DORE_ARTICLE.

DOCX

PRAGMATIC EXISTENTIALISM IN A POST-NEWTONIAN WORLD

ISAAK DORE*

INTRODUCTION
For the last 3000 years Western philosophy has had an uneasy relationship
with the methods of thought and investigation in natural science, mostly
physics. Yet physics and philosophy represent two tracks of a single human
endeavor—that of comprehending man’s material and moral environment. A
different metaphor would describe physics and philosophy as opposite sides of
the same coin. Regardless of metaphor, however, there is no doubt that each
discipline has advanced in tandem even if the degree of consensus achieved at
any given historical period has not been the same.
The first section of this essay presents the two-fold thesis that advances in
natural science have influenced social philosophy and that these influences
have been largely (though not exclusively) unidirectional. The section justifies
this thesis by tracing its origin. Why did the scientific advances 3000 years ago
influence social science? How did this influence manifest itself? The second
section examines the nature of this dynamic. What have been the
consequences for philosophy given this dynamic? Has this influence been
progressive or regressive? To what extent has post-Enlightenment physics
undermined the philosophic doctrines based on pre-Enlightenment science?
The first section will demonstrate that, as the early Greeks speculated
about nature and reality, in short, about man’s material world, there was a
natural human impulse to speculate about man’s moral world as well. Given
this tendency, it was natural to think that the latter was as knowable as the
former. A brief outline of pertinent pre-Socratic thought will be presented,
showing the early dynamics of the relation between physics and philosophy,
and how it influenced post-Socratic philosophy and philosophic thought during
the Enlightenment. The first section also explores the nature of the dynamic
between physics and philosophy, namely, the extent to which post-
Enlightenment physics has undermined philosophic doctrines based on pre-
Enlightenment science. For example, how have scientific advances in the post-
Newtonian era (such as quantum mechanics, Einstein’s theory of relativity, and
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle) undermined traditional Enlightenment era

* Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law. I would like to sincerely thank Mark
Obermeyer, my research assistant, for his help.

1277
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

1278 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 54:1277

doctrines such as subject/object distinction, objectivity in texts, the doctrine of

a metaphysical reality beyond the senses, the Platonic body/soul distinction,
and the Cartesian mind/body distinction? These and related questions will be
examined in light of thinkers within the disciplines of science and philosophy,
namely David Hume (whose pragmatism inspired the title of this essay),
Werner Heisenberg, David Bohm, Hans-Georg Gadamer, and Ludwig
Wittgenstein.

I. PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY: ORIGIN OF THE DYNAMIC

The inquiry begins several hundred years before the pre-Socratic period.
This is the time when the great Greek poets and playwriters such as Homer,
Hesiod, and Sophocles lived between the eighth and fifth centuries BCE.
Their writings showed an awareness of a higher and normatively superior
moral law, but its existence was sought to be proved through drama and
tragedy rather than through any sophisticated social or moral theory.1
The pre-Socratic thinkers, however, were the first intellectual movement in
the West to break with explanations of man’s material world based on myth
and superstition.2 Beginning with Thales in 625 BCE,3 all of these thinkers
tried to reach for some fundamental principle or theory that could provide a
unified explanation of nature and reality: What is reality? Why is the world (or
nature) the way it is? How is change explainable? The effort to provide
answers to these questions about the natural world on the basis of reason and
logic rather than myth and superstition was itself an epistemological advance.4
However, some of the early Greeks made a second epistemological leap
still within their rationalist paradigm. This was in taking the first step toward
seeking knowledge of purely human affairs.5 If the laws of nature were
knowable, were “out there” awaiting discovery by the human mind, must not
there also be “natural” laws governing human conduct and human affairs?
Could they not also be similarly discovered? If there is only one distinct and
correct answer to any question pertaining to the laws of physics, do not moral
questions admit of single (and correct) answers? This phenomenon is the
conflation of physical laws with moral law. The trend began with the laws of

1. See generally, Sophocles, Antigone, in TEN GREEK PLAYS 51, 64–65 (Lane Cooper &
H.B. Densmore eds., Robert Whitelaw trans., 1936) (demonstrating the conflict between secular
and divine sources of law).
2. See JONATHAN BARNES, 1 THE PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHERS 3–4 (1979).
3. ISAAK DORE, THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF LAW, at xvii (2007).
4. See BARNES, supra note 2, at 4–5.
5. See id. at 6–7.
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

2010] PRAGMATIC EXISTENTIALISM IN A POST-NEWTONIAN WORLD 1279

nature expressed in terms of social and moral norms and, later, with a reverse
transposition, moral and social norms were expressed simply as “natural law.”6
The thought of three pre-Socratic thinkers is relevant in this regard. The
first is Anaximander (610–546 BCE) who, in addition to propounding an
astoundingly realistic theory of the origin of the universe as having emerged
from a fiery ball that expanded outwards,7 took the first step in the direction of
expressing the laws of nature in moralistic terms. According to the following
fragment attributed to Simplicius:
Anaximander . . . said that . . . the things from which is the coming into being
for the things that exist are also those into which their destruction comes about,
in accordance with what must be. . . . For they give justice (diké) and
reparation to one another for their offence (adikia) in accordance with the
8
ordinance of time . . .
The second pre-Socratic philosopher who conflated the laws of nature with
moral law was Heraclitus (c. 540–480 BCE).9 He espoused the notion that the
phusis, or essential nature of natural phenomena, was explainable in terms of a
single metatheory or “account” (logos).10 Natural science also had a distinctly
moral content, as exemplified by the following fragments by Heraclitus:
11
Thinking is common to all.
12
It belongs to all people to know themselves and to think rightly.
13
Men who are lovers of wisdom must be inquirers into many things indeed.
Wisdom is one thing, to be skilled in true judgment, how all things are steered
14
through all things.
Right thinking is the greatest excellence, and wisdom is to speak the truth and
15
act in accordance with nature, while paying attention to it.

