Inner Sense

Reality as having been constituted in large part by unseen thought is enough for us to transcend the modern worldview which only takes material things into consideration and into account. To borrow from Arendt: “What appears in the outside world in addition to physical signs is only what we make of them through the operation of thought.” In short, appearance versus reality. Moreover, and to borrow from Arendt yet again:

“To the philosopher, speaking out of the experience of the thinking ego, man is quite naturally not just word but thought made flesh, the always mysterious, never fully elucidated incarnation of the thinking capability. And the trouble with this fictitious being is that it is neither the product of a diseased brain nor one of the easily dispelled ‘errors of the past,’ but the entirely authentic semblance of the thinking activity itself.” 

To reiterate the all-too famous Cartesian maxim: “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am). All of it then “gives rise to doubt of the world’s reality and of my own.” Arendt added: “Thinking can seize upon and get hold of everything real – event, object, its own thoughts; their realness is the only property that remains stubbornly beyond its reach.” 

Moreover, the conventional senses pertain to one thing – namely, the world of appearances and sensations – whereas the “sixth sense” or the “inner sense” pertains to realness and reality. Thought – the essence of man or the attribute of man which distinguishes him from all other creatures – is then associated with this “sixth sense” or “inner sense.” We end up having to withdraw from the world of appearances and sensations in order to enter into the world of reality and thought, the guide for which is our “sixth sense” or “inner sense.” One’s true nature, therefore, is conceived and understood in solitude and in private thought. To borrow from Sir Francis Bacon:

“A man’s nature is best perceived in privateness, for there is no affectation; in passion, for that putteth a man out of his precepts; and in a new case or experiment, for there custom leaveth him. They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations; otherwise they may say, ‘multum incola fuit anima mea,’ when they converse in those things they do not affect. In studies, whatsoever a man commandeth upon himself, let him set hours for it; but whatsoever is agreeable to his nature, let him take no case for any set times; for his thoughts will fly to it of themselves; so as the spaces of other business or studies will suffice. A man’s nature runs either to herbs or weeds; therefore let him seasonably water the one, and destroy the other.” 

Hence, human nature is a matter or an issue that pertains entirely to the attribute or function of thought. It could perhaps then suffice to contend or argue that in turn, thought is defined and shaped by epistemology and structure. Thought is either expanded or limited by both epistemology and structure. We are then faced with the question of whether our “epistemological regime” and structure enable the kind of freedom and space needed in order to allow for one’s true nature to be conceived and realized. And simply put, the answer is no. Our “epistemological regime” and structure does not allow for the kind of freedom and space needed in order for one’s true nature to be realized, as Chomsky contended. It follows that the bourgeoisie character and personality amounts to an alienation of the real and true nature that can be conceived and realized if the “epistemological regime” and structure were to allow the freedom and space needed in order to achieve one’s real and true nature. For now, we have to accept and cope with the fact that the prevailing “epistemological regime” and structure can only bring out the worst of our individual and collective nature.