BC1_A3_17_Manoj

8/6/2019 BC1_A3_17_Manoj

1/8

[TISS MA ASSIGNMENT] September 1, 2009

Concept of Human Knowledge

Age of Reason: Putting Epistemology First

Before Descartes, philosophers used to start their enterprise

by accepting certain metaphysical assumptions without

questioning them. By relentless questioning of the truth value

of even the foundational truth claims sceptics forced

Descartes and other seventeenth-eighteenth century

philosophers like Hume to search for more irrefutable

foundation of human knowledge. The epistemological angst

crept at the time of Descartes and Hume is one of hallmarks of

modern philosophy.

By putting epistemology first Descartes and his predecessors

knowingly or unknowingly undermined the sovereignty of

divine power- be it god or king. Most of them were believers,

so they dont contest the existence of God, but their God had

to submit before the human reason.

Quest for ultimate foundation on which human knowledge can

be reliably based took two directions on seventeenth and

eighteenth centuries. Descartes and other rationalists who

used to believe that cogito is ultimate foundation of human

knowledge were on the one side of spectrum and Hume, Locke

and other empiricists who used to believe that direct sense

experiences are ultimate source are on the other side of the

spectrum. Most of the modern philosophers, however, perceive

possibility of human knowledge somewhere in middle of the

two extreme poles- analytical a priori knowledge on the one

side and synthetic posteriori knowledge on the other.

[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/6/2019 BC1_A3_17_Manoj

2/8


The flutter created by these epistemologists broke the great

wall created during the middle ages between all knowing,

omnipresent, omnipotent God and ignorant, powerless mortal

human being. Practice of suspending the judgment before

validation of truth either by human reason or by earthly

human experiences cleared the ground for systematic

scientific methods of acquiring knowledge. If knowledge

acquired by human mind and senses are sources of power, as

Francis Bacon proposed, then human being can gradually

become more powerful and win over the areas of ignorance by

systematically acquiring knowledge. There was assumption

that knowledge will make people more virtuous and that will

ultimately bring more happiness. Eighteenth century

mathematician, philosopher and social scientist Marquis de

Condorcet (1743-94) wrote with great hope- the sun will one

day shine only on free men who own no other light than their

reason. The basis of this claim was his believe that `Truth,

happiness and virtue are bound together by an indissoluble

chain'1

Francis Bacon also suggests that there is no limit to human

power, as there is no limit to knowledge human mind can

gradually acquire. Sheldon S. Wolin elaborates this idea in a

following paragraph:

The declaration [Francis Bacons declaration] signified a

radical turn in western understanding of power and its

sources. In previous centuries ordinary power was a scarce

good limited to mundane object (food, shelter, construction,

1 Hollis, M. Philosophy of Social Sciences (2003) in Bunnin, N. & Tsue-James, E.P.(editors)

The Blackwell Companion to philosophy (Second Edition) Blackwell. Oxford

[email protected]

8/6/2019 BC1_A3_17_Manoj

3/8


weapons) produced primarily by physical labour. In contrast,

political power was represented as transcendent, mighty or

awful, its authority divinely sanctified. Imperial rule, military

force and warfare were its supreme expressions: organisations

and leadership were its means. Bacons vision was bolder still:

he conceived how power might be invented and generated

virtually at will, thus promising an end to the shortage of

power, especially in its mundane uses. His primary concern

was not to expand the states political power directly but to

emphasize its directive role in promoting systematically a

more fundamental source of power, the human mind.2

(Emphasis added)

To become fundamental sources of power by acquiring

credible knowledge, human mind and senses need certain

discipline because whatever comes to ones mind should not

be admitted as knowledge. That means subjective believe

about something needs to be validated on somehow objective

criteria. So validating knowledge claim on more objectivecriteria is one of the preconditions of scientific knowledge.

Unfortunately eighteenth century epistemology, both

empiricist and rationalist- from Descartes to Locke and Hume-

could not escape from the trap of solipsism.3 Classical

epistemology put strict criteria before a truth claim or belief to

call it a piece of knowledge.

How much Condorcet and Bacons vision of enlightenment

realised over the centuries is an issue worth exploring, suffice

it to say here that in the last two-three centuries the

2 Wolin, Stephen, J. (1960/2004). Politics and Vision. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Page- 3063 Solipsism - the philosophical theory that the self is all that you know to exist.

[email protected]

8/6/2019 BC1_A3_17_Manoj

4/8


exploration of human knowledge in its various forms have

permeated various discourses on education, politics and even

economics-especially after the advent of knowledge economy.

Various debates usually take recourse to classical

epistemology. So, the questions usually asked by classical

epistemologists have not lost its sheen:

What is this thing called knowledge?

Types of knowledge

Sources of knowledge- reason or sense experience?

Structure of Knowledge

Knowledge and information etc.

Types of Knowledge

Epistemologists have recognised three types of knowledge:

1. Knowledge how to: We perform several easy and

complex tasks in our everyday life. We know how to

swim or prepare dough for making chapatti. The

knowledge one has of these skills can not simply be

transmitted by describing the process in sentences.

What can be said about how to knowledge is the fact

that knowing and doing is one and the same in this case.