6. For a discussion of the ancient sources which underlie the works of early natural law
theorist Thomas Aquinas, see generally Jan A. Aertsen, Aquinas’s Philosophy in its Historical
Setting, in THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO AQUINAS 12–37 (Norman Kretzmann & Eleonore
Stump eds., 1993).
7. JAMES N. JORDAN, WESTERN PHILOSOPHY 8–10 (1987).
8. BARNES, supra note 2, at 29 (quoting Simplicius) (emphasis added).
9. THE PRESOCRATICS 64 (Philip Wheelwright ed., 1966).
10. Id. at 58–60 (“Listening not to me but to my account it is wise to agree that everything is
one.”).
11. RICHARD D. MCKIRAHAN, JR., PHILOSOPHY BEFORE SOCRATES 119 (1994) (presenting
several translated fragments from the work of Heraclitus).
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Id. at 120.
15. Id.
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

1280 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 54:1277

For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the
LOGOS is common, most people live as if they had their own private
16
understanding.
What understanding (NOOS) or intelligence (PHREN) have they? They put their
trust in popular bards and take the mob for their teacher, unaware that most
17
people are bad, and few are good.
18
One ought not to act and speak like people asleep.
The above fragments are representative of the view of nature in moralistic
terms, a trend which culminated in the notion that moral truths are just as
eternal as natural truths. The key ideas in the above fragments are “right”
thinking, love of wisdom, grasp of the logos, and “good” and “bad” persons,
the former being those who possess true judgment/wisdom, and the latter being
those who do not. These ideas inspired the two great post-Socratic
philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, to undertake the philosophical quest for what
is the best life and ultimate goal for a person.19 According to Heraclitus, all
persons must strive to grasp the logos and its underlying truth.20 Plato and
Aristotle similarly answered the question by asserting that the pursuit of truth
and wisdom should be the highest goal of life, i.e., that the highest virtue was
intellectual in nature.21
Parmenides (c. 515–450 BCE)22 continued the quest for truth in a famous
poem, part of which is dedicated to the “Way of Truth.”23 In it, he described
truth as trustworthy rational discourse.24 Equally important was Parmenides’
assertion that there exists a permanent and unified reality.25 This reality is,
according to Parmenides, unchanging, because “Justice has permitted it . . .
neither to come to be nor to perish, relaxing her shackles, but holds <it>
fast.”26 This is another example of a conflation of natural laws with moral law,
reminiscent of Anaximander’s metaphysical account of “justice and
reparation” between natural events showing destruction and regeneration.27

16. MCKIRAHAN, supra note 11, at 116.

17. Id. at 117.
18. Id. at 118.
19. See Catherine Osborne, Heraclitus, in 1 FROM THE BEGINNING TO PLATO 89 (C.C.W.
Taylor ed., 1997) (noting that Heraclitus inspired Plato).
20. Id. at 88, 96.
21. DORE, supra note 3, at 152–53, 157–59, 207–08, 210–11.
22. THE PRESOCRATICS, supra note 9, at 91–92.
23. BARNES, supra note 2, at 155–56.
24. See MCKIRAHAN, supra note 11, at 151; The Way of Truth, in THE PRESOCRATICS,
supra note 9, at 96–98.
25. See MCKIRAHAN, supra note 11, at 151–55.
26. Id. at 153–54.
27. See supra note 8 and accompanying text.
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

2010] PRAGMATIC EXISTENTIALISM IN A POST-NEWTONIAN WORLD 1281

It is beyond the scope of our inquiry to examine the thought of the other
pre-Socratic philosophers. The three mentioned above were chosen because
they expressed the laws of nature through moralistic notions which history
shows led to the eventual claim that moral rules (like physical laws) had a
permanent and eternal existence and were therefore, above all, knowable. 28
These philosophers also claimed that physical reality not only existed
independently of the mind, but could be explained in terms of objective truths.
As noted above, both notions influenced Western philosophical thought,
beginning with Plato and continuing through the Enlightenment project.29
Thus Plato postulated the distinction between the body and the soul, only
the latter having access to permanent knowledge of unchanging reality
represented by the forms.30 René Descartes, one of the earlier figures of the
Enlightenment, also tried to construct a philosophical system that would yield
fundamental knowledge.31 In his Discourse on the Method and Meditations on
First Philosophy he put forward his method of doubt and logical reasoning that
he hoped would lead to a new philosophical system that would guarantee
knowledge.32 His method of doubt questioned everything, including his own
existence.33 On the latter question of his own existence, however, he came to
his famous conclusion: cogito ergo sum, which claimed that he could not doubt
his existence due to the very fact that he was thinking.34
Having established the res cogitans (the thinking self), Descartes
contrasted it with res extensa, the external world beyond the senses.35
Descartes posited that there was such a reality and the challenge was simply
that of gaining knowledge of it.36 Descartes thus substituted the mind/body
distinction in place of Plato’s body/soul distinction. Both distinctions were,
however, dedicated to the identical claim that a metaphysical reality beyond
the senses really did exist and that it could be the object of knowledge.

