Download Document

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 APPOSITIONALLY 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
The theory of knowledge
A branch of philosophy which concerned with
The nature and scope
The presuppositions and basis
of knowledge
The limit
The general reliability of claims
Paul Edwards, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
What is knowledge ?
Analysis of EPISTEME
What is “to know” ?
(Knowlegde
Analytic philosophers’ division of
the word “TO KNOW” in
Three examples /
spheres of meaning
I know driving, swimming, etc.
Knowing “how to” means has
skill to do something
Knowledge as Skill
I know Jakarta, the book, etc
Is “Jakarta” a knowledge? No it is
object of knowledge
I know that statement A is true
Knowing on one’s knowledge
3 USAGES & not
epistemic meaning of
“knowing” action
Knowledge by acquaintances
Propositional Knowledge
Knowledge of proposition
Analytic philosopher use of the word “to know”
The word
“TO KNOW”
The Usage
The philosophical
meaning
Obscurity in differentiating both :
CONFUSION = mixing both the
word “to know” in use as it in
epistemological meaning
EPISTEMOLOGY : in Western Analytic Philosophy (20 C)
Before 20 C
Domain of Epistemology
Concept
Proposition
Tashawwur
Tashdiq
After 20 C
Domain of Epistemology
Proposition
Tashdiq
After 20 C :
Analytic philosophers focus themselves merely to Propositional Knowledge
Knowledge of
Proposition
The merely focus of Analytic philosophy
Domain of Epistemology
Concept
Proposition
Tashawwur
Tashdiq
e.g. : “pen”
e.g. : “the pen is blue”
WHY ?
Their answer
The aim of epistemology:
Coming to the fact
Grasping the reality
Recognizing true & false
by correspondence
Knowledge of
Proposition
Concept :
Proposition :
The merely focus of Analytic philosophy
Pen, book, chair, etc
The pen has blue color; that book is thick, that is a wooden chair, etc.
e.g.
Can the concept of “pen” be the subject of
correspondence to reality?
“Pen”
It is pen
The pen is blue
The idea in the man’s mind doesn’t
correspond to anything
since he just point the concept without
connote to any object in reality to which
correspondence function can be applied
The knowledge of the man
corresponds to the reality
Knowledge of
Proposition
The merely focus of Analytic philosophy
Does the concept of “pen” correspond to reality ?
Concept of
Is it possible there is pen “in itself/ in its own essence” without
any attribute?
“Pen”
The reality of
The collection of attributes
Solidity + the color of
blue + long size +
curve surface + etc
Mind create the unification of
all accumulative various
attributes as :
“Pen”
Hence, ESSENCE is not real
Analytic philosophers’ standpoint
There is no “pen” in itself.
“Pen” in its own essence is a
creation of mind
Islamic Philosophy
Analytic Philosophy
Thing in itself
(Essence)
It has reality in the real world
Thing in its essence has no
reality but in mind
It Is mind’s creation
Is not mind’s creation
It is independent to the existence of
non-existence of the knowing subject
Hence, there is thing in itself
it depends to the existence of nonexistence of the knowing subject
Hence, there is no thing in itself, but
real thing always has attributes
Epistemology
So knowledge can be in the form of:
Concept
A knowledge on something in order
to correspond to reality, it must :
Includes all attributes
e.g: “The pen is blue, solid, long size…etc”
PROPOSITION
PROPOSITION
Subject + predicate
(attribute of subject)
notes
Epistemology in Analytic philosophy
Epistemology
Knowledge by Present
Knowledge by Correspondence
Concept
Proposition
Conceptual
epistemology
Propositional
epistemology
New modern epistemology of
Analytic philosophy
All western philosophers
from Plato until modern
Islamic epistemology
Comprehensive epistemology
since
A PEN
(in external reality)
A real thing always with
attributes, such as :
Solidity
Light blue color
Certain size
Certain shape
There is no pure
PEN (thing)
In reality
pure PEN
=
the essence of pen
=
essential concept of
pen without any
attributes
Analytic philosophers’ standpoint
Concept (alone) cannot report reality
Analytic philosophers’ standpoint
1 Concept (alone) cannot report reality
2 The purpose of epistemology
In epistemology, we cannot use concept alone
Coming to the
fact, grasping
reality, finding
whether or not a
knowledge is true
(corresponds to
the reality)
The domain of epistemological inquiry is limited to only
PROPOSITUON (predicate-included subject)
Analytic philosophers’ division of
the word “TO KNOW” in
Three examples /
spheres of meaning
I know driving, swimming, etc.
