Homonymy of "I" and distributive knowledge

Gustav Shpet notes that when we say "I", we unwittingly fall into homonymy: it is one thing to assert something, directly related to speaker, the other - to use mathematical statements, which have not any "subject" of assertion. This ability of statements - to be shared by others, we call distributive knowledge. The task of the article is to present a classification of distributive ideas. If it is obvious that the statements of type 2 x 2 = 4 are of one type, namely, of universal and necessary distribution, then what are other classes of distribution? Knowledge is what is distributed, the circulation of knowledge is a necessary feature of any kind of knowledge. One can not, therefore, to posses the knowledge, the only possibility is to share it. However, the fact that knowledge is distributed entity does not means that any type of knowledge is distributed by the same way. Classification of distributive knowledge can be built on different bases, first of all on a degree of universality: singular distribution, particular and universal. But also there are ideas that con be shared by nobody, even by uttering. Therefore, there is zero distribution. And we can point out on negative forms of distribution. The latter can also be specified by the degree of universality. The article traces the way in which the idea of the distribution of knowledge implicitly presented in Early modern metaphysics, it regards the elements of Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz doctrines. The special emphasis is on the Leibniz' one: the world of monads, at first glance, actually excludes any distributive knowledge, for every monad is essentially individual. Yet it is in Leibniz we find many elements of a distributive theory of knowledge. We mean Leibniz' special interpretation of innate ideas and the point where imperceptible transformations in conscious perceptions. In conclusion we point out that the concept of distributive knowledge was not fully manifested and, due to the Kantian critique of knowledge, was screened by the concept of objectivity.

Keywords

Authors

References