28. See supra notes 5–21 and accompanying text.

29. See DORE, supra note 3, at 295 (discussing the influence of Plato and Aristotle’s theories
on Western thought).
30. PLATO, PHAEDO 186–87 (C.J. Rowe ed., 1993); PLATO, TIMAEUS 56 (H.D.P. Lee trans.,
1965); see generally DAVID J. MELLING, UNDERSTANDING PLATO 96–113 (1987); Robert
Heinaman, Plato: Metaphysics and Epistemology, in 1 FROM THE BEGINNING TO PLATO, supra
note 19, at 356, 360.
31. René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, in DESCARTES: SELECTED
PHILOSOPHICAL WRITINGS, 73 at 76 (John Cottingham et al. trans., 1988) [hereinafter Descartes,
Meditations].
32. Id. at 20, 21, 76.
33. Descartes, Meditations, supra note 31, at 127.
34. Id. at 80.
35. See DORE, supra note 3, at 315 n.47.
36. See René Descartes, Principles of Philosophy, in DESCARTES: SELECTED
PHILOSOPHICAL WRITINGS, supra note 31, at 164, 189.
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

1282 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 54:1277

Although the rationalist paradigm of Ancient Greece dominated pre- and

post-Socratic philosophical thought—and beyond—it was bound to crumble.
The onslaught of scientific advances in gaining knowledge of the nature of
reality and the methods and means of providing such knowledge made it
evident that man could not live on reason alone and that experimentation and
observation were indispensable in achieving scientific progress.37 As if on cue,
major figures within the Enlightenment period swung behind empiricism.
Experience rather than reason thus became central to the philosophical thought
of Hobbes, Hume, Berkeley, and Descartes.38
The main purpose of the above sketch is to outline the pre-Socratic origins
of the claim that advances in natural science influenced claims to knowledge in
social science. Indeed, pre-Socratic philosophy made four separate claims:
First, that the natural world was knowable; second, that the natural world could
be understood in moral terms; third, that man’s moral world could be
understood in natural terms; and fourth, that both moral laws and natural laws
were knowable.39 Ever since that time, Western philosophy, whether during
the period of the Ancients or during the period of the Enlightenment, has
labored under the influence of these claims in one form or another. While
there are notable exceptions (as seen below), the philosophical linkages
between the natural and social sciences show that the moving force in social
science was the development of natural science and not the other way around.

A. Nature of the Dynamic

The above section sketched how science influenced philosophy. The
influence was both progressive and regressive. The present section examines
the negative/regressive aspects of this influence. More specifically, it
examines the extent to which post-Enlightenment physics has undermined
philosophic doctrines based on pre-Enlightenment science. It shows that while
doctrines such as the subject/object distinction, the claim of objectivity, the
existence of a metaphysical reality independent of the senses, the body/soul
distinction, the mind/body distinction, etc., have been severely undermined—if
not discredited entirely—philosophy (and science) have not been left in such

37. See generally THOMAS L. HANKINS, SCIENCE AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT 1–16 (1985)
(discussing scientific advances and the new importance placed upon observation during the
Enlightenment).
38. See generally JAMES COLLINS, THE BRITISH EMPIRICISTS: LOCKE, BERKELEY, HUME
(1987); David Fate Norton, David Hume, in THE BLACKWELL GUIDE TO THE MODERN
PHILOSOPHERS 148, 149–53 (Steven M. Emmanuel ed., 2001) (discussing the empiricism of
Hume in the context of Hobbes and Berkeley). It is beyond the scope of this inquiry to pursue
these developments. It suffices to note that the epistemological shifts in natural science had a
definite impact on philosophical inquiry and that this impact was largely unidirectional.
39. DORE, supra note 3, at 13, 37.
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

2010] PRAGMATIC EXISTENTIALISM IN A POST-NEWTONIAN WORLD 1283

disarray as to prevent humans from flourishing in both the scientific and

social/philosophic contexts. What is remarkable about this conclusion is that it
draws support from the philosophic as well as the scientific community, as
represented by David Hume, Werner Heisenberg, David Bohm, Ludwig
Wittgenstein, and Hans-Georg Gadamer. The thought of each of these
philosophers is examined within the limitations of the inquiry set forth above.

II. THE PROBABILISTIC EPISTEMOLOGY OF DAVID HUME

It is perhaps appropriate to begin with a brief discussion of a major figure
of the Enlightenment era itself, namely David Hume. Only that part of Hume’s
philosophy that is relevant to the topic under discussion is presented here.
Hume was of the belief that all human understanding consisted of the
search for the relations which objects and events bear to one other.40 Hume
thus divided human understanding into “relations of ideas” and “matters of
fact” propositions.41 The former are self-evident or intuitive propositions,
whose denial of the predicate in the relation would result in a contradiction;
examples of “relations of ideas” include 2 + 2 = 4, “lead is metal,” “bachelors
are unmarried,” etc.42 They do not have any bearing on what exists or does not
exist. Matters of fact propositions, on the other hand, do have existential
import and their denial does not lead to a contradiction, such as the idea that
“the sun will rise tomorrow.”43 Unlike relations of ideas, matters of fact
propositions can be verified by observation and experience, or by inductive
inferences.44 Furthermore, unlike relations of ideas, one cannot have
demonstrative knowledge of matters of fact propositions:
That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and
implies no more contradiction, than the affirmation, that it will rise. We
should in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood. Were it
demonstratively false, it would imply a contradiction, and could never be
45
distinctly conceived by the mind.
In other words, in mathematics one has demonstration, but in the empirical
sciences one has “causal” inference, which is ultimately validated by
experience. Hume indeed attacks the common belief that everything that exists

40. See DAVID HUME, ENQUIRIES CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING AND

CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS 23–24 (P.H. Nidditch ed., 3d ed., Open University Set
Book 1975) (1777) [hereinafter HUME, ENQUIRIES].
41. Id. at 25.
42. See id.
43. Id. at 25–26.
44. Id.
45. HUME, ENQUIRIES supra note 40, at 25–26.
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

