The Premise and Philosophy of Knowledge Focusing on Vocabulary - Coursework Example

The Premise and Philosophy of Knowledge focusing on Vocabulary Everyone agrees that knowledge is priceless but the conformity regarding knowledge stops there (Lehrer 1). Philosophers argue about what knowledge is, how you obtain it and even whether there is any for an individual to acquire. Conversely, vocabulary is the group of words within a language that is known to a person. This paper ventures to discuss the knowledge of vocabulary and the speculations about it from a variety of perspectives. I. The Definition of Knowledge Centering on Vocabulary It is rather a daunting task to define what knowledge is and to arrive at a meaning that every individual will agree to. Moreover, if knowledge is considered, this would be a more complicated task for often the vocabulary one has serves more than what that person is trying to express; it can even aid an individual to know what he or she deems necessary to know. Hence, it is fitting to describe the concepts surrounding both subject matters. Acquaintance Acquaintance is the simplest and the most pervading aspect of experience (Russell, Eames & Blackwell 5). It is a dual relation between a subject and an object which does not necessitate any community of nature. To be able to communicate well, one has to familiarize oneself with the words that he or she can utilize to express his or her ideas; thus, this proves that one already knows what the words mean so that they could utilize it appropriately. Moreover, the subject is psychological; the object is not known to be rational except in introspection when it comes to acquaintances. The object may be in the present, in the past, or not in time at all; it may be a sensible particular, or a universal, or an abstract logical fact. All cognitive relations—attention, sensation, memory, imagination, believing, disbelieving and others—assume acquaintance (Russell et al. 5). Experience According to Kant, “all knowledge begins with experience” and “all knowledge comes from experience” as highlighted by Locke (Hobhouse 15). Therefore, if one has already encountered a word, used it in daily conversations, one will certainly instill that vocabulary in his or her mind. Belief A belief is a state of the mind of a certain sort, which can possess several properties. The theory of knowledge is concerned with such properties, with the difference between good and bad beliefs (Morton 1). Its importance in philosophy comes from two sources, one constructive and one destructive. The constructive reason is that philosophers have often tried to find better ways in which we can get our beliefs. For instance, they had scrutinized scientific method and tried to see whether individuals can describe scientific rules which they could follow to give them the greatest chance of avoiding false beliefs. The destructive reason is that philosophy has often been caught up in the conflict between one set or system of beliefs and another (Morton 1). For example, people with religious faith sometimes attempt to seek philosophical reasons for believing in God, while anti-religious people occasionally struggle to uncover philosophical reasons why it is absurd to have faith in God. So the theory of knowledge—or epistemology as it is also called, from the Greek word episteme meaning “knowledge”- can get involved both in striving to discover better ways of acquiring beliefs and in criticizing the beliefs individuals already have (Morton 2). It is the same as acquiring a new set of vocabulary, individuals may tend to compare or rationalize regarding which set of words they should employ given a particular situation. Epistemic Ideal A very austere epistemic ideal is that of coherence. Coherence is having beliefs that not only make sense individually but which hang together in a coherent patter (Morton 2). For example, an individual believes that all cats are intelligent, believe that his or her neighbor’s cat is a cat, and also believes that his or her neighbor’s cat is stupid, then that individual’s beliefs are incoherent. They cannot all be true, thus, that individual can start with some of them and provide good reasons with disagreeing with others. A person’s belief could be incoherent for other reasons too. A person might believe many things which amount to strong evidence for something and yet believe the opposite. This often happens when people deceive themselves. One of the reasons why beliefs should be coherent is that incoherent beliefs tend to include many false ones (Morton 3). Another is that incoherent beliefs are hard to defend against people who challenge or attack them (Morton 3). So coherence is an ideal, which individuals could set to themselves. People could attempt to make their beliefs as coherent as possible. However, this does not mean that any person’s beliefs could ever be absolutely coherent. Every human being will probably always be vulnerable to bad reasoning and self-deception for that’s the way human beings are, though it is an ideal that individuals can endeavor to achieve. Nonetheless, it is also an ideal that someone might decide not to aim for, such as the ideal of obtaining remarkable fresh ideas. The important point is that many differences of opinion are the result of what a person’s beliefs should be like as emphasized by Morton (3). One task of the theory of knowledge is to provide ways in which these variances of epistemic ideal can be tackled and even resolved (Morton 3). Morton highlighted that philosophers utilize several central concepts in order to discuss beliefs (5). A belief is rational if it does not go beyond what the evidence available to the individual suggests, and leaves open possibilities that are not closed off by that evidence, otherwise, the belief can be deemed as irrational (Morton 5). Beliefs can also be true or false, and justified or unjustified according to Morton (5). Based on the aforementioned principles, an individual is deemed to choose his or her words wisely so as to provide logical thoughts, if the choice of words is incoherent with each other, surely, it would be difficult for another person to understand what the former is trying to explain; hence, there is no opportunity to learn from each other. Truth Lemos cited that there are many theories about the nature of truth and about what makes a proposition true or false (9). One of the oldest and probably the most broadly recognized is the correspondence theory of truth (Lemos 9). The correspondence theory makes two claims as listed by Lemos (9). First, a proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts and second, a proposition is false if and only if it fails to correspond to the facts (Lemos 9). Supporters of this theory often suggest a third claim that the truth of a proposition or belief is reliant on the facts or upon the way the world is (Lemos 9). Lemos added that the correspondence theory of truth suggests that a proposition is not true because of what individuals believe about it; moreover, it also stressed that one and the same proposition cannot be both true and false (9). Nonetheless, some still disapprove the points emphasized in this theory. Some object that unless there is an explanation why a particular belief corresponds with the facts, the theory is not very informative. Furthermore, others stressed that the theory is uninformative for the reason that the notion of a fact is obscure; yet others would suppose that one cannot elucidate what a fact is without employing the use of the concepts of truth and falsity, thus, the correspondence theory is rounded and eventually unenlightening (Lemos 10). One alternative to the correspondence theory is the pragmatic theory of truth. A central insight of the pragmatic theory is that true beliefs are generally useful and false beliefs are not (Lemos 10-11). Another theory of truth is the coherence theory of truth. Some philosophers consider the fact that a proposition coheres or “hangs together” with other positions one believes to be indicative of its truth or suggests a good reason to believe it is true (Lemos 12). Simply, it means that coherence is regarded as a source of justification. Conversely, proponents of this theory treat coherence not merely as a source of justification but rather a condition of truth (Lemos 12). Critics of the coherence theory of truth raise a variety of objections. First, they note that the concept of coherence is murky. Indeed, some critics claim that the concept of coherence is at least as much in need of explanation as those of correspondence and fact (Lemos 12). Moreover, they would say that the coherence theory has no real advantage in clarity over the correspondence theory. Second, critics stressed that an individual cannot simply claim that a proposition is true if and only if it belongs to a set of coherent propositions; moreover, a very realistic piece of fiction might be a coherent set of false propositions (Lemos 12). Furthermore, Lemos also emphasized that believing something does not guarantee that it is true (12). Words uttered may be an explanation of what an individual is trying to point out, however, certain instances, may not hold this as always correct. As what it had been previously mentioned, an individual may choose not to divulge what he or she really wanted to say. Evidence Whether a belief is justified and the extent to which it is justified is often, if not always, a role of the evidence one has for it. One might think of a person’s evidence at a particular time as comprising in all the information or data one has at that time (Lemos 17). It is widely and commonly held that sense perception, memory, introspection, and reason are source of evidence as mentioned by Lemos (17). The said sources can be deemed as providing information or data that serves as evidence for a person’s belief. It can also be regarded that they provide evidence through such things as memory experiences, sense experiences, introspective experiences and rational intuitions (Lemos 17). Such experiences therefore along with individuals’ justified beliefs may be thought to constitute their evidences as cited by Lemos (17). Lemos mentioned that there are two types of evidences, conclusive and nonconclusive (17). Conclusive evidence guarantees the truth of the proposition it supports; most of the time, however, an evidence for a proposition is deemed nonconclusive in the sense that it does not guarantee the truth of the proposition it holds (Lemos 17-18). Before vocabulary came into existence, certain proofs were needed in order to unravel its importance in shaping the intellect and the society. It needed supporting facts that would aid one in choosing