Three Varieties of Knowledge - Essay Example

Three Varieties of Knowledge Introduction In the Article “Three varieties of knowledge” by Donald Davidson, it hasbeen clearly depicted that there are three variables of knowledge that are interdependent and complementary in reaching a conclusion and making rational decision. Donald clarifies that the three categories of knowledge relate to self-mind, immediate environment and finally knowledge of others. He then demonstrates the interrelation of the three categories of knowledge and clarifies how they help in their complementary understanding. In this relation, he asserts that the three knowledge forms a tripod in which the absence of any of them automatically makes it unable to stand; hence, it remains that the tripod must always be in the complementary of the thee cardinal categories of knowledge (Davidson, The essential 64). What is evident in the Donald’s argument is how evidence can be adduced in relation to the three knowledge. In regard to the knowledge of the mind and that of immediate surroundings, he states that they are not subject to much proof since they are directly construed by an individual and do not need much proof. This is because he claims that the knowledge of immediate world is subject to the functionality of the organs of senses (Davidson, The essential 99). Finally, he stipulates that the most complex knowledge is that of other people, for one to understand what others think about, one has to learn their behavior first and use that as evidence about his knowledge. In this case, he argues that what one knows about others dictates what is in his mind, which also combines those that he knows about his immediate environment making them interdependent. Explanation of the Logical Interdependence In brief, the term “logical interdependence” can be considered as two different words that can then be evaluated independently before they are enjoined in order to find their meaning. There are three terms in the statement that needs to be discerned to ensure the holistic understanding of the whole statement that are; “logical”, “inter”, and “dependence”. Starting with the term “logical”, we have to note that it is derived from the word “logics” which means the ability to reason with certain guiding principles of validity such that the conclusion is not a subject to any alteration, oversight, or intentional inclusion of all material facts. This enables proper inference to be made with regard to a situation that calls for such. In doing this, we will be trying to find a reasonable way of creating a distinction from what is fallacious or false from the right and valid (Davidson 5). Considering the usage of the term ‘inter’ in the statement, it means between or among other things; hence, it shows some relationship that exist in two or more things. In this regard, it shows that there can be deduction that can be made from the independent things, and shows the thread that weaves them together demonstrating the relationship that exists in them. In this case, it demonstrates how the three varieties of knowledge are dependent to one another. Finally, the consideration of the term “dependence” reveals that great link and association of the three knowledge varieties and how they supplement one another (Davidson, Truth 132). As Donald rightfully puts it, you cannot separate the knowledge about self, immediate environment and that of others, as they do work in tandem to corroborate and informs other facets of knowledge. The certainty in this case is evident when Donald states that the knowledge of what others thinks also informs what is in his mind illustrating the linkage and interdependence. In as much as others perceive regarding what one thinks about after learning their behavior as stated by Donald, one is capable of making a conclusion of what they think rationally and once he does that, it informs what is in their mind in relation to what others are thinking about. Therefore, in as much as one knows what others are thinking about, one also has the same information in their mind and can use it as what they are thinking about in their minds (Davidson, Three 6). In logical interdependency as argued by Donald, we are able to see the relation of logics in tripod in the event of disregard to any of the three roots in this process. The balance no longer holds since there has to be the three knowledge cardinals for it to stand the test of validity, none of the knowledge can be looked into in isolation given their complementary nature. Plausibility of Davidson's Account It would be so naive not to question or doubt the validity and efficacy of the statement given by Donald in his systematic argument of how logics are related. For instance, we do have minds of our own, whether conscious or unconscious; indeed, we do not need any proof of what we think about because whether it is intrinsically right or wrong does not hold, the fact is that we are thinking of something. It should also be realized that what we think about could be because of what we think about others, and when this is the case, it shows that we have assessed others independently and objectively in order to reach a conclusion that is valid, which finally informs what we think about (Davidson, Three 9). Similarly, this is the case concerning the knowledge about our environment, as it finally forms the basis of what we think, and this is important in understanding the tripod nature of knowledge. Therefore, I find it possible and construable that Donald is absolutely right in his argument that the tripod nature of the three logical knowledge are interrelated and cannot be looked into in isolation. I do believe in the consistency of logics and that the interrelation is sound and can be used for the inferential knowledge as explained in the knowledge of others mind and that of one’s self. This condition of looks in this case confirms the fact that Donald’s case is acceptable and valid. Davidson’s Account on the Emotions and Feeling of Others In order to incorporate the sense of what Donald refers as three categories of knowledge and the understanding of the emotions and feelings of others, we have to look at the issues independently and then integrate them to see if we strike a common ground in both. The feelings and emotions that are expressed by others are beyond our understanding unless we are informed by very reliable sources. We cannot prejudice on what others are feeling because we are not them and we cannot feel nor have emotion on others. Moreover, another party then can only understand the emotion on others only if they are informed. Thus, understanding others emotional feelings can only be possible if we have a true account of what they feel and the chronological events that leads to the feeling. It therefore understands that we can understand the feeling of other given what Donald states about the cardinal understanding of the knowledge. Therefore, the question is how we come to understand the emotions and feelings of others; this can be explained if we make a good account of what Donald refers into in the three forms of knowledge. In the understanding of what others claims, we have to understand their behavior and that behavior must be corresponding to the ultimate feeling or emotion suspected. For example, if one has passed examination, we can only think of the person being happy emotionally and not angry, since there is every reason to conclude so assuming that all other factors constant. Therefore, it is then true that understanding others can also informs our knowledge at individual level. This again brings us to the fundamental fact that is reiterated by Donald that the three knowledge are correlated and informs the other appropriately. They cannot be looked into in isolation, or rather; they by extension complement every sense of the three systems of knowledge. In the conclusion of Donald case, we have to appreciate the approach he made in making the glaring understanding of the way knowledge is interdependence to the extent that it can be used to deduce on other things including the feeling and the emotion of others depending on the empirical nature of the facts used in such. Thus, it should be appreciated that philosophers are opening new frontiers on how to logically and deductively conclude on issues that are complex by using leading formulae in drawing a point. Knowledge of others and making such knowledge informs our decision as a key element of using philosophy to help in unraveling some of the issues that surrounds humanity. Therefore, just like any other thing that is of philosophy interest, logics and facts are given precedence in making conclusions. In this case, if such can be used in reaching conclusions that can be used to understand the feeling and the emotions of others then we have to believe the criteria as long as it remains factual. Works Cited Davidson, Donald. Truth and predication. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005. Print. Davidson, Donald . The essential Davidson. Oxford: Clarendon Press :, 2006. Print. Davidson, Donald . "Three Varieties of Knowlegde." Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement February 2013: 9. Read More