1284 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 54:1277

must have a cause.46 The proposition, he argues, is circular and begs the
question by assuming the very thing that needs to be proven, namely, that
anything that begins to exist must have a cause.47 It cannot, therefore, be
proved by reason. It is thus experience and not reason that shows the relation
of cause and effect, and it is through this relation that one can understand the
world, including the world that exists “beyond the present testimony of our
senses.”48 For example, one cannot experience today that the sun will rise
tomorrow. But repeated observation of the phenomenon leads to the belief that
the sun will rise tomorrow. Yet this is merely an inference or belief, incapable
of proof through reason. Because of the “constant conjunction” of events and
their attendant consequences, the mind simply develops a habit or custom of
drawing inferences, such as the notion that the future will resemble the past (as
in the example of the sun rising tomorrow).49
Regularity in causal connections creates memories of previous instances
and leads to customary expectations that “instances, of which we have had no
experience, must resemble those, of which we have had experience, and that
the course of nature continues always uniformly the same.”50 Yet the
presupposition that the future will resemble the past and that nature will remain
uniform is neither intuitively certain nor is it susceptible of demonstrative
proof; it is only a belief.51 According to Hume, one cannot prove the validity
of the causal inference by a principle that cannot itself be proved or is not
intuitively certain or demonstrable.52
In conclusion, Hume’s argument may be summarized as follows: (1) The
characteristics of the physical world is a question of fact; (2) questions of fact
require experience to be answered; (3) our experience is limited to the
perceived world only; (4) therefore, we cannot know the physical world—it is

46. See id. at 73 (“We have sought in vain for an idea of power or necessary connexion in all
the sources from which we could suppose it to be derived.”).
47. See id. at 62–79 (arguing that we may infer that one event causes another only after
experiencing the “necessary connexion” between the cause and effect).
48. Id. at 26.
49. Id. at 78 (“But when many uniform instances appear, and the same object is always
followed by the same event; we then begin to entertain the notion of cause and connexion.”).
50. DAVID HUME, A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE 89 (P.H. Nidditch & L.A. Selby-Bigge
eds., 2d ed. 1978) (1739) [hereinafter HUME, A TREATISE]. But see Robert J. Fogelin, Hume’s
Skepticism, in CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO HUME 90, 95 (David Fate Norton, ed., 1999)
(contrasting demonstrative reasoning with reasoning involving probability).
51. See David Hume, An Abstract of a Book Lately Published; Entituled A TREATISE OF
HUMAN NATURE, &c. Wherein the Chief Argument of that Book is Farther Illustrated and
Explained, in DAVID HUME, A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE, supra note 50, at 651 (“All
probable arguments are built on the supposition, that there is this conformity betwixt the future
and the past, and therefore can never prove it.”).
52. See id.
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

2010] PRAGMATIC EXISTENTIALISM IN A POST-NEWTONIAN WORLD 1285

unknown and unknowable; (5) hence, we should adopt skepticism as to the

characteristics of the physical world.
The principles of uniformity and of the future resembling the past would
seem to suggest that the external world exists independently of the senses. On
the other hand, Hume’s theory teaches us that the mind has access to this
external world only through perception; it does not and cannot have access to
the external world independently of perception.53 To the extent that the mind
does have such access, Hume’s theory of custom as guide for life insists that a
probabilistic world is sufficient for human flourishing. Hume does not adopt
skepticism in its most radical sense. Indeed, the following statement by Hume
is a good example of his existential pragmatism. Notwithstanding his
skepticism, he asserts, he still likes to play backgammon, dine with his friends,
and be merry!
I dine, I play a game of back-gammon, I converse, and am merry with my
friends; and when after three or four hour’s amusement, I wou’d return to these
speculations, they appear so cold, and strain’d, and ridiculous, that I cannot
54
find in my heart to enter into them any farther.

A. Hume on the Self

Finally, Hume’s empiricism also led him to deny the existence of an
objective self.55 Here Hume’s views on personal identity have an almost
postmodern ring and accord with the teachings of quantum theory.56 So radical
was his empiricism that it led him to assert that even experience cannot
confirm the existence of the self.57 One’s personal identity, according to
Hume, cannot exist apart from the various impressions and perceptions that
suffuse the human mind:
For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always
stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade,
love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a
58
perception, and never can observe anything but the perception.

53. See HUME, ENQUIRIES, supra note 40, at 18–19 (dividing perceptions between ideas and
impressions and asserting that experience is the only vehicle for accessing the external world).
54. HUME, A TREATISE, supra note 50, at 269.
55. See id. at 253–59.
56. See J.M. Balkin, Understanding Legal Understanding: The Legal Subject and the
Problem of Legal Coherence, 103 YALE L.J. 105, 106–7, 112–13, 175–76 (1994) (providing a
postmodern perspective on the study of the law); DAVID BOHM, WHOLENESS AND THE
IMPLICATE ORDER 143 (1980) (describing quantum theory).
57. HUME, A TREATISE, supra note 50, at 252.
58. Id.
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

1286 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 54:1277

In other words, Hume could never separate his personal identity from his
perceptions, and this led him to place the existence of the former firmly in
question. Building upon this introspective observation, Hume also observed
that this “bundle or collection of different perceptions” which composed his
mind “succeed[ed] each other with an inconceivable rapidity” and were “in a
perpetual flux and movement.”59 This led Hume to theorize that:
The mind is a kind of theatre, where several perceptions successfully make
their appearance; pass, re-pass, glide away, and mingle in an infinite variety of
postures and situations. There is properly no simplicity in it at one time, nor
identity in different; whatever natural propension we may have to imagine that
60
simplicity and identity.”
The lack of a constant and identifiable state of “self” led Hume to conclude
“that identity is nothing really belonging to these different perceptions, and
uniting them together; but is merely a quality, which we attribute to them,
because of the union of their ideas in the imagination, when we reflect upon
them.”61
As seen later, this view of the subject as merging with the object (i.e., that
which is perceived) has great appeal to postmodern thinking. Instead of the
subject understanding an object and giving the latter meaning, it is the object
that gives meaning to the subject. Since perceptions differ, Hume’s thinking
seems to deny not only “objective” meanings given by the subject, but it also
seems to admit a measure of relativism in ascribing meaning. Nevertheless,
neither Hume’s thoroughgoing empiricism nor his moderate skepticism
“should ever undermine the reasonings of common life.”62

