Download Knowledge

April, 16, 2010
Historically
As an independent study
/ branch of knowledge
As a discourse / issues
on knowledge
Arose since 17 C / 18 C
Since Greek antiquity
On the source or tool of knowledge
Some examples
issues:
On the certitude in human knowledge
On the measure (mizan) of knowledge
Some
epistemological
issues
On the source or tool of knowledge
Since Greek antiquity
Concerning the instrument of knowledge
Heraclites (500 BC)
Parmenides (early 50 C. BC)
Emphasized on
Sensorial perception
Emphasized on
mere rationality
Plato (428BC - 347 BC )
We could not have
knowledge from
sensible world
Aristotle (382 B.C. - 322 B.C)
Both Rationality and Sensory
perception are valuable
After this ages, the western philosophers stand
separately and OPPOSITIONALLY in one of both sides,
RATIONALISM
EMPIRICISM
Such as EPICUREAN (the followers of Epicurus [3441-247 BC]) :
Only sense is valuable, there is no value for rationality as the tool of knowledge
Some
epistemological
issues
On the problem of certitude in human knowledge
Since Greek antiquity
Problem of
Sophism
(C 5 BC)
Reject any certainty in knowledge
Questioning
Is it possible that we have any knowledge
at the level of certitude?
one of the most difficult subject in epistemology
Relativism
Protaghorias
Phoron
Human is the measure of all thing
Human as parameter of knowledge
Established skepticism
Some
epistemological
issues
On the measure (mizan) of knowledge
Since Greek antiquity
The proof can be traced back to
Foundationlism
Aristotle
This theory holds that beliefs are justified (known,
etc.) based on basic or foundationally beliefs, that is
beliefs that give justificatory support to other beliefs.
So this basic beliefs must be self-evident (badihi,
self-justifying), or not justified by other beliefs (nonbadihi, not an inferential justification). In this theory,
a belief is justified only if it is justified by a basic
belief or beliefs, or it is justified by a chain of beliefs
that is supported by a basic belief or beliefs, and on
which all the others are ultimately based.
explanation
Definition
A philosophical knowledge which analyzes:
The nature, essence, or reality of knowledge
The base of knowledge
The limit of knowledge
The justifiability of knowledge
Ref. to : Paul Edward,
Edward & Moser (Theory of Knowledge)
Analysis of knowledge
Western contemporary philosopher
(analytic philosopher)
What is knowledge ?
What is “to know” ?
Analytic division of the word “knowing”
Three meaning of “knowing”
I know driving, swimming, etc. Knowing “how to” means
has skill to do something
Knowledge of Skill
I know Jakarta, the book, etc
Is “Jakarta” a knowledge?
No it is object of knowledge
Knowledge by acquaintance
I know that A, B, C are true
You recognize that one’s proposition is true
Propositional Knowledge
Analytic philosopher’s division of the
word “knowing”
Mixing between
The usage of the
word “knowing”
The philosophical meaning
of “knowing”
Propositional
Knowledge
Before 20 C
Epistemology in western contemporary philosophy
Epistemology includes
concept
After 20 C
proposition
Analytic philosophers focus themselves on
Propositional meaning of
knowledge
After 20 C
Analytic philosophers focus themselves on
Propositional meaning of knowledge
questioning
The aim of epistemology
Correspondence
To come to the fact
To grasp the reality
Finding the true or false
Real “PEN”
Attributes :
Blue color
Solid material
“PEN”
Long in size
Etc..
Real “PEN”
Has many attributes or
predicates
Is “PEN”in itself an existence?
“PEN is blue, solid.., bla,,,bla…”
Object of knowledge
tashdiq
(pure) “PEN”
tashawwur
Not Object of knowledge
DOUBT
The Existence of “I”
General study Three approaches
(Broad sense)
1. Classical Approach : Socrates, Plato, Aristotle
2. Modern Approach : Start from Descartes
3. Contemporary Approach
.
Epistemology
Specific study
(Limited sense)
Epistemological discourse
Concerning different
particular fields, such as:
Religious doctrines,
ethical judgements;
mathematical studies,
etc.
Epistemology
in General
Main subject
Some of main questions
The Nature and Scope of knowledge
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3 Approaches
What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
What do people know?
How do we know that we know ?
What is true knowledge How can we have
a true knowledge?
What is the criteria of true knowledge?
How do we know that our knowledge is
true ore false ?
Classical, Modern, and Contemporary
Epistemology
in General
3 Approaches
Classical, Modern, and Contemporary
Classical Approach
Some of the figures : Socrates (469 BC–399 BC ), Plato, Aristotle
Main questions How do we know the reality? How can our mind come at the reality?
•
•
What is the criteria of true knowledge?
What is the value of knowledge?
