be very mistaken, but we can not be. This is enough for realism. (Also applies to dreams and stuff)
- Only a correspondance theory of truth makes sense; practicality is a consequence of truth, and particular disdain for coherence theories for their detatchment from reality.
- The empiricists (naïve materialism) flatten reality to experiences, which allows for Berkeley's idealism to creep in. The connection between appearance and reality is given by practice (hence salvaging realism from Kant's ghost), and the fact that they are not identical salvages materialism (by avoiding Berkeley's ghost).
- The argument from social relativism simply transforms the categories of knowledge put forward by Kant into social categories. Since all (most) our perception is theory ladden, knowledge is hopeless, it is always polluted. The social mediation of knowledge is true, but this is not pollution. Social categories are like a lense, where they may refract and distort or they may augment and reveal. Regardless, the underlying reality comes through. Also, practice.
These are, overall, solid points.

I am critical of certain aspects of the book. It seemed to me that he a priori dismisses (or at least does not affirm) the possibility of absolute truth, which is at odds with his (correct) statement that there are no a priori foundations for knowledge. Then, as much effort as Sayers make to demistify expressions like 'contradiction' and 'unity of opposites', I do not think he suceeds. These formulas are only helful insofar as the meaning is clear, and in here they are not. I think it is possible to demistify Hegel, but he often fails. Due to this there are more than one outrageous takes throughout.

I do appreciate his historical approach to philosophy. He grounds the position he discusses (supports or criticizes) well, with very relevant quotes from Locke, Hegel, Marx, Hume, Berkeley, Kant, and others.

[ernst · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sayers macht die klassische Trennung von dialektischem und historischem Materialismus, wodurch er freilich den DM nicht vertehen kann. Daher ist das hier keine Erklärung des Marxismus, sondern einer seiner akademischen Erscheinungsformen, wie sie in der Entfremdung von der Praxis immer wieder entstehen. Daher auch die Unbedarftheit, mit der der Autor Freud einbezieht und die Abstraktion und Oberflächlichkeit seiner Analysen und Argumente.

Aber so als Buch für Einsteiger in die Thematik, die sonst nicht so viel mit Philosophie am Hut haben, ist das ganz gut. Der Typ kann sich verständlich machen und gibt so ne Einleitung in paar Grundströmungen und Grundargumente der modernen Philosophie (Kant, Locke, analytischer Philosophie, Empirismus, Rationalusmus. Das ist ganz schön und systemtatisch aufgeschlüsselt. Aber für Philosophen auch sehr öde und in der Breite durchaus nervig.

Sonst lieber Lukács lesen, der in ne ähnliche Richtung geht, aber ungleich viel tiefer und mit echter philosophscier Brillianz begeistert (davon kann man bei Sayers' bemühtem Abarbeiten nicht sprechen).

[August Denys · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book for a more indepth look at the conception and application of Dialectics, and to understand better the switch from the previous methods and ideas of epistemology, Kant and Hume. There are good things to take away from this book, it goes into the distinctions between the Rationalists, Empiricists, and the shift to Kantianism and movement in Kant's thought to understand the necessity of the mediation of the object. However, I find that it is lacking in certain aspects. In the case of philosophy being able to see and understand the full argument is important; however, I wonder how philosophy works in regard to referencing other philosophies by name and not really giving the full argument. Anyway, the lack that I see in this is the reference to the others; however, you can find useful stuff in this book.

[Kenneth Goodall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Book covers an insane amount of ground and traverses the relevant topics in epistemology in such a clear and insightful manner. Beautifully written such that even a philosophical novice such as my self can learn something

[Usman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellet book for anyone who is new to philosophy and wants to obtain indepth understanding of philosophy in terms of the nature of reality and in particular on critical realism. A fun read that is quite well written.