Descriptive Inexhaustibility and Its Implications

German-American philosopher Nicholas Rescher coined the term descriptive inexhaustibility, which refers to the fact that since the world (reality) is infinitely complex, our descriptions of it can never truly capture it. There is always more to say. There are always other valid ways of describing things, even the simplest of things, like rocks (an example that Rescher uses). Think about how one can give a full description of a rock, and then there are still new things that can be added to describe its relation to other things, or even new understandings about rocks that come from scientific and intellectual change, etc.

The use of rocks as an example is simply to show that this idea of descriptive inexhaustibility holds in principle. It is not only that the world is very complicated, and we have to work very hard and write lots of books and articles, and then one day we will have completed the task of complete knowledge. No, reality always outruns language.

There is an objective reality that our subjective conceptual systems only reflect in partial and incomplete ways. Many of our conceptual systems and ways of thinking are more accurate by some criteria or assumptions than are others (an epistemic issue). And many of them are more useful for certain goals than are others (a pragmatic issue).

Hence, we arrive at a metaphysical realism with an epistemological pragmatic idealism. This is the position of Rescher and myself, and it echoes the conceptual relativism of philosopher John Searle, who still maintains a metaphysical realism, as well. Basically, there is a real, objective world out there. It is not the product of our minds only (metaphysical idealism), but our modes of knowledge and conceptual systems can only ever get at it in partial ways.

This is how we can recognize the limits and partiality of human knowledge without falling into a relativism that does not believe in objective fact. There is objective fact, but our linguistic truths can never completely match it.

And that is understandable, since as humans we are fallible and imperfect animals. As Steven Pinker points out, our brains evolved for certain survival reasons, but not to be pipelines to the truth. We are extremely smart and wonderful creatures, but there are limits to our cognitive capacities.

We strive for God-like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. Yet recognizing our inabilities and limitations is a huge step down the path toward humility, wisdom, and a more sophisticated understanding of our human projects.

References:

Pinker, S. (1997). How the Mind Works. W.W. Norton.

Rescher, N. (1998). Complexity: A Philosophical Overview. Transaction Publishers.

Searle, J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. Simon and Schuster.