The Philospohy of Knowledge - Essay Example

Running Head: The Philosophy.... Topic: The Philosophy of Knowledge Order#: 421371 Topic: The Philosophy of Knowledge Outline of the Paper: Realized Souls came out with their revelation through the Ages, wise men wrote millions of pages on subjects like knowledge, joy and happiness; but these continue to elude the humankind in the known history. What a profound mystery! The industrial and internet revolution have deeply impacted the materialistic civilization and have changed the lifestyles of man, irretrievably. “Modern man does not experience himself as part of nature but as an outside force destined to dominate and conquer it.”(Schumacher,11) His weapon of conquest is knowledge. The information world is available to an individual at the click of the button. “The illusion of unlimited powers, nourished by astonishing scientific and technological achievement, has produced the concurrent illusion of having solved the problems.”(Schumacher,11) Man is under the false impression that acquisition of more and more knowledge can solve all problems. In reality however, “As one problem is being solved, ten new problems arise as the result of the first solution.(Schumacher,24) What is the solution? Should one stop acquiring knowledge? Let it be known that theory is other mans experience. What is the true criteria of knowledge? Is it the massive information contained in numerous publications, current opinions given through hundreds of TV channels, the avalanche of websites, the thick books and reports available in the college libraries, hundreds of reviews of books—what is it? Are they really important or can they be dispensed with? To gather and compile information is not knowledge. I take the stand that epistemology is one of the most important developments of human intelligence and a coherent theory of knowledge is worth the pursuit. It is the responsibility of the individual to sieve essential from the mass of non-essentials. I will try to define in this paper what knowledge is and its scope. Its vastness and its limitations. Knowledge acquisition is the right of an individual, but how one does it, is also ones right. No one can define it for you—this is knowledge and this is not!It is purely a personal domain, depending upon the circumstances one is placed in and the objectives that ones strives for. My second objective is to establish as to why it is essential to continue the pursuit, and frame a working theory of knowledge and an epistemology which is acceptable logically and looks sound and cohesive. In conclusion, I will tender examples to improve ones criteria of knowledge in the future. What is knowledge? Where it can be found? This is the crux of the matter; it can be read about in innumerable sources of all types, but true knowledge can be found only inside oneself. “Knowledge, according to Locke, is an activity of the human mind. Knowing involves ideas and, through ideas, relates to things. Locke regards knowledge as grasping the agreement or disagreement of our ideas. Knowledge sometimes concerns sameness or difference (red is a color, triangle is not square); sometimes relation (two is greater than three); sometimes necessary connection (in the thing called gold, yellowness accompanies malleability); and sometimes existence (each of us can know, Locke thinks, that he or she exists and that God exists).” (John Locke....) When an individual is born, one has no choice about beliefs. One entirely depends upon others and hope that those who impart knowledge to us, like parents and teachers will teach us what is appropriate. As one grows, choices sprout within ones mind about retaining or rejecting the information. What is the process involved in acquiring new information? Is there a correct, unmistakable process at all? Every type of knowledge is beneficial within its proper limits, but becomes useless or sometimes evil and destructive, as soon it crosses them. Look into the real nature of things, before initiating the process to acquire knowledge. Therefore, a theory of knowledge becomes essential to human evolution. One needs to evolve a set of standards to compare and contrast the massive new information. The roles of the epidemiologists assumes importance here. Examine old theories and define new ones in the light of new changes taking place, inventions and technological advances, and put the society in proper place to identify the usefulness or uselessness of the new information to enhance the ability to critically analyze the information in conformity with the needs. To give a definite and unfailing definition of knowledge is as difficult to tender the definition of human mind. Human mind has no existence as such, except that it is a bundle of thoughts. Same is the case of knowledge. One can engage in talks related to the process of acquiring it, but knowledge itself, can not be defined comprehensively. By analogy, knowledge can be compared to horizon. The more distance we cover to reach it, the more it moves from us! One acquires knowledge for individual perfection. When ones existing doubts about a particular issue are cleared in the light of the information related to it, one makes addition to ones knowledge. An individual has no other choice but to pursue a theory of knowledge and continue with the efforts for individual perfection. Use of studying epistemology: On this issue, in introduction to