The Issue of Knowledge - Essay Example

Knowledge The issue of knowledge is an issue that has never really been understood to its fullest since man has learnt to think. Over the millennia, writers and philosophers of every time have attempted to answer this question, and despite the magnificent attempts at its answer, no final word is available to mankind. The fact of the matter lies in the fact, that man cannot attain knowledge if he does not think; this, even as a proposition is considered to be impossible. By thinking of undertaking things, dealing with them, and ultimately being deceived by them, it becomes all the more evident to man that there is a reality that exists. Plato and Aristotle both talk about similar concepts when they describe knowledge. However they look at it from two opposing angles altogether. The same shall be discussed hereunder. In simple words, Aristotle focuses of smaller elements as being integral to the concept of knowledge, while Plato believes that universal concepts are the key to the essence of knowledge. Determining this difference is vital. Plato was of the opinion that belief is to be separated from knowledge on account of its justification. Beliefs, he elucidated, can be there without adequate inquiry or scrutiny into a particular matter. However, the knowledge acquired has to be based upon rationalistic ideas, that are guarded by logic and understanding. This is what would make the same knowledge acceptable to many people at the same time, whilst a belief may well hold true for just a singular person amongst all humanity. Aristotle on the contrary believed that knowledge lies in the understand of smaller factors, which will gradually all add up to join the jigsaw puzzle, and show us the bigger picture. He claimed that by knowing the essence of fundamental principles, one would be able to make sense of what is going on the bigger canvas. Inadvertently, this is a consequence of knowing as to what really can be a basic ingredient within the bigger construct, and then studying the same for greater knowledge. Plato advocates the importance of all-encompassing knowledge, which ultimately gives birth to and yields smaller constructs. This reality can be identified with, and the highest thinking can subsequently be attained by means of knowing what knowledge is. Contemplation gives insight, and ultimately self-actualization. There can be no better strength than realizing one's true potential of existence. All our endeavors or desires primarily follow from the necessity of our intrinsic nature. This concept given by him refers to the identification of the power that the human being yields and associates from within himself, thereby attempting to acquire knowledge at the bequest of all available events. Aristotle on the other hand states that smaller elements combine together to make all knowledge, and therefore understanding should begin from smaller ideas, which may be expounded into complex theories. Whatever one might seek or ask, it is basically a product of how one identifies with the concept of knowledge. The most significant thinking here becomes knowing about oneself. A person, who realizes the details, is truly on the path of acquiring knowledge. If one has the tendency to doubt one's self-concepts, then true actualization of knowledge can never be there. Knowledge starts from knowing oneself - it is only with reference to the same would one ever be able to gather some perspective. "Although he had the idea of constructing a system for deduction, he was never able to construct one. Instead, he relied on his dialectic, which was a confusion between different sciences and methods" (Bocheski, 1951). Mysteries, intricacies and secrets of the finite world can only be known with reference to the person. Therefore, if and when a person appreciates his own personal standing and inception, it subsequently becomes the greatest source of endowment and fulfillment for the person. The fundamental factor here is about insisting on knowing reality as it is. This again is a propagation of the belief that an individual should at all times try to find what he/she is, and not impose an ideation which is not a true depiction of the same. The concept of uniformity of behavior and thought has always triggered the minds of thinkers. However, it is interesting that both of these present a similar stance on the said subject, but only differing perspectives. It is not naturally desirable for anybody to maintain an existing thread of ideas and/or actions, and then subsequently make use of it in due course. Their differences are akin to a molecular biologist and an astrophysicist. The former can be taken as Aristotle, while the latter as Plato. One of them is fond of finding the truth about nature by looking into minuscule details, while the other is involved in the study of massive and colossal systems, so that he can ultimately derive meaning out of a much smaller world. One cannot really criticize either of them, as they make sense both ways - it is only a matter of conception of the idea, and what route it ultimately takes. Both are talking about attaining knowledge in a particular way, which may and maybe be true in all cases. To be able to appreciate and attain the highest order of knowledge, the greatest thinking here would be to not pay heed to social and extraneous challenges, and keep representing one's own thoughts as they are. If in the face of conflict, one tends to shy away from the true sense of reality, then it can never really come out. Under normal circumstances, it is always simple to know about things; however, the true test of knowledge is when there is opposition, and yet still a person can attain thinking by means of being what he truly is. Though this conflict may seem ironically contrary to the actual concept of life itself, yet this line answers probably the greatest mystery of life - knowledge. From small to large or vice-versa, it will only ultimately matter if a person has appropriate appreciation of his own thought processes. The ultimate attainment in knowledge therefore would be in the fact that one can appreciate its true essence, and not be afraid of the process of big or small itself. It is only after this, that one would be able to overcome all the subsidiary issues of knowledge, and would proceed to a stance wherein he would seek to discover the concepts within issues. Once this is accomplished, nothing else would seem difficult. Thus possessing differing fortes of references, yet we see a noteworthy comparison between their views on the said subject. Again, the interesting thing is that it is not a man of a particular culture, creed, time or race that is referred to. Their concepts are so intense, deep and universal, that even at this hour they can be identified with, and a sense of fulfillment may be sought if one wishes so, as per Aristotle. On the significant role played by nature in the knowledge of man, both these opinions interject. Though nature has been a sort of subjective reality for the sake of many philosophers, yet these two have come to the same resolution. Plato believes that the role of nature can never be undermined, "Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind" (Guthrie, 1986). What has been naturally created in the form of man by nature (and in effect his mind), can never be put away from its core. Thinking is as close to man as man himself, because he is a product of the former. Violation of one's knowledge domain is not within a man's reach. It is not possible that a person would go to the extent of conflicting with his own existence. Plato believes that this goes on to the same fact that man is an outcome of nature, and hence cannot and does not remain an adversary to the same. Violation of the nature would in turn mean getting in disagreement with oneself, which is theoretically and pragmatically not possible. However, one can only do and perform as much as the limits of human mind, as per Aristotle. So is the thinking of knowledge embedded in man Not exactly; it is in understanding the concept of knowledge. It refers to establishing a belief that this entire struggle in life is a quest for knowledge itself, and that the absolute moment of insight, is just the termination of this struggle. The integrity of the mind is imperishable. In the perspective, the meaning can be inferred as the same. The mind alone can not be swayed away from knowledge - it has to be associated with man himself. However, the true test is how this process facilitated, and what the person makes of it ultimately. Therefore, extrapolating the fact that knowledge is sure to dominate the proceedings of life, one has to be sure of what course of actions is undertaken. The mind as an entity can never be destroyed, as it is the true emblem of existence for man - his distinguishing factor. Aristotle held that we have no grounds for complaint about the limitations of our knowledge, since a proper application of our cognitive capacities is enough to guide our action in the practical conduct of life. Plato spent much of the rest of his life explaining detailed accounts of human volition and moral freedom, the personal identity on which our knowledge stands. Again, neither can be regarded as either right or wrong, especially because both concepts ultimately converge at one point in the center. References Bocheski, I. M. (1951). Ancient Formal Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. Guthrie, W.K.C. (1986). A History of Greek Philosophy: Volume 4, Plato: The Man and His Dialogues: Earlier Period. Cambridge University Press. Read More