III. THE PROBABILISTIC EPISTEMOLOGY OF WERNER HEISENBERG

The historical context in which Heisenberg wrote witnessed a breakdown
in the attainment of complete objective truth in the scientific realm.63 This
occurred with the onset of quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, and
Heisenberg’s own Uncertainty Principle.64 Quantum mechanics undermined
the classical Newtonian view that atoms objectively occupied a certain position

59. Id.
60. Id. at 253.
61. Id. at 260.
62. HUME, ENQUIRIES, supra note 40, at 41.
63. See JAMES T. CUSHING, QUANTUM MECHANICS 25 (David L. Hull ed., 1994) (describing
the standard, or Copenhagen, interpretation of quantum mechanics as undermining the existence
of an “objective, observer-independent reality”).
64. See Joan C. Williams, Critical Legal Studies: The Death of Transcendence and the Rise
of the New Langdells, 62 N.Y.U. L. REV. 429, 436–39 (1987).
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

2010] PRAGMATIC EXISTENTIALISM IN A POST-NEWTONIAN WORLD 1287

in space.65 It held that matter at the subatomic level did not exist precisely at a
certain location, but it only showed “‘tendencies to exist.’”66 Heisenberg’s
Uncertainty Principle held that the more precisely the position of a subatomic
particle (such as an electron) is determined the less precisely its momentum is
known, and vice-versa.67
Despite the apparent breakdown in the scientist’s ability to determine
objective truth, Heisenberg argued that objective truth was not a precondition
in science.68 He did so by distinguishing between “practical realism” and
“dogmatic realism.”
We ‘objectivate’ a statement if we claim that its content does not depend on
the conditions under which it can be verified. Practical realism assumes that
there are statements that can be objectivated and that in fact the largest part of
our experience in daily life consists of such statements. Dogmatic realism
claims that there are no statements concerning the material world that cannot
be objectivated. Practical realism has always been and will always be an
essential part of natural science. . . . It is only through quantum theory that we
have learned that exact science is possible without the basis of dogmatic
69
realism.
Thus, even though the classical theories of physics broke down in the face of
the discoveries of the twentieth century,70 physicists could rest easy because
meaning (i.e., exact science) could still be determined through reliance upon
the scientific method in the new probabilistic physical world.71
The shift from a Newtonian/Cartesian paradigm of nature has given way to
a post-Einsteinian physics that views reality as an undifferentiated whole in
which we are situated as participants rather than as observers.72 As
participants, we interact, if not “interfere,” with nature.73 But, to paraphrase
Bohm,74 once we accept that the “interference” with experimental conditions
affects the “potentialities” of nature, we already seem committed to the view
that there is a reality under study. What that reality is, and how we can
understand it, whether that understanding can be complete and final, whether
what understanding we have is of any use to us, are, of course, separate

65. See id. at 437–38.

66. Id. at 438 (quoting F. CAPRA, THE TAO OF PHYSICS 68 (1975)).
67. See MILIČ ČAPEK, THE PHILOSOPHICAL IMPACT OF CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS 292–93
(1961).
68. WERNER HEISENBERG, PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY 82 (Harper Torchbook 1962) (1958).
69. Id. at 81–82.
70. See Williams, supra note 64, at 436–37.
71. See HEISENBERG, supra note 68, at 82.
72. See CUSHING, supra note 63, at 25.
73. See BOHM, supra note 56, at 143.
74. See id.
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

1288 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 54:1277

questions. It is quite apparent that Heisenberg can live within a probabilistic

universe. Indeed, he explicitly states that the result of quantum theory is that
“[n]atural science does not simply describe and explain nature; it is a part of
the interplay between nature and ourselves; it describes nature as exposed to
our method of questioning.”75 This possibility never occurred to Descartes;76
therefore, this interplay makes a clean separation between mind and body
impossible. But it also means that truth need not be final.
It is the Cartesian partition of mind and body that has led many, including
eminent scientists like Einstein, to resist this fusion of the observer and the
phenomena he is observing.77 This partition has penetrated human thought so
thoroughly that it has persisted for three centuries, and Heisenberg predicts that
it will take time to erode.78 Its central claim regarding the res extensa, as seen
above, is that a metaphysical reality beyond the senses really does exist.79
Heisenberg characterizes this claim as “metaphysical realism.”80 Thus while
metaphysical realism may, in most cases, resemble dogmatic realism,
Heisenberg’s argument is that not just ordinary life, but scientific discourse as
well, can flourish on the basis of only practical realism.81
A similar approach is taken by David Bohm. Indeed, taking a step beyond
Heisenberg, Bohm argues that scientific knowledge is no longer the only
legitimate source of understanding.82 The latter can be acquired in ways that
go beyond the limits of science. Bohm argues that the theory of relativity and
quantum theory have greatly undermined our sense of scientists as neutral
observers.83 He suggests that “both observer and observed are merging and
interpenetrating aspects of one whole reality, which is indivisible and
unanalysable.”84 He explains:
As relativity and quantum theory have shown that it has no meaning to divide
the observing apparatus from what is observed, so the considerations discussed
here indicate that it has no meaning to separate the observed fact (along with
the instruments used to observe it) from the theoretical notions of order that
help to give ‘shape’ to this fact. . . . Fact and theory are thus seen to be
different aspects of one whole in which analysis into separate but interacting

