Münchhausen trilemma

As Munchausen Trilemma a formulated by Hans Albert philosophical problem is referred. It is about the question whether it was possible to find a " final cause" (in the sense of a final cause or an inescapable first initial) or to prove scientifically.

Alberts formulation

Hans Albert argues that any attempts must fail for a final justification or cause to Münchhausen trilemma. Munchausen Trilemma means that any attempt of the proof of a final ground leads to one of three possible outcomes:

Besides the fact that this claim was misunderstood in many ways, it triggers up to the present day philosophical discussions of, because the representatives of the biblical and theological schools require one last reason, a final cause, in which they ultimately want to see God. Others who are skeptical about any form of dogma, like to appeal to the Münchhausen trilemma, which thereby but itself becomes a dogma, since it can only claim validity when ( dogmatic example ) refrains from apply it to themselves.

The name " Münchhausen - trilemma " is an ironic reference to the legendary literary character Baron Munchausen, who claimed to have pulled out of a swamp by his own hair. A philosophical use of this image can be found in Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, who describes it as " a kind of logical Nothzucht and unnatural " when someone tries to " a more than Münchhausen 's audacity, himself out of the swamp of nothingness by the hair to draw into existence. " Münchhausen trilemma contains three of the five tropes of Agrippa and is therefore also compared with the Agrippa trilemma.

The trilemma situation

Suppose that proposition p is to be justified. Three ways seem possible for this:

In addition, and at the same time be seen as motivation for the formulation of this Münchhausen trilemma, Albert adds (in a sense ) added: "If there was a final justification (which, fortunately, is hardly possible ), would this inevitably lead to a dogma. "

Because there is no infallible sources of knowledge, but at best sources whose infallibility is dogmatically asserted, there are according to the Münchhausen trilemma no privileged access to truth.

To solve the problem history

That these there are three alternatives in reasoning situations can already be found in ancient Greek philosophy, first in the Analytica posteriora of Aristotle ( Bekker count 72b5 ff.) In the Pyrrhonian skepticism which play an important role. Supposedly, this argumentation was used by skeptics to Agrippa ( 1st century AD).

A philosophy that sees itself practically, the reasoning is here sometimes and instead provides a decision at the beginning of the system. For example, stressed spruce in § 1 in the system of ethics based on the principles of science teaching that the beginning is not justified, but must be founded: " Not according to a theoretical insight, but according to a practical interest; I want to be independent, so I consider myself for it. "

In modern philosophy then Jakob Friedrich Fries has the requirement to prove anything, dismissed as contradictory, because it leads to an infinite regress, and as a result, Kant's method ( which meant the Kantian assertion of the possibility of synthetic judgments a priori ) rejected. A further illustration is found in Paul Natorp. Following Leonard Nelson sought to prove that the theory of knowledge is ever impossible.

However, the constant expansion of the reasoning space is of the essence of science, infinitive recourses are well connected with epistemological as well as scientific knowledge enhancements, especially if they are addressed in the future. Each setting up a new hypothesis extends the infinitive regress, leading to new insights ( because even if a hypothesis proves false, untrue or initially not verifiable, this is a realization ).

The attempt at a solution of the frieze 's theory that perceptual experiences could establish rates because their evidence was immediately clear was particularly criticized by Popper, who described this position as psychologism in the logic of research in detail. At the same time, Popper has shown so that empirical science is never a last plea is able to deliver.

Some criticism of the Münchhausen trilemma comes from the so-called School of Transzendentalpragmatiker, which refers to Karl- Otto Apel, holding a final justification possible. Apel has referred to the fundamental objection to the skeptical argument that any doubt which is represented by a claim to absoluteness, in a " performative self-contradiction " leads.

Vittorio Hösle also refers to the absolute right of the Münchhausen trilemma. If the statement is true, then it's a apodictic statement itself. Hösle reformulated the statement of the Münchhausen trilemma showing as "It's the last reason that there is no ultimate foundation. " This claim is for Hösle self-contradictory.

