A quote I thought was particularly interesting (to whet your appetite):

There is only one kind of knowledge, human knowledge, with the inevitability of its participation, with the inevitable relationship of the knower to the known, of what and how and why and when a man knows and wishes to know.

Wow. There’s so much I disagree with in the linked article, it’s hard to know where to start.

I think he gets it almost completely backward. He argues that the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity is artificial, but then interprets this as meaning objectivity is an illusion. I’d say it’s subjectivity that’s the illusion.

But, of course, his last two paragraphs give away the game. He’s not making a philosophical argument about the subjectivity of experience, he’s constructing an apology. All the fuzzy-headed continental baloney leading up to it is really just looking to justify his religious faith.

Does it not, for example, behoove Christian believers to think that the coming of Christ to this earth may have been the central event of the universe, that the most consequential event in the entire universe occurred here, on this earth 2,000 years ago?

Does it not behoove them to realize that, while “the most consequential event in the entire universe” has to happen somewhere, it’s extremely improbable that it happened here.

Just because you want it to be true, doesn’t make it so.

Just because an individual may not be able to achieve complete objectivity isn’t a license to abandon it for emotionalism.