the book “A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge”, Robert Audi writes, “ But we sometimes make mistakes about what we perceive, just as we sometimes misremember what we have done or infer false conclusions from what we believe. We may then think we know something when in-fact we do not, as where we make errors through inattention or through being deceived by vivid dreams.” The approach to epistemology itself should not be bogged down by the procedural aspects. The knowledge about what the philosophers in the past said of The Theory of Knowledge is essential, but not so essential as to get stuck at What Hume said or Descartes elaborated. The focus needs to be on major concepts and ideas. Threadbare analysis and hair-splitting arguments will not serve tangible purpose; at times, it is wastage of energy. While interpreting the assertions of various philosophers, the point of limitations about ones ability of reflections should be taken care of. The delicate relationship and the complex character of scientific and moral,religious beliefs need to be examined. Generally science and religion are two contending forces; the two opposing forces; the forces that do not see eye to eye with each other, normally. Rare examples in knowledge acquisition where agreement between these two forces do exist. For example action-reaction theory—Every action has the reaction and the intensity of the reaction is in proportion to the intensity of the action. Over this conclusion, no dispute exists between science and religion(spirituality). So, this conclusion can be a welcome addition to the storehouse of knowledge of any individual, as this is the controversy-free statement. The fundamental and original question of epistemology continues to remain the fundamental original question. There is no consensus on what knowledge is. “Though philosophers are unable to provide a generally accepted analysis of knowledge, we all understand roughly what we are talking about when we use words such as “knowledge”. Thankfully, this means that it is possible to get on with epistemology, leaving unsolved the fundamental question as to what knowledge is.”(Theory of ….) There are two traditions concerning the ultimate source of knowledge. “ Empiricism, which holds that our knowledge is primarily based in experience, and rationalism, which holds that our knowledge is primarily based in reason. Although the modern scientific worldview borrows heavily from empiricism, there are reasons for thinking that a synthesis of the two traditions is more plausible than either of them individually.” (Theory of....) The example of action-reaction theory mentioned above is an example of the synthesis between spirituality and science. That which is not practical, can not be spiritual either. Every spiritual concept must stand the test of practicability. Many philosophers hail spirituality as the science of sciences. The cause of conflict is, science stops at the last barrier of the mind. When investigation is not possible, science terminates the processes. Spirituality transcends the mind to enter the conflict-free zone. It is a zone of total liberation for all forms of knowledge. Mostly, evidence is the source of beliefs. Such beliefs are true. The three most prominent theories of epistemic justification are foundationalism, coherentism, and reliabilism. Much of the knowledge comes to us through our senses, through perception. Perception is a complex process, due to its dual form. Ones experience is determined in part by the world and also determined in part by the one who perceives. The level of the capacity of the individual does play an important role in the process. Both contribute to the process. Knowledge about the process of perception and how this should impact the understanding about the world around us, is vital for epistemology. Do we know anything at all? Philosophical skepticism continues to dominate the area of epistemology. The prime question as mentioned earlier is, the nature of knowledge and how we come to acquire it, and in reality, whether we know anything at all! This is the dividing line between the philosophers. A section of it arguing that we do not know anything at all; others resist this position. The relevant problem in the theory of knowledge is not what knowledge is or from where it comes from, but whether there is any such thing as knowledge at all! Let us,therefore, try to understand the Theory of Knowledge step by step:When we ask ourselves the prime question, whether we know anything at all, it is not the end of the road; rather it is the beginning of investigation. Theory of Knowledge is a product of doubt. Doubt and investigation are the beginnings for acquiring knowledge! The process to sieve the trustworthy beliefs from the untrustworthy beliefs begins. Generally, any subject begins with the definition, but mostly definitions are controversial, as different schools tender varied definitions. So, instead of getting bogged down at the stage of definition, let us proceed further by asserting that the subject is concerned with general conditions of knowledge, as far as they throw light upon truth and falsehood. Let us divide the discussion into three stages:a) the definition of knowledge, b) data, c) methods of inference. With this division, a debatable question sprouts immediately. In distinguishing between data and inferences we begin to take sides and the controversy starts. Some philosophers hold the distinction to be illusory, as all knowledge is partly immediate and partly derivative according to them. a) The definition of knowledge; “The question how knowledge should be defined is perhaps the most important and difficult of the three with which we shall deal. This may seem surprising: at first sight it might be thought that knowledge might be defined as belief which is in agreement with the facts. The trouble is that no one knows what a belief is, no one knows what a fact is, and no one knows what sort of agreement between them would make a belief true. Let us begin with belief.”