75. HEISENBERG, supra note 68, at 81.

76. See DORE, supra note 3, at 315 n.47.
77. See CUSHING, supra note 63, at 25 (discussing Einstein’s aversion to fusing the observer
and the observed phenomena).
78. HEISENBERG, supra note 68, at 81.
79. See supra notes 28–29, 36 and accompanying text.
80. HEISENBERG, supra note 68, at 81.
81. See id. at 81–82.
82. See BOHM, supra note 56, at 143.
83. See id.
84. Id. at 9.
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

2010] PRAGMATIC EXISTENTIALISM IN A POST-NEWTONIAN WORLD 1289

parts is not relevant. That is to say, not only is undivided wholeness implied in
the content of physics (notably relativity and quantum theory) but also in the
85
manner of working in physics.

A. Heisenberg on Language
Heisenberg is of the view that despite the “intrinsic uncertainty of the
meaning of words” language as a method of communication between humans
contains concepts that can be used as tools for meaningfully ordering daily
life.86 Almost in Humean terms, Heisenberg claims that when certain words
are used repeatedly they acquire customary meanings.87 Thus, for example,
one can speak of “a piece of iron” or “a piece of wood,” but one cannot speak
of a “piece of water.”88 Thus customary expectations lead to the emergence of
definitions which set boundaries of meaning.89
Yet, language in natural science has a specialized communicative function,
according to Heisenberg.90 He credits Aristotle for having created the basis for
scientific language.91 Aristotelian logic examined “the forms of language, the
formal structure of conclusions and deductions independent of their content.”92
Scientific logic seeks to establish laws for deriving the particular from the
general.93 But the general laws of science must contain very precise concepts
which can only be achieved through mathematical abstraction.94 Heisenberg
contrasts the language of science with the language of law.95 In the latter, he
argues, “complete precision is not needed” and “definitions in terms of
ordinary language are sufficient.”96 Despite the rigors of scientific discourse,
however, it has been already seen that Heisenberg is content to let practical
realism (as opposed to metaphysical or dogmatic realism) provide the
conditions for scientific and legal discourse to flourish.
Heisenberg’s views on language are similar to those of Ludwig
Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein asserted that just because one proposition about a
particular concept is false, that does not necessitate the conclusion that other
propositions about the same concept (or the meaning inherent in the concept

85. Id. at 143.

86. HEISENBERG, supra note 68, at 168–69.
87. Id.
88. Id. at 168.
89. Id. at 169.
90. Id. at 171–72.
91. HEISENBERG, supra note 68, at 169.
92. Id.
93. Id. at 171.
94. Id. at 172.
95. Id.
96. HEISENBERG, supra note 68, at 172.
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

1290 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 54:1277

itself) are also false.97 This concept was illustrated in Wittgenstein’s analysis
of the name “Moses”:
We may say, following [Bertrand] Russell: the name ‘Moses’ may be defined
by means of various descriptions. For example, as ‘the man who led the
Israelites through the wilderness,’ ‘the man who lived at that time and place
and was then called ‘Moses,’ ‘the man who as a child was taken out of the Nile
by Pharaoh’s daughter’ and so on. And according as we assume one definition
or another the proposition ‘Moses did not exist’ acquires a different sense, and
so does every other proposition about Moses. . . . But when I make a statement
about Moses,—am I always ready to substitute some one of these descriptions
for ‘Moses?’ I shall perhaps say: By ‘Moses’ I understand the man who did
what the Bible relates of Moses, or at any rate a good deal of it. But how
much? Have I decided how much must be proved false for me to give up my
proposition as false? Has the name ‘Moses’ got a fixed and unequivocal use
for me in all possible cases?—Is it not the case that I have, so to speak, a
whole series of props in readiness, and am ready to lean on one if another
98
should be taken from under me, and vice versa?
Wittgenstein’s point in the above quotation is that language has flexible
meanings and gives us a variety of props to convey it. In the above example, if
one of the characteristics about Moses is shown to be untrue this does not by
itself entail the conclusion that Moses did not exist or did not do some or all of
the other activities attributed to him. The definition would then just shift to
one containing the other attributes. Thus, the concept of “Moses” would retain
meaning even assuming the fallibility of one of the definitions proffered for his
existence.99
According to Wittgenstein, a particular concept’s meaning is not
dependent on perfect clarity, but it can serve merely to remove or avert a
misunderstanding.100 Thus his famous example that the phrase “stand roughly
here,” though inexact, nonetheless serves as a meaningful concept in everyday
life, depending on context.101 Indeed, for Wittgenstein, different contexts
called for different meanings, so that no single meaning could account for
every potential contextual contingency.102

97. See LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN, PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS ¶ 79 (G.E.M. Anscombe

trans., 3d ed. 2001) (1953).
98. Id.
99. Id.
100. See id. ¶ 88.
101. Id.
102. LON L. FULLER, THE MORALITY OF LAW 137–41 (2d ed. 1969) (citing Wittgenstein for
the proposition that language carries with it certain tacit understandings that need not be spelled
out in every case).
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