It does not put “Reality” in question :
The Reality of Existence &
the Reality of the knower
• is taken for granted as a foundation or basic belief
• is regarded as self-evident or self-justified (badihi)
Hence, the epistemological building
in classical approach is grounded on basic belief
At least, the reality, the knower himself,
his emotion, sense,
Modern Approach
Main figure : Descartes (1596 – 1650 )
•
Modern approach in epistemology is begun from the since from the Rationalism
of Rene Descartes.
•
Cartesian rationalism is the result of his methodical skepticism
•
Descartes held that a knowing subject
can doubt on all of his knowledge.
•
But how can he doubt on his doubt?
•
As the consequence, how can one who
doubts doubt himself as real?
The ground object of belief
is aimed at eliminating
all belief which it is
possible to doubt, thus
leaving us with indubitable
beliefs, from which
further knowledge is
derived.
Our doubt
Modern Approach
“Cogito, ergo sum”
The Cartesian Epistemological Steps
From
to
then
Cogito
DOUBT
CERTAINTY
build further KNOWLEDGE
What is the criteria of indubitable knowledge?
It must be
1. CLEAR
&
2. DISTINCT
ergo sum
Modern Approach
What is the criteria of indubitable knowledge?
It must be
1. CLEAR
&
(clarity contrasts with obscurity)
2. DISTINCT
distinctness contrasts with confusion
Innate idea
ideas whose
content derives
solely from the nature
of the mind itself.
Such as ideas in :
- mathematics (e.g., number, line, triangle)
- logic (e.g., contradiction, necessity),
- metaphysics (e.g., identity, substance, causality).
- even our sensory ideas, of colors, sounds, tastes, and the like,
whose content draws from the mind itself.
- Including GOD,
(Since source of perfect idea in one’s imperfect mind, must not
come from the imperfect but Perfect itself, that is God.)
GOD, is an idea
But This is a conceptual God,
That we cannot worship to
But the idea is the primary, so He is real
Modern Approach
•
•
•
Starts from methodical skepticism
Contemporary Approach
•
Start from defining knowledge
The question:
What is indubitable knowledge?
•
The question is
What is knowledge ?
Main belief must be clear and
distinct
•
A knowledge must have 3 epistemic
attributes:
1.
Belief
2.
Justified
3.
True
The Epistemological Steps of Contemporary approach
DEFINITION of KNOWLEDGE
ANALYSIS of the definition
FINDING THE 3 ATTRIBUTES,
Classical
Modern
Based on
a preceding
indubitable basic belief
(the existence of reality)
assumed taken for granted
Contemporary
From
skeptic (methodical)
to
ultimate indubitable
certainty
Influenced by
Western acute
Skepticism
Certainty
100%
human knowledge
can be true
(objectively grasp reality
as it is)
from
analysis
to
knowledge
Under
Analytic approach
(analytic Philosophy)
spell
Doubt
Confident
50% - 50 %
Between
+/-80%
SCEPTICISM
Global skepticism
Local skepticism
( absolute skepticism / universal skepticism)
that one cannot know anything at all.
That one cannot possess knowledge
in some particular domain.
Two common Arguments
The argument
The argument
from ERROR
from ASLEEP
GLOBAL
Skepticism
Argument
from
ERROR
Two premises
Premise 1
Premise 2
Universalizability
We mistaken in many
situations in which we think
we have knowledge claims.
It is adopted from a moral
thesis
There are also situations we
have knowledge claims that
we don't know we are not
mistaken about.
A situation must be
equally applicable to
every relevantly identical
situation
CONCLUSION
All human knowledge can be false,
we cannot know whether or not we are mistaken,
Human has no knowledge (justified true believe)
GLOBAL
Skepticism
Argument
from
ASLEEP
When we sleep, and in a middle of dreaming
we are sure and believe that the situation, and whatever happen in
dreaming, are real as if it is not a dream
. . . until we wake up…
then we realize that all the prior
happenings are a mere dream
But . . .
We in dreaming situation we
feel the world of dream as real
THE SAME FEELING OF REAL
of the real world when we wake up
Then . . .
DREAM
PARADOX
What if that we think a dream is
turn out to be real
And what we guess as real,
now, is turn out to be a dream?
What if our “dreaming” after we have awaken is
turn out to our real awakening, and our
awakening is turn out to be our dreaming?
Skepticism
3 Levels
Ontological, Epistemological, Hermeneutical
Three Levels of Skepticism
1. There is no reality
2. Even if there is a reality,
we are not able to make sure
that it is reality
3. Suppose there is reality or thing
which is real,
and we sure on the reality, we still
have no words to express what
our mind know about the reality
Ontological Skepticism
Epistemological Skepticism
Hermeneutical Skepticism
Task :
On Descartes’ Methodical Skepticism
There are more or less than 12 steps
How Descartes went to his skepticism
Until he got certainty …..
Write a paper on this by referring to
Descartes’ book Discourse on Method !
The paper must be submitted next week !