Joseph Jaime Ariel Medina González
5°B
T/V
The problem of knowledge
Throughout the history of philosophy, multiple problems have arisen that have
caused philosophers to question certain issues, and one of them is the problem of
knowledge, which will be discussed in this essay. But before we begin, we must
answer the following question: what is the problem of knowledge? Well, the problem
lies in knowing what knowledge itself is, how it arises, and what its limits are, these
concepts being highly questioned by many philosophers, causing them to have very
different perspectives among themselves. One of the most influential rationalist
philosophers in history, René Descartes, “argues that human beings can arrive at the
truth through the use of reason and critical thinking, and that this truth is independent
of perception or sensory experience.” What Descartes mentions suggests that we
have the ability to arrive at the truth using reason and critical thinking, that is, without
the need to rely on what we see or hear. Descartes also mentions that there are only
two ways to arrive at knowledge: sensory experience and deduction. He says that
the former often deceives us, while the latter may be lacking, but when present, it is
the surest path, since errors never come from deduction itself but from deduction
based on erroneous principles or rash judgments, that is, deductions that are not
deductions."
Finally, for Descartes, there is only one form of knowledge, which is achieved
through reason, thus deducing that "the essence of the nature of knowledge resides
in thought and that all those things that we can clearly distinguish with it are true. In
this way, he arrives at the statement, Cogito, ergo sum, or “I think, therefore I am.”
Here, the only limit is the cognitive capacity of the being and the unprovable axioms.
Having concluded with Descartes, it is time to talk about John Locke, an empiricist
philosopher who has a totally different idea about knowledge, being a complete
contrast to what Descartes' rationalism proposes.
Let's start with the fact that, for Locke, knowledge is ‘the perception of the connection
and agreement of any of our ideas’, based on empiricist theory.
Joseph Jaime Ariel Medina González
5°B
T/V
It is true that he shares a similarity with Descartes in terms of the existence of ideas
between the mind and the thing, but for Locke, the origin of knowledge comes from
sensory experience, which occurs through sensation and reflection.
Sensation refers to the fact that it is through direct experience (such as the senses)
that our impressions of the world we know arise, and these impressions go to the
mind. A classic example of sensation could be a fruit, such as a watermelon.
Through touch, we know its texture; through smell, we know its scent; through sight,
we realize that it is green on the outside and red on the inside; and through taste, we
realize its flavor.
Reflection, Locke mentions, is the act by which the mind knows its own operations.
Reflection, together with sensation, are the sources of knowledge from which we
humans obtain ideas, concepts, and representations. Here, the only limit to
knowledge is sensory experience. Thus, for Locke, human knowledge arises from
experience.
Once the previous topics have been covered, it is time to discuss the opinion of an
idealist philosopher, a transcendental idealist, namely Immanuel Kant.
Kant mentions that knowledge must start from experience, as the empiricists say, but
this is only the starting point, not all knowledge as such, since he emphasizes the
use of reason.
Therefore, for Kant, knowledge arises from experience, but there are also other
factors that influence the goal of knowledge, such as reason, making it clear that he
is neither a rationalist nor an empiricist.
For Kant, the limit of knowledge is the limit set by our sensitivity.
Once we have finished talking about Descartes, Locke, and Kant, it is time to talk
about Pyrrho, Pyrrho of Elis, a skeptical philosopher from ancient Greece.
Joseph Jaime Ariel Medina González
5°B
T/V
This philosopher is characterized by his radical skepticism. He mentioned that we
have no certainty about anything and that we should not make any assertions about
anything, because for him our sensory forms did not guarantee anything, since each
being can perceive things differently, and this was not reliable for Pyrrho. Therefore,
we can conclude that for Pyrrho, certain knowledge of reality is not possible and,
therefore, we must have a doubtful attitude towards any situation, attributing to him
the phrase, “You will never know the truth.”
Here, in skepticism, the limit of knowledge could be said to be everything, because it
denies the possibility of knowledge.
Now we will not talk about a specific philosopher, because we will now talk about a
specific philosophical current that is totally opposed to the one previously discussed
(skepticism), which is dogmatism.
Dogmatism, unlike what was mentioned above, proposes that we beings can safely
attain knowledge and can be certain that such knowledge is true. As can be seen, it
is a totally opposite philosophical current, but this same current (dogmatism) is naive
since any unargued foundation can be demanded as a dogma that will not be
questioned. Here, the limit of knowledge could be said to not exist, because for
dogmatism it is possible to attain all certain knowledge.
In conclusion, I can say that this issue is one of the most interesting, as it has been
around since the beginnings of philosophy and throughout history there have been
multiple “solutions” or, rather, perspectives from each philosopher discussing this
question. Today, there is still no clear answer, but instead we have many answers.
But going into more detail, I believe that this problem will not have one answer that
prevails over the others for a long time, at least, because we all have different
perspectives on how to see things, and this is a clear example of that, as it is more
than clear when looking at all the arguments that have been presented. However, I
do not see this as a bad thing. On the contrary, I feel that this continuous search for
Joseph Jaime Ariel Medina González
5°B
T/V
knowledge is good, as it leads to more answers to this problem called “the problem
of knowledge.”
Joseph Jaime Ariel Medina González
5°B
T/V
APA
Antúnez, A. P. (2023, 29 junio). La teoría del conocimiento de Immanuel Kant.
unprofesor.com.
https://www.unprofesor.com/ciencias-sociales/la-teoria-del-conocimiento-de-immanu
el-kant-894.html
Teoría del conocimiento de descartes. (s. f.).
https://elprofedefilosofia.blogspot.com/2011/01/teoria-del-conocimiento-de-descartes
.html
http://fgbueno.es. (s. f.). Juan Locke. https://www.filosofia.org/enc/ros/loc.htm
Profe. (2023, 18 abril). Los límites del conocimiento humano y el problema de
lo irracional. Filosofiatb.
https://filosofiatb.wordpress.com/2023/02/25/limites-del-conocimiento-humano
-y-el-problema-de-lo-irracional/
Del Estado de Hidalgo, U. A. (s. f.). Problemas del conocimiento.
https://www.uaeh.edu.mx/scige/boletin/prepa3/n7/m10.html#:~:text=El%20esc
epticismo%20niega%20la%20posibilidad,una%20aprehensi%C3%B3n%20re
al%20del%20objeto.
Augusto, V. R. (s. f.). La teoría del conocimiento en investigación científica:
una visión actual.
http://www.scielo.org.pe/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1025-558320090
00300011#:~:text=Descartes%20deduce%20que%20la%20esencia,%2C%20
por%20tanto%2C%20existo'.
Joseph Jaime Ariel Medina González
5°B
T/V
Ayala-Fuentes, M. (s. f.). RELATIVISMO y DOGMATISMO: CAUSAS y
CONSECUENCIAS.
http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0123-312220080
00200004#:~:text=En%20resumen%2C%20dogmatismo%20es%20el,tampoc
o%20confrontarla%20con%20la%20realidad.&text=Sobrevaloraci%C3%B3n
%20de%20la%20inteligencia.,subjetiva%20de%20conocer%20la%20verdad.