Studying Theory of Knowledge in Epistemology

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Argument for
Argument against
Middle ground
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

In epistemology, we study the theory of knowledge, and this branch of philosophy is important. This branch of philosophy addresses the following: firstly it defines knowledge as ‘acceptable belief and is used as a working model most of the time’. Secondly it tries to explain where knowledge is coming from and this is divided further into two parts i.e. empiricism which says, we get knowledge as results of experiences in our lives and rationalism which defines the same as knowledge is based on reasoning, lastly in what way do we justified our beliefs.

How do we see our world because much of our knowledge does not come as results of our senses but through perception of things that around us in this physical world and. “The experience in this world can be determined by two things firstly the world itself and secondly part is determined by us” (Audi 20).i.e. the way we see our world varies differently from person to person therefore the way one person can define his physical world is different from another person.

Human beings don’t get information through senses alone but most of the time we get a as results of experiences which we get from the object around us in the physical world. There is a tradition in philosophies that say “we do not know anything “and this argument has been refuted by human beings as not true. But “the most problem in “theory of knowledge” i.e. epistemology, is not what knowledge is, but where can we find knowledge and can we prove that knowledge exists” (Audi 22). Knowledge can exist in various forms in this physical world and human beings have to be very attentive to get knowledge, as I said earlier human beings see their physical world differently.

“There are two broad ways in which philosophers are approaching knowledge and this ways are rationalism and empiricism” (Audi 35).Rationalist approach of epistemology defines knowledge as being based on certain principles and those principles are not learned through experience but they are implicit in reasoning Itself. Senses alone cannot provide any conclusion that what we know is right. “Just like in mathematics we must rely on reason as a basis to determine whether our basis is true, that is what we call knowledge” (Audi 45).

Argument for

An example of rationalist is Rene Descartes, before we begin to study reality in our nature, he imposed a question, and what does it help a person to know about the meaning of reality? Reality cannot be touched or be seen with our naked eyes but if we know our belief are acceptable first then can believe in them. “Then such a belief will provide a strong foundation to base our future arguments and he will be in a postion to claim that all his argument is true” (Hursthouse 30).

For identification of truth so that all other belief can be based upon. René Descartes came up with a method that is able to suspends the confidence of a person in what he believe in, what his senses tell him or her to do and what he or she thinks is obvious. In order to tell if there is anything that we claim to know, René Descartes tells us to first doubt the things we know no matter how well we know them. “What Rene Descartes is saying is that; let temporary put to questions or temporary doubt things we claim to know” (Hursthouse 30).even if we have know them for years because our senses cannot be trusted.

Experience as results of sense is not good because sometimes our eyes deceive us and by this alone we cannot claim the basis of knowledge because we do not know what we are experiencing with our senses is true to be trusted, we are not sure of it. In that situation we should doubt our senses. There is one belief that we might not mistake and this is ‘thinking’ “The evil genie must be disposed”,

“The principle of belief according to John Locke it exists as ideas and these ideas we are born with at birth” (Hursthouse 32). Locke tells us that this ideas do not exist.men don’t have any idea and they cannot accept any belief brought forward. It is through our reflections that we can have ideas but not from other places. But ideas which are complex in a person can only be understood through repeating these ideas, by comparing these ideas and by combining these ideas to produce a complex idea.“Locke further tells us that the idea that is produced in mind can be classified into two.i.e primary qualities and secondary qualities.

There are three degrees of cognitive adequacy. Firstly intuitive knowledge which is the knowledge of our own existence and cannot b doubted.Secondly, demonstrative knowledge and this is the given knowledge from God.

David Humes is in agreement with his predecessors, John Locker but he explained this idea further. His definition was, the ideas that we experience was as a results of feelings, obsession and emotions that human being experience in this physical world and as a results of being happy or being sad and it cannot be the middle. “The idea may be simple ones and may take the impression of a complex ideas which is formed as a result of many simple ideas or belief” (Hursthouse 40). Combined together by a person.

Human being who believed in “life after death” I.e. the external world that cannot be seen by anyone, but they cannot prove this beliefs.we don’t know what is their in the external world, when a person dies he is silence. So the truth of this expression cannot be known to be true. For this metaphysics is not possible. Hume said their two types of knowledge that human being can have, firstly the reason as a result of logic which is arrived at by relating these simple ideas and can be arrived at through observation or through touch with our own hands. a good example is when our phone rings naturally we know that someone is trying to talk to us.

Hume asks? “What is the connection between coincidence and real causation?” and the cause will necessitates the effects and due to this we can predict if A cccurs, B will follow. He concluded that when we study matter as a results of facts, it will only depend on the relations between this matters. We all know the knowledge of a human being is limited in thinking and uncertain and because of this the surely that the external world exist is not there.

