S.A.G.A.S.E.N.S.I.S.M.: an abstract


SAGASENSISM: an abstract.

Sagasensism is a word coined from two Latin words: sagac meaning keen and foresighted judgement and sensus meaning to feel or perceive.

Sagasensism can therefore be defined as an enquiry into the  world of existence and reality, through the use of both the senses and a deep foresighted ability to judge.

It is the rational study of the metaphysical world, with the aid of logic.

It may also be referred to as the epistemological justification of knowledge of facts beyond physical perception through the application of human senses and a deep sagacity.

Sagasensism is an offshoot of Perceptionism. It might be seen as a slight perversion of it.

This philosophy is borne out of the belief that ‘unobservables’, i.e. objects that cannot be directly perceived, can constitute knowledge, both certain and probable. But of course, we can only sagasensistcally conclude that a thing exists if and only if there is ample observable evidence to prove such existence.

It is also based on the rule that if the existence of a thing is the only [logical] explanation for a state of reality, then that thing is presumed to actually exist as long as it is the only available justification for the existence of the state.

This technique is often utilised in the aspect of criminology and crime solving. Detectives, when investigating a crime, at times can tell with certainty who is culpable and who is not despite the fact that they were not at the scene where the crime was committed. They gather clues, formulate theories, study facts and evidences until they are led to their desired answer. Someone, who is familiar with detective stories such as The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes or TV series of the mentalist, would better understand this.


Instances of applying Sagasensism:

  1.  A man is shipwrecked onto an island. He lives there alone for years, knowing her ins and outs. Then one day, he finds a fresh trail of gigantic foot-prints that could not possibly belong to even bigfoot, the mythical creature. Albeit he did not see one, he would logically and sagasensistically deduce that a huge, non-human creature is sharing the island with him. But to suggest that the creature fell from the sky, has a large set of teeth or can become invisible is beyond the ambit of Sagasensism.
  2. Another example is a scenario whereby one is journeying through a thick forest. Then at a point, one sees a wide well-weeded maize plantation. One does not need special powers to infer from this that there exists a farmer who is responsible for the plantation. THAT is certain knowledge, even though it cannot be empirically verified. But to say there is a village nearby, using only this observable scene as evidence is not sagasensistically acceptable. At best, it is highly probable.


In the same vein, if one sees a shoe, one will automatically know there is a shoemaker. If one sees an item of furniture, one will know there exists a carpenter. And if we see a clothe perfectly designed, our sagacity makes us aware of the inevitable existence of a seamstress. There is no effect without an initial cause. And nothing can exist out of nothing i.e. without a maker or manufacturer.


This school of thought may also be applied to the problem of the existence of God, soul, ghosts and other beings. It is true that no man has physically seen God. But are there no observable objects that point to his existence? It appears to me there are …

<<<to be continued>>>


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s