Knowing “how to” means has
skill to do something
Knowledge as Skill
I know Jakarta, the book, etc
Is “Jakarta” a knowledge? No it is
object of knowledge
Knowledge by acquaintances
I know that statement A is true
Propositional Knowledge
Knowing on one’s knowledge
Knowledge of proposition
Analytic philosophers' use of the word “to know”
Analytic philosophers on knowledge
Analytic Philosophical analysis of knowledge
1. Definition of knowledge
2. Analyze the definition
TRUE
3 Finding 3 necessary attributes of knowledge
BELIEF
JUSTIFIED
3 conditions of knowledge
Definition :
KNOWLEDGE = JUSTIFIED-TRUE-BELIEF (JTB)
KNOWLEDGE = JUSTIFIED-TRUE-BELIEF (JTB)
3 attributes :
True, Belief, Justified
Notes:
Figure of common
argument on these 3
Analytics’ Definition
Haspers
Edmund Getie
According to
Socrates
But we could not precisely
know what he means by
the three attributes: True,
belief, Justified
A reduction/replacement
belief
acceptance
KNOWLEDGE is JUSTIFIED-TRUE-BELIEF (JTB)
What is the
meaning of
Is such a definition of knowledge
universal and proper (jami’-mani’)
1st Criteria of Knowledge (episteme)
The Proposition is necessary to be
TRUE
1st Criteria of
episteme
The Proposition is necessary to be
TRUE
Non-knowledge Proposition
“I hope Plato is alive”
“In my opinion ………”
“It is probably that…. …”
This kind of propositions does not
deal with the matter of true / false
So we can EVEN TO say : “I hope 1 + 1 = 5”
Since this is not a knowledge
Hence is not necessary to be true
1st Criteria of
episteme
The Proposition is necessary to be
TRUE
Proposition of a KNOWLEDGE
The proposition must be true,
“I know Plato is alive”
“I know that…”
We cannot suppose any doubt of this proposition
Since :
Incorrect
use of
proposition
1.The word “know” indicates the
proposition is a knowledge, and
2. knowledge necessary to be true,
hence :
the speaker presuppose that the
proposition is true
Conclusion:
“Plato is alive (must be/) is true”
Speaker
Proposition
Reality
TRUE
OBJECTIVE CONDITION
of episteme
2nd Criteria of Knowledge (episteme)
BELIEF
BELIEF
2nd Criteria
of episteme
true
Speaker
Objective condition of episteme
Proposition
Reality
BELIEF
SUBJECTIVE CONDITION
of episteme
Its Yellow
square
It’s a Brown
square
The blind color
eyes
The normal eyes
I like yellow
Yellow for A
I like yellow too
Yellow for B
A cannot say “he knows that it is yellow square
`
A do not have BELIEF on it, he just have CONFIDENCE
3RD Criteria of Knowledge (episteme)
JUSTIFIED
JUSTIFIED
3RD Criteria of
episteme
Subjective condition of episteme
belief
Speaker
true
Proposition
Objective condition of episteme
Reality
JUSTIFIED
1
I bring you
my friend,
standing
behind you
2
3
You are right,
how do you
know that?
Wow..he didn’t
know, but his
guest is true
Let me
guest!
Your friend is
a girl, isn’t
she?
4
Well, I just feel confident, although it is true, but it
is not justified. It is not a knowledge, I don’t know,
I just guest.
Notes in the three criteria of knowledge :
True, Belief, Justified
On TRUE
Consider this example:
Correspond to reality
Misunderstand since the case of similarity
1
My pen has
red color.
I know that
is my pen.
The A’s pen
2
No it is mine.
It just similar with
mine. Your pen is
behind you.
3
Ough…I
am
sorry
The “A-man” feels he knows the fact, but in fact he misunderstands
He has no certainty
He just has opinion
that he has certainty
When “A” said :
…
I know that is my pen.
While it is not.
Did he lie? If he did not lie, was he true?
In this situation, consider 2 kinds of truth !
ETHICAL TRUTH
Speaker’s belief in his mind
LOGICAL TRUTH
External reality
Speaker
…
(Proposition)
SO, knowledge as
TJB
Which “True” ?
If
If
LOGICAL TRUTH
ETHICAL TRUTH
So “JUSTIFIED”
criteria is not needed
So “BELIEF”
criteria is not
needed
Since, the proposition of
knowledge has a prior
presupposition that it is
automatically justified
Since, it is enough for the
proposition of knowledge to
have correspondence with
belief in mind
Subjective condition of episteme
belief
Speaker
true
Proposition
Objective condition of episteme
Reality
JUSTIFIED
Speaker’s belief in his mind
External reality
…
(Proposition)
To what point the” justified”
criterion is applied?
Can it also automatically justify external reality?
Skepticism
If No
If Yes
If your belief / what is in mind
How it can be that what occurs in mind justify
what occurs in external reality ???
ANOTHER
AMBIGUITIES
On “Justified” criteria
Analytic philosopher's dictum:
All knowledge must be justified
When one make a proposition, he suppose :
Inconsistent with
Subject
&
Predicate
It is sufficient to accept the “subject” and
“predicate” in proposition without any justification,
because it is supposed as primary self-evident in
proposition
Means, all sentence to be a knowledge must be justified
The statements is supposed without any
justification
self-reference