Plato never considered any skeptical challenges. He had assumptions that there is knowledge and started to enquire on the conditions that make it possible to have it. But these conditions had to depend on the capacity of human being brain and his soul. At the same time human beings mind is limited but he can acquire the knowledge of the physical world. The experiences as a results of our senses cannot gurantee us the information we get from physical world because this physical world is changing constantly. But the principles do not change so this can be reliable and we can depend on them in this physical world.

If a person base his belief on this unchanging principles then the foundation that he will create as a result of that, he will be in a position to justify that his belief are true and the person will say he has knowledge when he cannot justify his belief he will not overcome the ever changing physical world. If our concept or ideas are based on the truth as a result of truth from our senses. Then we cannot limit on specific types of expression because for us to be knowledgeable we must show how physical world can be related to our senses in this physical world..

Argument against

The common anti-skeptical by sextus Empiricus (c.C.E 200) “if one a human being know nothing, one cannot know tat one knows nothing” what he wanted to sat is the power of reasoning and senses varies across persons and knowledge was a product of an individual person. For example a color blind human being sees the world differently from a normal person. We cannot give preference on the basis of the power of reason. In this world what we observe will determine who we are in life i.e. our personality but this observation of our physical world varies from person to person and other people will think differently about our world.

The perceptions of a person have are not related with other senses i.e. a colour yellow has noting to do with the feeling of smelling a yellow flower. Human beings senses can defeat the impression of seeing things because human beings lack the power to understand our physical world. If only human beings had the sixth sense he might in a position to know which our other five senses have been defeated to know because sometimes our five senses can not be relied upon for a person to make proper judgment on thing in this physical world. “We have reason not to believe based on “facts” for example the distance of an object will affect how they are perceived by a person” (Fumerton 23).

“Anekāntavāda had this to say “the physical world can be seen differently from a point of view of a person and this cannot be changed completely” (Fumerton 43). He further said an object has qualities and those qualities cannot be perceived in all manifestations because human beings where limited in senses. Anekāntavāda goes on to say no definite word can express the nature of reality because reality can be seen from different point of view depending on the person.

Some scientific theory cannot satisfactory be explained or it outcome cannot be predicted. A good example is the theory of light although you can predict the outcome from the double-slit experiment. “It will be a mistake to assert because this phenomenon is unpredictable because science cannot adequately explain a theory. So it is incorrect to say that because some scientific theories cannot be explained so it is not correct” (Fumerton 25).

In modern legal systems it is presumption innocent till proven guilty, it will be fallacy to assume because of lack of evidence a person have been acquitted from a crime he is innocent or because a person has been found guilty he cannot be innocent. “Simple by taking a criminal before the law is not adequate evidence to presume anything. A person would only be found guilty if there is evidence that he has committed the crime” (Fumerton 35)

Middle ground

Aristotle is says “human beings having ethical knowledge is not certain knowledge but can be regarded as general knowledge”. “Theoretical displine is not important for a person to succeed in life but you can only succeed in life if you have experience of life” (Knight 45). A person being brought in a fine life. This can contribute to a good habit. in order to be virtuous in this physical world a person must do the things that can be associated with virtues “There is no profit in it if you study and become knowledgeable but you don’t have virtues in your life” (Knight 23). A good example is a soccer player; if you want to play better during a match you must practice first, in order to achieve that.

But you cannot achieve that if you study football alone. Aristotle’s also said everything in life is as a result of goals set by the mind and the highest goal is the achievement of happiness in human being ( eudaimonia-“living well” ). There are “specific functions in human beings that will bring happiness in that person. He analyzed the soul and said it was divided into three parts” (Knight 34).the first kind of soul was called nutritive, second type was perceptive and lastly the third type of soul was rational.

There facts in the physical world in which human being cannot understand because they are independent from human beings. This belief is only formed in the mind and those that are formed in the mind are not products of social relationship but they are product of human beings minds by nature and cannot exist independently from human beings.

Conclusion

Why should we care about knowledge? Having knowledge is valuable in understanding epistemology. Sometimes our mind can cheat us in believing that we know things but these things might turn out to be falses. Knowledge demands truth then we are half way to know the answers why knowledge is valuable. We can have true belief on trivial things in life and it not good to value things like this. Imagine a person measuring each gram of sand or he wants to remember every number in his phonebook. Let believe true beliefs are of value but it does not have a guarantee to know all.

Works Cited

Audi, Robert. Epistemology: a contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. epistemology: New York: Routledge Publisher, 2003. Print.

Fumerton, Richard. Epistemology. London: Wiley-Blackwell. 2009. Print.

Hursthouse, Rosalind. On virtue ethics. London: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.

Knight, Kelvin.Aristotelian philosophy: ethics and politics from aristotle to macIntyre. London: Polity Press, 2007. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!