March, 26, 2010
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 statements,
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 Existence of Reality
•
•
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 since 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?
•
Moreover, but how can one who
doubts doubt on 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 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%
SKEPTICISM
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
We mistaken in many
situations in which we think
we have knowledge claims.
There are also situations we
have knowledge claims that
we don't know we are not
mistaken about.
Premise 2
Universalizability
It is adopted from a moral
thesis - .R.M.Hare
A situation must be
equally applicable to
every relevant 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 reality,
we are not able to make sure
that it is reality
Ontological Skepticism
Epistemological Skepticism
3. Suppose there is reality,
and we sure on the reality, we still
have no words to express what
we know in our mind about the reality
Hermeneutical Skepticism