1. Outline of Unification Epistemology
Unification epistemology has, among its other features, the characteristic of being an alternative to traditional epistemologies. Thus, I will introduce Unification epistemology in terms of the topics dealt with by traditional epistemologies, such as the origin, object, and method of cognition.
1.1. The Origin of Cognition
As already explained, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, empiricism, holding that the origin of cognition lies in one’s experience, and rationalism, holding that the origin of cognition lies in one’s thinking, emerged. Empiricism fell into skepticism in the hands of Hume, and rationalism ended in dogmatism with the work of Wolff. In order to overcome this impasse, Kant tried to unify empiricism and rationalism through his transcendental method, but he was left with an agnostic world of things-in-themselves. It is in the context of such a background that I will introduce the position of Unification epistemology.
In the former epistemologies, the relationship between the subject of cognition (human being) and the object of cognition (all things) was not well-clarified. Since they did not know the relationship between the human being and all things, emphasis was placed either on the subject of cognition, as in rationalism, asserting that cognition is achieved exactly as reason (or understanding) infers, or else emphasis was placed on the object of cognition, as in empiricism, asserting that cognition is achieved by grasping the object as it is, through sensation.
Kant held that cognition is achieved when the sense content coming from the object and the forms of thought of the subject are synthesized and unified by means of imagination, whereby an object of cognition is finally formed. He was not aware, however, of the necessary relationship between the subject and the object. So for Kant, cognition can be made only within the framework of the categories of the subject, and in the end, he held that the things-in-themselves are unknowable.
Hegel held that in the self-development of the absolute spirit, Idea becomes nature by alienating itself, but eventually restores itself through the human spirit. In this system, nature is merely an intermediate step leading up to the rise of the human spirit, and has no positive meaning as a permanent existence. Finally, in Marxism, the human being and nature are in an accidental relationship of opposition.
When we look at the problem in this way, how to understand correctly the relationship between the subject of cognition (human being) and the object of cognition (all things) becomes a crucial issue. From an atheistic position, the necessary relationship between human beings and nature can not be established. Even in the theory of the natural generation of the universe, human beings and nature are no more than accidental beings to each other. Only when the significance of God’s creation of human beings and all things has been clarified, can the necessary relationship between human beings and all things become clear.
From the perspective of Unification Thought, human beings and all things are beings created in the relationship of subject and object. That is to say, the human being is the lord of dominion, or the subject of dominion over all things, and all things are objects of joy, beauty, and dominion for human beings. Subject and object are in an inseparable relationship. This might be compared to the relationship between the motor and the working parts in a machine. The working parts are meaningless without a motor, and vice-versa. The two components are designed to form a necessary relationship of subject and object. By the same token, human beings and all things have been created in such a way that both exist in a necessary relationship.
Cognition is the judgment of a human subject on all things, which are the objects of joy, beauty, and dominion. In this connection, cognition (i.e., judgment) involves “experience,” and judgment is carried out through the function of “reason.” Therefore, experience and reason are both necessary. Thus, in Unification epistemology, experience and reason are both indispensable, and cognition takes place through the unified operation of the two. Furthermore, since the human being and all things are in the relationship of subject and object, we can know all things fully and correctly.
1.2. The Object of Cognition
Unification Thought, first of all, acknowledges that all things exist objectively, outside the human being; that is, it accepts realism. As the subject of all things, the human being exercises dominion over all things―activities such as cultivating, raising, dealing with, processing, and making use of all things―and also cognizes all things. For that reason, all things must exist outside and independently of the human being, as objects of cognition and of dominion. Furthermore, Unification Thought holds that the human being is the integration of all things, a microcosm―and therefore, that the human being is equipped with all the structures, elements, and qualities of all things. This is so because all things of the natural world have been created in symbolic resemblance to the human being, with the human body as the model. Therefore, the human being and all things have a mutual resemblance. Moreover, within the human being, the body is created in resemblance to the mind.
Cognition is always accompanied by judgment, and judgment is an act of measurement. For this measurement, standards (criteria) are necessary, and there are ideas existing within the human mind which serve as the standards of cognition. These ideas are called “prototypes.” Each prototype is an image within the mind, and it is an internal object. Cognition takes place as a prototype within the mind (internal image) and an image coming from an external object (external image) are collated.
Realism insisted on the objective existence of the object of cognition, independently of human consciousness. Marxism, which advocates copy theory, is its representative exponent. Subjective idealism, as represented by Berkeley, asserted, on the contrary, that the object of cognition is nothing but ideas in human consciousness. In Unification epistemology, realism and idealism (subjective idealism) are unified.
1.3. The Method of Cognition
The method in Unification epistemology differs both from Kant’s transcendental method, and also from Marx’s dialectical method. The give and receive method, that is, the principle of give and receive action between subject and object, is the method in Unification epistemology. Accordingly, in terms of method, Unification epistemology can be called a “give and receive epistemology.” In the give and receive action between the subject (human being) and object (all things) in cognition, both subject and object must have certain requisites. As already explained in the Theory of Art, for example, subject and object must possess certain requisites in appreciation. In the appreciation of a work of art, the conditions that the subject (appreciator) must possess are: a concern for, or an interest in, the object, a desire to seek value, and the subjective elements of education, taste, and so on. The object (work of art) should be equipped with a purpose of creation, and should possess harmony among its various elements. In cognition, the condition for the subject is to have a prototype and a concern for the object, and the condition for the object is to have content (i.e., attributes) and form. In accordance with the two-stage structure, give and receive action in cognition consists of both inner and outer give and receive actions. Cognition takes place first as outer give and receive action, and then as inner give and receive action. Again, we mention that this theory of cognition is called a “give and receive epistemology.”
Give and receive action takes place between a subject (human being) possessing the necessary requisites and an object (all things) possessing the necessary requisites. First, the content (attributes) and form (forms of existence) of the object are reflected in the human mind at the sensory stage, forming sensory content and form, which may be called an “external image,” since it is brought about by the outer give and receive action. Then, give and receive action (of the collation type) takes place between the external content and form (external image) and the prototype (internal image) which the human subject possesses a priori. This is the inner give and receive action, or the formation of the inner four position foundation. Cognition is accomplished through this inner give and receive action.
Here, I can explain the differences between the method of Unification epistemology, the Kantian transcendental method, and the Marxist dialectical method. In Kant’s method, the content (sense content) comes from the external world (object), and the forms (the forms of intuition and forms of thought) are a priori and subjective elements within the subject. Thus, the content belongs to the object, and the form belongs to the subject. In contrast, in the Unification Thought give and receive epistemology, content and form both belong to both subject and object. That is, both subject and object possess content and form.
In the Marxist method, content and form both belong to the object in the external world, and the consciousness of the subject simply reflects them. Thus, it can rightfully be said that the elements of both Kantian and Marxian epistemologies are contained in Unification epistemology. In other words, in Unification epistemology, there is an element of copy theory in the outer give and receive action, and there is an element of the transcendental method in the inner give and receive action. Thus, within Unification epistemology the dialectical method (copy theory) and transcendental method (Kantian method) are unified.