An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge - Essay Example

An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge ‘Knowledge’ is the extent to which we have learnt about the truth, ‘belief’ is the extent to which we think is the truth and ‘truth’ is the extent to which things really are. The perception of a truth is subjective to the mind-set that we are pre-conditioned to live with. Illogical though it might sound to certain rationalists who seem to be directed toward the conception that what things appear to be is how they really are, philosopher such as Plato has left with us a great deal of knowledge that we can’t help but contradict to that notion. Plato invites us to imagine a group of life-long inhabitants of a prison-cave with no knowledge what so ever of the outside world. When shadows appear in the walls of the cave the inhabitants take them to be real entities without knowing that the shadows are actually those posed by the humans outside. This explanation of Plato directs towards the fact that “most of us live in ignorance most of the time. The worst of this situation is that we do not even know we are ignorant”. (Mitchell, 2008) The truth that we perceive, therefore, seems to be subjective to our experience and conditionings. The emotional states of our inner being determine the way we see the out side world. Great poetry works are inclined to this particular phenomenology. Poet Matthew Arnold, once, sitting over the edge of Dover Beach claimed the “grating roar” of the pebbles that the sea flung back and forth over the beach to have brought the “eternal note of sadness in”(stanza 1). The withdrawing of the sea from the coast only reminds him of the ignorance of people and their diminishing faith on god. It is the melancholic and sad state of the poet’s mind that makes him behold the sea also as sad. For a sad person, even a bright sunny green day will appear to be boring while for a joyous person, even a rainy, cloudy or a gloomy day might appear to be mirthful! Differences occur among individuals on the way we emotionally react to certain situations. Temper-oriented people do not need much of a reason to go haywire in anger while for those spiritually and morally inclined individuals, even the most aggravating circumstances might be won over by forgiveness. How we take things, therefore, is a matter of our subjective emotional state. The reason that we claim for any happening is purely determined on the kind of mind- set we have been brought up with. Noah Lemos tries to explain that when we take a certain issue, for instance God, three different attitudes can come: “we can believe it or accept it as true. Second, we can disbelieve it, i.e. believe that it is false or believe its negation. Third, we can withhold belief in it or suspend judgment.” (p 7). What among these three ways is one’s understanding will be determined by what one is, that is, on what one has been infuenced to believe on since one’s childhood or in what kind of circumstances has one been brought up or what sort of believe one has inculcated. On being asked by a friend what I apply on my hair, once, my reply was “oil”. She then asserted vehimently that gel was what is supposed to be applied on hair. Who is right is uncertain but what is certain is that the certainty with which we believed on what we were supposed to apply on hair determined our verdict. Let culture, for instance be the centre of focus. For an Indian being humble or respectful is a matter of an inherent culture while people from other developed countries consider taking a stand, being assertive and individualistic a matter of encouragement. But what believe we have been influenced with over the time plays a role in deciding which among the two stances we would stand for. We see things, thus, as not what they actually are, but as what we are. Sense perception is yet another area of focus where understanding them is swayed by the state of ‘what we are’. Taking sight as an example, it would generally be claimed that we see what actually exists and we report what we see. The argument is something like this: take a colour, say, red. The question that needs to be asked, no matter how silly it might sound to be is; “Is red really ‘red’? If a person with colour blindness sees the same piece of thing, he might claim it to be ‘green’ instead of ‘red’. So the colour that we see is not determined by the particular thing being looked at, rather it is determined by the state of the eye that sees it. It is the similar line of aurgument that Helen Buss Mitchell presents in his book while explaining the “reality and the brain”. He sights an example of a life long blind, Vigil, who receives the gift of the sight eventually. After his surgery when his bandages were removed he is said to have stared blankly at what he later is said to have described as random and blur movement of lights and colour which were all mixed up. “Only when the familiar voice of the sugeon said, ‘Well?’ did Virgil realize that ‘this chaos of light and shadow was a face and, indeed, the face of his surgeon’ ”. ( p 61). This is an evidence, therefore in justifying that visual perception is noting but the interpretation of our brain – very much an attribute of our state of “what we are”. Not different is the aurgument when it comes to other sense perceptions such as taste, smell, touch and hearing. A fruit liked by one will be hated by the other and a person fond of German perfumes could puke just by the smell of French while another person would be fond of the latter. What one considers a warm and comforting cloth might prove to be allergic to another. A piece of heavy metallic music would be enough to set a person into wild motion while another mind in a corner of a room is quitely swayed by a soothing contralto of Romantic Melody. Instances are various and circumstances many but the reality, only one: we don’t see and understand things ‘as they are’ but ‘as we are’ Language has been the most exclusive mode of expression since time immemorial in the history of human kind. Language wouldn’t generally be considered responsible for the conception model of ‘as we are’ but this very unique feature of human expression along with its exclusivity has also given rise to ideas and understandings that would differ subjectively with the users of different languages. The fact that often remains ignored is that words do not just grant meanings with it, it projects subjective outlook and understandings of the people. It is not enough if “love” is merely defined as “a very strong feeling of affection” as the dictionary does. It is not wrong for certain people to underatand love in terms of it’s sexual connotation alone while people with asthetic outlook would relate to the word in terms of “purity” – two contraditory understanding to one little word! What exactly is love then? Given these conditions, there seems to be a clear connection linguistic influence in subjective undrstanding. Albert Einstein once is supposed to have challanged his teacher over the teacher’s claim of the ‘evil’ being created by God as thus: The linguistic understanding of these words guided Einstein here, in deriving such divine outlook. Language, therefore has a strong hold in influencing the understanding of things not ‘as they are’ but ‘as we are’ We the human species are not just humans; we are scientists, doctors, engineers or we are painters, poets and artists. This array of people backed by their individual experiences brought into being a strange thing called ‘subjectivity’. Truth therefore remains unexplored but not the methods of understanding them. People have, since the cradle of human growth been seeing and understanding things not swayed by the objective truth of ‘what they are’ but by the subjective understanding of ‘what we are’. Works Cited Arnold, M. (1867). Dover Beach. Lemos, N. (2007). An Introduction to the Theory of Khowledge. 2-8. New York, The United States of America: Cambridge University Press. Mikkelson, B. (n.d.). Malice of Absence. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from snopes.com: http://www.smopes.com/religion/einstein.asp Mitchell, H. B. (2008). Roots of Wisdom (5th Edition ed.). The U.S.A: Thomson Corporation (Thosmson Wadsworth). Read More