Epistemology as One of the Most Important Fields of Philosophy - Essay Example

Epistemology Introduction Epistemology is one of the most important fields of Philosophy. It deals with the study of the theory of knowledge. It is a field that tries to address various questions that arise in relation to knowledge. For example it tries to address the real definition of knowledge. To explain what knowledge is, the tripartite theory of knowledge has been used as a working model and to describe it. The other question that arises in epistemology is the source of knowledge that we have. To explain the sources philosophers came up with two solutions where the knowledge we have is either got from experience or from critical reasoning. The question of the justification of beliefs also arises in the study of epistemology. The mainly applied theories that are trusted in epistemic justification include reliabilism, foundationalim and coherentism. Epistemology also looks at our perception to the world that we live in and the environment that surrounds us. Perception involves our senses and our attitudes towards what we see and interact with. The process of perception though complex helps us in understanding our environment and how we live in it better. Our interaction with the environment is so important as it determines how friendly we will be or how destructive we will be. This makes it an important field in the study of knowledge. Philosophical skepticism is the question that tries to answer the question whether we even know anything. This paper will address the questions that arise in epistemology and compare the description of the same from different philosophers. The paper is aimed at looking critically at the topic and come up with the best explanation of the theory of knowledge as it pertains to epistemology. The Tripartite theory of Knowledge Plato projected the tripartite theory of knowledge which I support in what one should have in order to possess knowledge. In this theory knowledge is analysed and brought out as a justified true belief. The theory proposes that for a person to believe in a certain thing then you must have justified it\. In the justification you end up knowing it and hence the theory holds water. According to Plato, the first condition one should have to have knowledge is belief. Believing in a certain thing is a process that is cultured by excellent, emotional free reasoning and weighing of situations. When you believe in a thing then you know it due to the justification you did regarding the issue. Truth is the second condition to uphold knowledge. Even if a belief is sincere and well justified, if it is not true then it cannot be termed as knowledge. He proposes in the theory that a false cannot be known. Everything that is known is a truth. So judgment is made on whether the given information is part of the truth and if it is categorized as a truth then it is knowledge. So knowledge must be the knowledge of the justified truth and not justified false. Knowledge need to be justified Merely believing in something cannot qualify it to a truth if there is no justification done. Justification is done by using the right reasoning to judge whether what you believe in is the truth or not the truth. Therefore the tripartite theory of knowledge suggests that the three conditions must be present for one to have knowledge. How do we get Knowledge? From the theory above, we get our knowledge in two ways. The first one is empiricism which suggests that the knowledge we have is got from the experiences we have been through in life and rationalism which suggests that the knowledge we have is because of the critical reasoning we apply when handling various situations. Empiricism This is a theory that suggests that the knowledge we have is got primarily from the daily experiences we go through. The knowledge we get from experience is through learning. Therefore we must look at how we learn and get experiences in different ways. While living in the world we have our environment and the activities that happen in it. The way we perceive that determines our learning and the knowledge we get or have. One cannot have knowledge without any experience. The only time that can happen is in cases of semantic and logical truths which do not need any experience to know (Necip). In classical empiricism, an individual gets to a point where s/he rejects the inborn knowledge and acquires new truths which are justified and they become his or her new knowledge. This is done through the experiences one goes through. Radical empiricism suggests that all our knowledge is derived from our senses. Our senses are the ones that take any experience we go through and so that becomes part of the knowledge we have. Radical empiricism disregards any knowledge found without experience. In order to get the experience our senses are involved and hence help in saving the experience and forming part of our knowledge. Radical empiricism further disregards ethical and religious claims terming them as nonsensical and senseless. Moderate empiricism allows more space for reasoning and making conclusions by suggesting that our senses do not always participate in getting of knowledge. Rationalism Rationalism suggests that the knowledge we possess is got from critical thinking. So a rationalist supposes that we have some innate knowledge that helps us to expound and think more critically. The theory also suggests that there are a number of truths that even if they are not told one has a way of knowing them anyway free of any experience. In disregarding the knowledge from experience the theory also suggests that there are truths that cannot be cemented on experience alone. This is why two people can look at a similar object yet make very contradicting opinions about it (Necip). Epistemology: David Hume’s Analysis David Hume was a Scottish Philosopher who made significant development on empiricism and understanding of knowledge. Hume looks at the cognitive capacities of individuals to understand the causes and the sources of human belief. Hume simplifies the whole essence of philosophy by saying that its main goal is to explain why we believe in what we believe in as that forms the basis of our knowledge. This is different from the way it is described in Plato’s descriptions. Hume’s approach to human belief is different. He starts by creating a clear distinction between impressions and ideas as the main mental contents which build the basis of our knowledge. He describes impressions as the direct products of an immediate experience in our living. After getting the original impressions they are structured in a different way which is determined by our thinking capacities to yield ideas. The mind is however capable of connecting the ideas to come up with more complex and new things (Feisser). Hume used to give a good example of a fact built on experience. The sun’s rising is a fact and due to the experience and seeing it rise many times we get sure that it shall rise the following day. However by just the mere fact that the sun has been rising every day, there is no rational basis to make us believe that the sun must rise tomorrow. This is his explanation of the limits that we should go to when it comes to experience and how it facilitates the accumulation of knowledge (Feisser). Through the experience we get from the past happenings we can be able to think beyond our experiences. This could be termed as scepticism which is philosophically wrong. However, by looking at the constant conjunction of events in the past we are able to establish a way of speculating what may happen in the future. He therefore concludes that our beliefs arise from sentiment rather than from the way we reason. He closely associates beliefs to imaginations claiming they only differ in their intensity of conviction (Hume). Looking at the two explanations on epistemology, the tripartite theory of knowledge is better. Though we cannot rule out the strong ideas brought out in Hume’s explanation there are a few things that are unaddressed in Hume’s explanation. The two theories borrow much from each other and explain things in different ways yet achieving the same effect. For instance in the tripartite theory, the knowledge we have is sourced from two sources that is experience and reasoning. When we look at the analysis by Hume, he explains the strong effect of the past experiences in creating the current notions that people hold as truth today. He explains it by distinguishing impressions from ideas (Hume, n.p). Ideas are the secondary forms of the primary impressions that are created from the experiences one goes through. This closely correlates with the earlier rationalism theory which suggests that we get knowledge from reasoning. Conclusion Many philosophers have explained the source of knowledge and epistemology in different ways. In our analysis we can conclude that though the theories projected by the different philosophers can stand independently or disregard each other they have much in common only elaborated in different ways. However we cannot overlook the few differences that stand out in the way they approach the situation. Works Cited Feisser, James. A Bibliography of Hume’s Writings and Early Responces. Tennessee: University of Tennesse.2005. Hume, D. A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects. University of Adelaide. First Published 1749, Updated March, 2014. Online. http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/hume/david/h92t/index.html Necip, Fikri. Rethinking Plato:A Catesian Quest for the Real Plato. Rodopi. 1975. Read More