2010] PRAGMATIC EXISTENTIALISM IN A POST-NEWTONIAN WORLD 1291

IV. THE PROBABILISTIC ONTOLOGY OF GADAMER’S HERMENEUTICS

A parallel with the thought of Heisenberg and Bohm can be found in the
philosophical hermeneutics of Gadamer. Inspired by Heidegger, Gadamer’s
philosophy shows strong affinities with holistic quantum theory.103 He argued
that interpretation is never an attitude of a subject projected in nature, but it is
in fact, something that “precedes and informs” subjectivity.104 In other words,
“interpretation is not an activity, it is a mode of being-in-the-world.”105 This
effectively rejects the idea that the individual subject is “a self-directing center
of knowledge.”106
Interpretation is just one mode of “being” in the world. There are other
ways of being that become evident as one examines the totality of existence.
Hermeneutics is the study of the ways in which existence gives meaning to the
world in which we live.107 In this sense, it is ontological. Still though, the
ontology is not presented as a grand or final narrative that is “superior” to all
others.108 Indeed, it seeks to strike a compromise, or bridge the gap, between
two opposing enquiries as to meaning in life.109 At one end of the pole is the
claim of finality and objectivity (dogmatic/metaphysical realism) while at the
other end is the charge of indeterminacy and subjectivity.110
The hermeneutic approach seeks to move beyond the subjective/objective
dichotomy and, in law, to find meaning in the legal text without total surrender
to subjectivism.111 Gadamer’s hermeneutics focuses on how the meaning is
revealed, or more generally, how the world reveals meaning to those who live
in it.112
In an approach reminiscent of Kant, who examined the conditions that
made experience possible, Gadamer states his goal as not to propose a
procedure of understanding, but rather, as “to clarify the conditions in which
understanding takes place.”113 Also, just as the categories of cognition predate

103. Francis J. Mootz III, Is the Rule of Law Possible in a Postmodern World?, 68 WASH. L.
REV. 249, 294–95 (1993).
104. Id. at 295.
105. Id.
106. Id.
107. HANS-GEORG GADAMER, TRUTH AND METHOD 263 (Garrett Barden & John Cumming
trans., 2d ed. 1975) (1960).
108. Id.
109. See id. at 264–67.
110. See id.
111. Francis J. Mootz, III, The Ontological Basis of Legal Hermeneutics: A Proposed Model
of Inquiry Based on the Work of Gadamar, Habermas, and Ricoeur, 68 B.U. L. REV. 523, 526
(1988).
112. Id.
113. GADAMER, supra note 107, at 263.
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

1292 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 54:1277

experience and are taken as given by Kant, the conditions that make
interpretation in law possible are taken as given by Gadamer. What, then, are
these conditions? These are the “prejudices and fore-meanings in the mind of
the interpreter” (very much in the tradition of Heidegger).114 Second is the
“effective-history” of the text.115 Gadamer urges the interpreter to transcend
his own presuppositions and prejudices and take into account the historical
conditions of the text.116 Likewise, in any discourse, each party must try to
understand “the otherness of the other.”117 Each side, then, will have its own
“horizon” of understanding.118 There will therefore be an inevitable tension
between the horizon of the text and that of its interpreter, each separated by a
“temporal distance.”119
Meaning is given through a fusion of the horizons or through bridging of
the temporal gap.120 As noted above, however, no claim is made to its finality
or superiority since all meanings are contingent and are constantly
reappropriated and renewed:
But the discovery of the true meaning of a text or a work of art is never
finished; it is in fact an infinite process. Not only are fresh sources of error
constantly excluded, so that the true meaning has filtered out of it all kinds of
things that obscure it, but there emerge continually new sources of
121
understanding, which reveal unsuspected elements of meaning.
To explain further how understanding through the fusion of horizons takes
place, Gadamer uses the notion of “play.”122 For example, a person examining
a work of art will be “at play with [it]” before arriving at an aesthetic
appreciation of it.123 Each presents a claim of meaning to the other; it is as if
each “dance[s]” with the other in order to achieve something that neither
would be able to do on its own.124 Yet each playful act has its rules of the
game, depending on whether the artwork is a painting, a sculpture, a musical
score, etc.125
The same analogy applies to the interpreter and legal text. Both reader and
text are at play prior to arriving at an understanding. Just as the dance between

114. Id.; see also Mootz, supra note 111, at 534 n.42.
115. GADAMER, supra note 107, at 267–74.
116. Id.
117. Id. at 270.
118. See id. at 267–74.
119. Id. at 266.
120. GADAMER, supra note 107, at 258–74.
121. Id. at 265–66.
122. Id. at 91–119.
123. Mootz, supra note 111, at 531–32.
124. Id. at 532.
125. Id. at 533.
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

2010] PRAGMATIC EXISTENTIALISM IN A POST-NEWTONIAN WORLD 1293

two persons renders a picture which neither dancer could present on his own,
so the meaning that emerges from the fusion of horizons of the reader and text
is a meaning that cannot belong solely to either the reader or the author of the
text.126 Furthermore, like in any play, there is a measure of “risk.”127 The risk
for the reader is that he may have to give up such presuppositions or
preconceptions that he brings as part of his forestructure of meanings.128 It
must also be mentioned that, as noted in the analogy with Kant above,
Gadamer was concerned with the conditions that make meaning emerge. Thus
the play that occurs is not an act of will or purpose; it instead occurs naturally
(i.e., it is given).129 In other words, just as the human mind is hardwired with
the categories of cognition that make experience possible, human beings are
also programmed to be ontologically playful. As part of the process of playful
fusion, the reader will first approach the text at a precognitive level. He will
then impose a preliminary meaning to the text. Next, he will revise it after
further examination and reflection. He will subsequently consider alternative
meanings and, finally, will settle on one meaning for the case before him.130
Very much in the Humean tradition, man, as hermeneutical being, is
always interpreting.131 Even the primordial act of first perception is itself an
interpretive act. All subsequent acts are second-order acts of interpretation. If
we try to consciously reflect on that first-order perception we realize only too
late that it was itself an interpretation:
When we understand a text, what is meaningful in it charms us just as the
beautiful charms us. It has asserted itself and charmed us before we can come
to ourselves and be in a position to test the claim to meaning that it makes.
What we encounter in the experience of the beautiful and in understanding the
meaning of tradition has effectively something about it of the truth of play. In
understanding we are drawn into an event of truth and arrive, as it were, too
132
late, if we want to know what we ought to believe.
In conclusion, it can be seen that Gadamer’s philosophy has strong
affinities with holistic quantum theory. In place of objective meaning or
“dogmatic/metaphysical realism,” Gadamer’s hermeneutics advocates
provisional and contingent meanings which are more akin to Heisenberg’s
version of practical realism.133 This, in turn, means that the text, though