The Critical rationalism argues with the trilemma against the conventional or " classical" rational understanding, the right manufacturing strategy, which aims to ensure that any attempt to indubitable valid justification of a statement is this deductive, inductive, causal, transcendental, or out in any other way, it fails, that a secure grounding in turn must be securely founded. The Critical rationalism chooses a path outside of the embossed by justificationism dogmatism and relativism, by holding on the existence of an absolute truth ( absolutism ), but by the fallibility of man and hence the conjectural character of knowledge emanates ( fallibilism ), arguments always only a negative effect awards ( negativism (critical rationalism )) and the impossibility of justifying epistemology asserts ( knowledge skepticism ).

Last but not least is behind the debate following major motivation: Can and should there be a dogma? This would result in the issue of a final, incessantly present in the legal authority or entity, or weakened, an instance which, although sometimes wrong is that you nevertheless should always try to connect from other considerations out.

Criticism

For Friedrich Kambartel the trilemma is valid but requires that " justifications take place only within the world of words and sentences [ ... ]. " Such a limitation, however, is always not appropriate when the remarks on actions and their options and conditions apply. Munchausen Trilemma " overlooks the fact that reasoning in the field of linguistic expressions can also lead and if they are its claim, also must lead out in the pragmatic- life-world context in which language and thus only win scientific actions their meaning. "

Nicholas Rescher refers to the already in Thomas Aquinas ( Trin. 2, 2, 1c, . Cf. IV met in 4) well-known distinction between a theoretical logic ( " logica docens " ) and a life-world practice of logic ( " logica utens " ) which was taken up by Charles S. Peirce again (CP 2.186 ). The establishment of a formal logical system assumes that a logical apparatus of argumentation is already informally exists. Formal logic is the developed form of practical reasoning that can not do without a präsystematisches understanding of logical rules. In this sense, the formal logic is circular by utens maps the logica content. It comes after Rescher on the basis of argumentation, the common preconceptions, whether a circularity of reasoning is considered harmful. Within the system of formal logic, however, it is common ground for Rescher that a circle in an argument is flawed ( in a proof, a declaration or a definition). In view of the infinite regress Rescher points out that one must distinguish between a physical infinite chain of causes and an argumentative thinking process. The physical cause chain is quite conceivable process of logical reasons is not wrong. Only in the area of ​​cognitive recourse pass the limits of pure reason in the sense of Kant. This raises the question of pragmatism, whether the statement of reasons in accordance with the intended purposes. " Since we can not reach totality, we must come to rest in the sufficiency, and that's the end rather a practical than a purely theoretical matter. The final doctrine of Nichtrealisierbarkeit a infinite regress in cognitive matters is that the primacy of the practical is an inescapable aspect of the human condition, of the theoretical reason. "

Micha H. Werner points out that the Münchhausen trilemma is focused on reasoning as an analytic truth and is therefore regarded as an analytic reasoning can not do without preconditions. " But that does not answer the question whether there are other reasons besides methods of derivation from given premises. " When such an alternative called Werner the irrefutable evidence that is already found in the Metaphysics in Aristotle ( 1005b et seq.)

Marcus Willaschek argues against the discussion of the Münchhausen trilemma that this principle is a false rationality to the course. Already Immanuel Kant showed in the Critique of Pure Reason in the chapter on the Transcendental Dialectic, that there is no way to prove something unconditioned as true, be it the immortality of the soul, the infinity of the universe or the existence of God. The problem of infinite regress Kant treated approximately in the antinomy of pure reason on the question of the infinity of the world ( CPR B 364, AA III, 342 ff). A final justification is then not possible. What Kant remained were the postulates of pure reason. In terms of the rationality of pragmatism Willaschek instead recommends to check in the chain of questions of justification in each case whether because each expected answer to the next question at all is still likely to contribute a relevant information to solve the actual problem. In pragmatic sense, a further question is always no more useful when the question for the actual problem is no longer relevant. This reasoning, set the questions is not to be equated with the termination of the method according to Albert, but follows a pragmatic rationality that is focused on problem solving.