2. Propositional knowledge: Large body of human

knowledge is communicable through human languages.

The knowledge that Rome is a capital of Italy or Lions

live in savannah land can easily be expressed and

communicated in meaningful sentences. To know the

fact that Rome is capital city of Italy one need not to

visit Rome. Because of this communicability, large body

of propositional knowledge can be collected, recorded,

[email protected]

8/6/2019 BC1_A3_17_Manoj

5/8


transferred, preserved and even exchanged in present

scenario.

3. Knowledge by Acquaintance: When we say that I know

saakhi on the basis of actual interaction I have with her-

this sort of knowing is different from the factual

knowledge I have about Hillary Clinton. Empiricists

regard knowledge by acquaintance with our own sense

as the foundation of all empirical knowledge. It is

interesting to note that knowledge by acquaintance and

factual/propositional knowledge are distinguished in

many languages. French, for example, has connaitre and

savoir, German has both Kennen and wissen, whereas

English just has to know.4

Though, maintaining clear distinction between direct

acquaintances with ones own senses and getting

indirect exposure through the various media is gradually

getting blurred. As regular television and internet user

one may feel more acquainted with Hillary Clinton thanthe next door neighbour.

Knowledge as Justified, true belief

Factual knowledge is called propositional knowledge because

knower [S] utters a proposition [P] about the world which can

or can not be admitted as a piece of knowledge. Right from

Plato epistemologists put certain conditions before any

proposition to admit that as a piece of knowledge. These

conditions are called belief condition, truth condition and

evidence condition. These conditions can be put as follows:

4 Cardinal, D, Hayward, J and Jones, G (2004) Epistemology: The Theory of Knowledge,

London, John Murray Publishers.

[email protected]

8/6/2019 BC1_A3_17_Manoj

6/8


S knows p if and only if:

1. S believes that P

2. P is true

3. S has sufficient evidence or adequate evidence for P.

That means justified believe in P

All the above mentioned conditions are individually necessary

conditions for knowledge, but only fulfilling three conditions at

the same time will make sufficient condition for any P to be

called knowledge.

Epistemologists from Plato onward thought quite rigorously on

why applying the three conditions are needed. Why even true

believe should not be admitted as knowledge? What difference

it makes if I posses true belief even if I dont have sufficient

reason to believe it? Ill do right action anyway if my belief is

true? Them whats wrong it knowledge. In Platos dialogue

Socrates answers this question:

True beliefs are fine things and do all sorts of good so long as

they stay in their place, but they will not stay long. They run

away from mans mind, so they are not worth much until you

tether them by working out the reason.[] Once they are tied

down, they become knowledge and are stable. That is why

knowledge is something more valuable than right belief. What

distinguishes one from the other is tether.5

Similarly justified truths can not be admitted as knowledge

until knower P has belief in it. The issue of belief is somewhat

5 Cited by Cardinal, D, Hayward, J and Jones, G (2004) Epistemology: The Theory of

Knowledge, London, John Murray Publishers.

[email protected]

8/6/2019 BC1_A3_17_Manoj

7/8


controversial among the epistemologists. Some of them

emphasize that belief or subjective certainty is as important

for some proposition to be called knowledge as objective

criteria like truth. Plato put belief as necessary condition for

knowledge in the Meno, but in Republic he shifts his position.

There he reasons that since knowledge is infallible and belief

is fallible, they must be fundamentally different ways of

apprehending the world. To believe is to be ambivalent about

the object of ones belief. Knowledge involves no such

hesitation.6

Nevertheless belief is necessary condition for knowledge as

like justification it also provides stability to knowledge

acquired by knower.

Truth condition provides objective criteria to human

knowledge. whether or not a person knows something can

not be established by internal criteria alone (meaning internal

to their mind).7

Reason and Sense experience as a source of

Knowledge: Kantian Compromise

As mentioned earlier neither eighteenth century rationalism,

nor empiricism could move beyond the trap of solipsism.

Rationalists emphasis on innate a priori analytical concept

could not able to explain the world outside and empiricists had

problem in explaining relation and various abstract concepts.

Bridging the gap between the empiricists and rationalist Kant

asserted that concepts without percepts are empty and

6 Ibid7 Ibid

[email protected]

8/6/2019 BC1_A3_17_Manoj

8/8


percepts without concepts are blind. Kant proposed some 16 a

priori categories like time, space, causation etc. He argued

rigorously to convince the empiricists that there is no other

way than imaging these categories as a priori categories. On

the other hand he was convinced enough to accept empiricists

claim that sense data provides actual content of human

knowledge about the world outside. Carrying forward Kants

legacy no contemporary philosopher worth the name validates

various forms of knowledge on sole basis of either reason or

sense experience.8

Epilogue

Threadbare analysis of nature and credible sources of human

knowledge over the centuries by epistemologists have

provided direction to collective and individual human conduct.

Understanding nature of human knowledge is vital for

understanding educational enterprises in general and

curriculum planning in particular.

Manoj Kumar

8 Dearden, R. F. Forms of Understanding. TISS Compendium.

[email protected]

BC1_A3_17_Manoj

Documents

Transcript of BC1_A3_17_Manoj