what set fits him or her best. II. The Relationship between Ideology and Worldview Centered on Vocabulary Ideologies and schools of thought are offshoots of worldviews. “Worldview” means a kind of understanding, an interpretation and a kind of analysis that a person has about existence and the universe as well as man, society and history (Mutahhari 2). Individuals and groups have diverse worldviews; that is, one group interprets the world in a certain way while another group interprets it in another way (Mutahhari 2). A different worldview begets a different ideology because the ground on which the theoretical structure of ideology stands is the worldview, for ideology means the school which defines what to do and what not to do; the school which motivates an individual to a specific goal and presents him or her with the means of fulfilling his or her goal (Mutahhari 2). According to Mutahhari, ideology states what should be; how to live; what should have happened; how things should be molded; on the basis of which model should shape individuals and how these individuals, in turn can shape their society (2). Worldview informs people of what exists and what does not exist; what law governs the universe and man; what tenet rules society; which movement and motions lead to which direction; how nature moves and what is the very thing called “existence” (Mutahhari 3). There are also a variety of worldviews of vocabulary since each and every country utilize varied sets of language, each set of vocabulary may use similar words but of different definitions hence, it is appropriate to know what vocabulary applies to a certain group of people for one to be able to ascertain what he or she needs to. III. The Tools for Knowledge and Vocabulary The senses are among the means and tools for knowledge for man (Mutahhari 28). Man has numerous senses: sight, hearing, taste; thus, if man were devoid of all senses, he would also be devoid of all knowledge (Mutahhari 28). For instance, if a person is blind from birth, there is no chance that he or she would obtain a concept of color, form or distance; no matter what adjective another person utilizes to instill to the intellect of the blind person such concepts, it would be impossible to do so. The senses aid individuals to comprehend different adjectives people use at present. Such vocabulary is attributed to what one sees, hears, smells or touches, and in the process, what that individual senses, he or she gather eruditions from those. However, it is unattainable to help a person who was born blind understand certain things. Likewise, it is hopeless to help a person who was born deaf understand a voice, music or song. And this is true of anyone who is devoid of a sense. Therefore, there is no doubt or hesitancy that the senses are among the elements of knowledge (Mutahhari 29). Considering this, it would be a challenge to teach vocabulary to someone who is deprived of any of the senses for that person may not able to learn from his or her mentor. IV. The Role of the Rational Faculty in Knowing Vocabulary Apart from the senses, Mutahhari emphasized that man is in need of other things (30). In order to acquire knowledge, an individual necessitates a kind of analysis and at times, varied kinds of analysis. Analysis as stressed by Mutahhari is a function of the intellect (30). Intellectual analyses refer to the classification of things according to specific categories; this is achieved through what is technically called “analysis”. One of the extraordinary functions of the human mind is abstraction. Abstraction is different from analysis for it means that an individual’s mind separates from each other two things which are exactly identical in the outside world and are impossible to separate (Mutahhari 31). Mutahhari highlighted that the senses are a tool; the other means which is termed as the intellect, thinking, intellection or any other name is another tool (32). Both of them are needed by individuals to be able to attain knowledge and they are not independent of them. Vocabulary is an ever growing facet of knowledge, it does not stop to continue to grow and expand. The circumstances at present motivates each individual to discover more words that could be utilized in communicating with each other and in grasping what the intellect should remember. V. Conclusion The theory of knowledge is indeed a very complicated subject matter intertwined with a variety of concepts particularly if it is giving emphasis to vocabulary, it is then vital for an individual to consider such concepts surrounding it to fully gain an insight of what it truly imposes particularly in aiding us to communicate knowledge and add up to what people already know. Works Cited: Hobhouse, Leonard T. The Theory of Knowledge: A Contribution to Some Problems of Logic and Metaphysics. [n.p.]: Kessinger Publishing, 2005. Lehrer, Keith. Theory of Knowledge. Oxford: Westview Press, 2000. Lemos, Noah. An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Morton, Adam. A guide through the Theory of Knowledge. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2003. Mutahhari, Murtada. The Theory of Knowledge. Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. Russell, Bertrand, Elizabeth Ramsden Eames, and Kenneth Blackwell. Theory of Knowledge: the 1913 Manuscript. New York: Routledge, 2002. Read More