126. GADAMER, supra note 107, at 350.

127. Id.
128. Id.
129. See id.
130. See THOMAS MCCARTHY, THE CRITICAL THEORY OF JÜRGEN HABERMAS 172 (1978).
131. See supra Part II (outlining the Humean tradition).
132. GADAMER, supra note 107, at 446.
133. See also supra note 81 and accompanying text (explaining Heisenberg’s version of
practical realism).
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

1294 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 54:1277

indeterminate in any given instant, is not totally devoid of meaning.134 Thus,

even though there is a fusion of subject and object, Gadamar occupies the
middle ground between indeterminacy and objectivity while at the same time
claiming that this in no way prevents legal discourse from flourishing.

CONCLUSION
This Article has explored the relationship between epistemological shifts in
natural science and their impact on social philosophy. It is beyond question
that there has been an impact. The origins of these links were traced to the
cradle of Western philosophy, eighth-century Greece BCE.135 This era was
marked by a natural human impulse to seek certainty in man’s moral world in a
way that reflected the certainty of his material world.136
The burden of this Article was to explore the nature of the dynamic and to
examine the extent to which advances in natural sciences have undermined not
the old dogmas within the scientific discipline, but rather, the extent to which
such advances undermined social philosophy. That advances in natural science
did undermine older dogmas within the scientific discipline is a self-evident
truth and, as such, is of no epistemological import. For that reason, it was not
discussed here. Given this truth, the more interesting question explored in this
Article was the extent to which social philosophy has been buffeted by the
currents of natural science.
The epistemological balance sheet for social philosophy appears to be very
much in positive territory despite the onslaught of scientific advances. Why
and how is this so? Two main reasons were sketched above. The first is that
the potentially destabilizing effects of quantum theory, Heisenberg’s
Uncertainty Principle, and Einstein’s theory of relativity did not bequeath onto
us a world of scientific anarchy. Indeed, Heisenberg himself rejected the
notion that there are no statements about the material world that cannot be

134. Gadamer’s philosophy in this regard is not unlike that of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Just as
the former argues that the interpreter comes to the text with a fore structure of meanings,
prejudices and traditions, so Wittgenstein claims that what meanings one gives to a rule is marked
by one’s culture and language:
Is what we call “obeying a rule” something that it would be possible for only one man to
do, and to do only once in his life?—This is of course a note on the grammar of the
expression “to obey a rule”. It is not possible that there should have been only one
occasion on which someone obeyed a rule. It is not possible that there should have been
only one occasion on which a report was made, an order given or understood; and so
on.—To obey a rule, to make a report, to give an order, to play a game of chess, are
customs (uses, institutions). To understand a sentence means to understand a language.
WITTGENSTEIN, supra note 97, ¶ 199.
135. See supra text accompanying note 1.
136. See supra text accompanying notes 1–39.
DORE_ARTICLE.DOCX

2010] PRAGMATIC EXISTENTIALISM IN A POST-NEWTONIAN WORLD 1295

objectivated.137 He argued that quantum theory had, in fact, shown that

scientific progress is possible without dogmatic realism.138 He also rejected
Cartesian metaphysical realism which posited that a metaphysical reality really
did exist independently of the senses.139 In place of both doctrines he
advanced his preferred doctrine of practical realism, a realism which embraces
a probabilistic epistemology and eschews certainty or infallibility.140 Even if
the dynamic between natural science and philosophy is understood as one of
cause and effect, if practical realism rules within the scientific domain, it must
also rule in the philosophic domain by analogy, if not by necessary
implication. The analog to “practical realism” in philosophy is what I call
pragmatic existentialism.
The second reason for the positive balance sheet is the modernistic currents
of a pragmatic nature within philosophy itself. Heisenberg is not the only one
who advances the view that legal discourse can flourish even in the face of a
certain measure of indeterminacy. Bohm, Hume, Gadamar, and Wittgenstein
complement his view. They all adopt an approach which eschews objectivity
in language and embraces contextualism and contingency. The Gadamarian
hermeneutic, with its twin notions of “play” and “fusion,” shows a strong
affinity with holistic quantum theory, which, despite the fusion of subject and
object, does not abjure the quest for meaning. Hume’s far-sighted philosophy
of the self achieves the same goal. Hume’s critiques of reason and causality
throw cold water on claims to knowledge of matters of fact, but Hume’s great
principle of custom and the associative laws of the mind save mankind in the
end. Hume’s pragmatic existentialism is thus embraced by all philosophers
discussed above.
It is not without reason, then, that it is often said that the human condition
is a profoundly Humean condition.

137. See supra text accompanying note 69.

138. See supra text accompanying notes 68–69.
139. See supra text accompanying note 78 (noting that Heisenberg expects this theory to
erode, albeit slowly).
140. See supra text accompanying notes 69, 75, and 81.
Copyright of St. Louis University Law Journal is the property of Saint Louis University School of Law and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.