(Theory of Knowledge....) Belief. Traditionally, a “belief” is a state of mind. By this statement, we are into another controversy. What is mind? It has no independent existence; it is supposed to be a bundle of thoughts. The contents of the bundle are not measurable. They vary from time to time, as the state of the mind of an individual is never static; it is different at any given moment. Behaviorists seem to take the correct stand when they aver that the states of mind can not be known. To them, the word belief, if accepted, would mean the characteristics of bodily behavior. Here, commonsense comes to the fore and the usage is done accordingly. Suppose you are set out to visit the Church for the Sunday congregation, and you often do that on every Sunday, but midway it begins to rain, you would say, “ I thought it wont rain today. With no clouds, the sky has been absolutely clear.” Yet it is possible that you did not think about it at all, when you started from your home for the Church and you pursued the usual route at the usual time. A “thought” or “belief” is the issue of commonsense, be reflected by behavior, without any corresponding “mental” occurrence. Even if you give the form of words to express your belief, you still engage in bodily behavior, when you pronounce the words out loud or to yourself. Is you action out of your belief or is there something more than it? Behavior in reality is the same, whether you have an explicit belief or not. When you open the cupboard early in the morning to prepare a cup of tea, you “believed” that the tea and sugar containers are there, even if you had no state of mind that could be called cognitive as per the introspective psychology. Words: Words to have influence and concerning human behavior, they exert proper influence. The beast that moves to the shade on a hot day is attracted by the sight of darkness; the man instead may pronounce the word “ shade” and investigate where it can be found. The behaviorists term, the use of words and their efficacy to produce appropriate responses and this process is known as “thinking”. The words are mentioned as a mere bodily habit, and yet they are a mark of “belief”. Verbal habits, however, can not be construed as evidences of belief. Belief and Behavior So, belief and behavior operate in tandem. This is true of animal responses as well. For example, a dog runs to the main door of the house, when it hears the sound of the bell. Human beings as well as the animals act in the hope of getting some results. They may not succeed always, but when they do, their relevant beliefs are “true” and when they fail, they are false. Truth in Logic. Instead of going into the lengthy discussion, one can understand this by an example. The word Thomas means a certain individual. The word Rex means a certain other individual. The word “love” means a certain relation. When this data is given, the meaning of complex symbol “Thomas loves Rex” is fixed. This complex symbol can be true or false. In any case, the outcome of the assumptions is purely formal, and no tangible probe or outcome is possible. Uncertainty and Vagueness. To define knowledge, therefore is to deny knowledge! Having come thus far, two other issues needs to be taken into consideration. The degree of precision and the degree of certainty. “All knowledge is more or less uncertain and more or less vague. These are, in a sense, opposing characters: vague knowledge has more likelihood of truth than precise knowledge, but is less useful. One of the aims of science is to increase precision without diminishing certainty. But we cannot confine the word "knowledge" to what has the highest degree of both these qualities; we must include some propositions that are rather vague and some that are only rather probable.” (Theory of Knowledge....) When vagueness and uncertainty are identified, it is desirable to estimate their degree. But precision is impossible to achieve, and that is the main issue concerning The Theory of Knowledge. b) The data: In the area of scientific research, the distinction between what is data and whether its basis is clear, poses difficulties in theory. In astronomy, black and white patterns on photographic plates forms the essential data. But the interpretation of the plates and making reading out of it, is the contentious issue, to secure knowledge about stars and planets. Special skills are required to get the benefit of the data in a quantitative science and evolve theories finally. Einstein was not an expert in photography. But how an expert he was in interpreting the photos before him and draw relevant conclusions out of it. Data and its interpretation are alternative beats of the same heart. One should be a heart specialist to know the exact condition of the heart. Inference: Knowledge is only a characteristic of behavior. To a logician, inference is a refined operation, and a top degrease of intellectual development is needed for proper and accurate inference. Data: Mental and physical: Data are of two types, physical derived from the senses and mental derived from introspection. Can distinction be made amongst these two types of data? The inference drawn from them is more relevant than the datum itself. For example, look at a picture of the horse drawn on a blackboard. Two judgments are possible. “There is a horse there”, and “I see a horse.” These are different propositions, but none of it expresses a bare datum;For both the propositions, the bare datum is identical. To make the differentiation clear, you might say, “There is a horse there”, provided you had seen at sometime ago, and now shut your eyes to say, “I see a horse.” “The difference between the physical and the mental, therefore, would seem to belong to inferences and constructions, not to data. The two-fold organization of these events, on the one hand as constituents of the public world of physics, on the other hand as parts of a personal experience, belongs to what is inferred, not to what is given. For theory of knowledge, the question of the validity of inference is vital.” (Theory of Knowledge....) c)Methods of inference: Two kinds of inferences are in vogue-Deduction and Induction. Deduction has great practical importance, as it is highly relevant to mathematics. In the strict sense of the term, it is not a form of inference at all. It is the reiteration of the same thing in another way. In a particular case, it may hold good, for it has the backup of of the past experience. Induction: “The important forms of inference for theory of knowledge are those in which we infer the existence of something having certain characteristics from the existence of something having certain other characteristics.”(Theory of Knowledge....) If you read a report in the newspaper regarding the death of certain person, your inference that he is dead, may be mistaken. But such inferences are accepted in the ordinary course of life, without further questioning. But imagine the nature of the doubting Thomas, who will doubt everything in life. Such an individual may doubt about each and every entry in the yellow pages directory. But in actual practice, one doesnt handle the situations in life in that way. Probable knowledge in everyday life is accepted with due reverence and regard. The Theory of Knowledge will be of assistance to us to decide whether such and such occurrence is really probable(depending on our past experiences.) You can not allow yourself to be controlled by ifs and buts which are the origin of doubts. Robert Audi writes, “Philosophers have given a great deal of thought to these matters, especially to the nature of perceiving and to what we can know—or mistakenly think we know—through perception or through other sources of knowledge, such as memory as a storehouse of what use have learned in the past, introspection as a way to know our inner lives, reflection as a way to acquire knowledge or abstract matters, or testimony as a source of knowledge originally acquired by others.”(Introduction....) Grades of Certainty. The Theory of Knowledge continues to be an enigma. The related subject is partly logical and partly psychological. The connection between these parts is difficult to establish. These are central topics of epistemology. “ Logic and mathematics on the one hand, and the facts of perception on the other, have the highest grade of certainty; where memory comes in, the certainty is lessened; where unobserved matter comes in, the certainty is further lessened; beyond all these stages comes what a cautious man of science would admit to be doubtful.”(Theory of Knowledge...) Conclusion: What we think is important; How we think is important. Epistemology is all about how we think, what we think and what is fundamental to perfect such a thinking process! Some of the important questions related to Epistemology are: What can we know? Why do we know some things, but not others? How can we know it? Is knowledge possible? How do we acquire knowledge? Can knowledge be certain? Why do we believe certain claims and not others? How can we differentiate truth from falsehood? The beauty of the questions is, none of these can be answered in their finality. In every breath of the human being a thought is involved; in every thought of a human being, a breath is involved. Every breath is an action; every action has the opposite reaction. Normally, a human being breathes 22,000 times in a day. Every breath of the human being is part of his thinking process. The gigantic scope and responsibility of epistemology can be understood by this simple illustration, as it is the all-pervading subject related to the entire humankind. ************ References: Audi, Robert. Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge Routledge;1st edition,December 18, 1997. John Locke on Reason and Faith.... Retrieved on March 17,2010 Schumacher, E F. Small is Beautiful-A Study of Economics as if People Mattered; Blond & Briggs Ltd., London, 1973 Theory of Knowledge .info An overview of epistemology... Retrieved on March 17,2010 Theory of Knowledge by Bertrand Russell(1926) …. of knowledge are those in which we infer the existence of something having ... -Retrieved on March 17, 2010 Read More