Question

In After Finitude by Quentin Mellasioux, QM argues that the existence of the Arche-fossil creates a conflict between the intersubjective objectivism of the current scientific paradigm and the correlationist idealism, which states that an object cannot be known in-itself independently of the filter of the Subject. However, can't an Idealist safely counter this anti-correlationism with the argument that the intersubjective objective scientific paradigm is limited by the idealist conception and thereby are not in fact accessing the arche-fossil in-itself, thereby not having a conflict in the first place? I need someone to explain to me how this does not immediately refute QM's argument. a) Rejecting Meillassoux's Argument: One could entirely dismiss Meillassoux's argument by asserting that the scientific paradigm is inherently limited by our subjective understanding, therefore, not truly accessing the Arche-fossil in-itself.

b) Agreeing with Meillassoux: Alternatively, one might agree with Meillassoux, arguing that the existence of the Arche-fossil challenges correlationism by suggesting aspects of reality exist independently of human subjectivity.

c) Modifying Correlationism: Another approach could involve modifying correlationism to accommodate the limits of scientific understanding, suggesting that while the scientific paradigm may not access reality in-itself, it still operates within the confines of correlationism.

d) Expanding the Debate: One could suggest further philosophical inquiries or perspectives that address both Meillassoux's argument and the limitations of correlationism, aiming to find a synthesis or broader understanding that encompasses both positions.

Answer 1

An Idealist's counterclaim to Meillassoux's argument that intersubjective scientific paradigms are subject to idealist constraints does not directly refute Meillassoux. Instead, it indicates differing views on the limits of scientific understanding and the need for a broader discussion to reconcile these philosophical positions.

Step-by-step explanation:

In Quentin Meillassoux's After Finitude, the concept of the Arche-fossil challenges the correlationist view that knowledge of objects is inherently subjective. An Idealist could counter this by arguing that even the intersubjective objectivity claimed by science is ultimately a construct of human perception, hence not conflicting with Idealism's premise. However, this would not immediately refute Meillassoux's argument, as he is not claiming that we can achieve absolute objectivity, but rather that the correlationist framework is insufficient to explain phenomena such as the Arche-fossil. This fossil indicates a reality that predates human subjectivity and seems to resist complete encapsulation by intersubjective interpretation.

The approach of rejecting Meillassoux's argument presupposes that the scientific paradigm is merely an idealist conception, not truly reaching the Arche-fossil 'in-itself'. This assumes that all scientific claims are necessarily bounded by human cognitive limits. On the other hand, modifying correlationism to account for scientific limits concedes that the correlationist idealism may not fully comprehend the object as it is, without necessarily overturning the paradigm. Expanding the debate looks for a synthesis that could integrate Meillassoux's critiques with a broader philosophical context, possibly via perspectives that establish a balance between subjective perception and objective reality without fully subscribing to either extreme.