MacKinnon 1
Stephanie MacKinnon
Dr Louis Groarke
Philosophy 100HC
16 March 2009
A debate on the concept of Knowledge
Dear Diary: During my third year of university when I was selected to participate in an
exchange, Athens was my natural choice in pursuing my philosophy degree. I understand that the
trip would bring incredible new knowledge, but I could never have imagined the events which
unfolded within my first week there. One evening I woke in the middle of the night, while
searching for a bathroom I was startled by voices coming from one of the lecture halls attached
to my residence. With overwhelming curiosity I leaned in to listen, suddenly forgetting why I
had woken up. Unable to believe my eyes as a peered through the small window in the class
room door, I first recognized Plato. In shock I stepped away unable to believe that the man who
yesterday I had looked at in my textbook was in my classroom. Assuming my fatigue had
influenced my imagination thus creating a false sense of reality in the perception, I decided to
look again. After checking five times, I accepted that either my senses were deceiving me or not
only was Plato present, but he was joined by Renee Descartes and John Locke. Either way I
could not pass up the opportunity to listen, this is what I remember.
It seemed as though Plato wanted to test the knowledge Locke and Descartes had learned
since his passing, but more importantly that they were not forgetting his foundational impact on
the whole of the Philosophical world.
Plato: Young men, enlighten me on the wonders you have discovered epistemologically since
my passing.
MacKinnon 2
Locke: Plato, you see, thanks to the Scientific Revolution I have been enlightened by empirical
knowledge. This is now the basis, the foundation of my work. With all due respect rationalist
perspectives are ideas of the past which cannot meet the level of those with empirical evidence.
Descartes: I beg to differ, John; empirical evidence cannot be trusted it will lead you to ends
without explanation.
Plato: John, do continue, I am intrigued by your argument which so quickly contradicts my
work, as I hold the physical world inferior to the intellectual. I may interject with questions along
the way, if that does not bother you.
Locke: It does not. I argue that our knowledge must be derived from the real world. This can be
seen through the example of a child. If you were to lock a child in a box directly after birth, it
would have no knowledge, because knowledge comes from sense perception and within this box
the child has nothing to perceive.
Plato: An understandable statement, the child would know nothing. My question arises in how
you support such ideas as not being innate. Can you really prove that the child lacks knowledge
due to sense perception, or is it just that the knowledge within the child is yet to be brought out?
Locke: Yes this is what I am leading to. The child in the box has nothing going on in his mind;
there is nothing in his mind because he has never sensed anything. Their cannot be an idea within
the child’s mind to which he was unaware of for if it was in his mind there would be something
going on in his mind, for which you just agreed there was not. I argue he was born a Tabula
Rasa, a blank slate and without the sensory opportunities he will remain a blank slate
Plato: I cannot contend with such an idea, I would briefly life to diverge from your argument.
For where does your understanding of the sensed objects lie. With my rational perspective, the
‘Form of the Good’ fills in these blanks. Take a triangle for instance, what is a triangle?
MacKinnon 3
Descartes: Why it has three sides.
Locke: And its angles add up to 180 degrees.
Plato: These are both true facts, but have you ever seen such a triangle?
Locke and Descartes: No
Plato: This is because humans are fallible and cannot create perfection. Yet although we cannot
create or sense a perfect triangle we understand it. Why? Because it exist in the ‘form of the
good’. The ‘form of the good’ holds perfection and is where we gain our capacity to know. The
idea of perfection from that of beauty to a triangle is stored there. It rest at the top of the divided
line, which I will further describe once you have finished.
Locke: I do not see the necessity for the ‘form of the good’ as the triangle though potentially
imperfect may be perceived. However, I do doubt the distinction between the triangle in the real
world and the one which I have knowledge of in my mind. For perhaps the reason I have never
seen such a triangle is due to the deceit of my senses.
Plato: Elaborate on your distinction between those appearances which you hold in your mind
and reality, I am not sure I fully comprehend your arguments.
Locke: Scientific truths are represented by primary qualities and they lay in reality. Primary
Qualities consist of things like size and shape; they hold an objects true existence. However our
sense perception does not have the capacity to perceived primary qualities, thus we do not have
the capacity to perceive the scientific truths of reality. We are only able to view the appearance
of this reality which is reflected in our minds through secondary qualities. Secondary qualities
consist of colour, taste and smell, these are the qualities are visible and make up our knowledge
through our sensory perception of appearance.
MacKinnon 4
Plato: I follow, the distinction your making: appearance is perceived and reality is truth, but why
is the truth so untouchable, why do you feel we cannot perceive it?
Locke: Atomism is the concept which explains that everything is made up of minuscule, objects
known as corpuscles which are invisible to the human eye. When looking at a brick we may
asses its appearance, but with sense perception we will only be able to understand the secondary
qualities. For the bricks appearance deceives us of its primary qualities. These primary qualities
can only be reached or understood through science and mathematics. Although the brick appears
hard and solid to us, it actually filled with air. Another example of our senses deceit can be
understood through sound. If I was to walk outside and my sense told me it was silent, my
understanding based on appearance would deem it silent. However if I was able to turn the
volume up on my ears by 100x there would be sound.
Plato: So you are saying we cannot know reality?
Locke: I am saying that there is a certain level of the world which mathematics comes close to
that we can never experience with our senses; therefore I deem it a mystery, a certain ‘je ne sais
quoi’.
Descartes: I listened hoping to find something in its end which would convince me, but it is by
your end that I am most disappointed.
Locke: What is it about my acceptance of knowledge beyond human capacity that bothers you
Renee?
Descartes: It is your stubbornness towards the potential of accepting a rational solution, Je sais
quoi. I am able to fill in your ‘je ne sais quoi’ with my use of rational arguments
Plato: Gentlemen if you please in a language we all understand, John give Renee a chance to
voice his opinion you have had yours. I wish reserve my troubles with your argument for later.
MacKinnon 5
Descartes: Your inability to trust the correspondence between your mind and the outside world
lays in your lack of foundational truths. These truths come through rationality. I strongly support
the notion of not blindly accepting knowledge. Through methodological scepticism I am able to
break down all beliefs which are not justified true beliefs, otherwise known as true knowledge.
Plato: For is there anything which you can trust in your mind? Perhaps life is a dream, or there
are other beings manipulating images on the screen that is your life.
Descartes: This is an idea I struggled with for quite some time, the idea of an ‘evil genie’ ruling
over all manipulating my mind. Yet it helped me to arise at the foundation of truth: cogito ergo
sum. Even if I am being manipulated that means I must exist. I think therefore I am, thus I must
then be a rational being. From there I moved to the idea of innate ideas such as infinite. Infinite
is universally understood although unable to sense or perceive it. I had to ask from where the
concept of infinite originated, understanding that something cannot come from nothing, the
infinite concept of infinite could not have come from a finite human. Therefore it must have
originated from a infinite God.
Plato: Yes I agree humans are rational beings, often dependant on which part of their souls
overpowers the others, which I will explain, but how does this allow you to trust the world.
Descartes: Understanding that God exist through the idea of infinite and that this god posses’ all
conceivable perfection and more, I would like to ask you for what reason do people cheat?
Locke: To get ahead, compensate for something they are lacking.
Descartes: Exactly, and if God is all powerful and the epitome of perfection he would not need
to cheat to get ahead. God has the capability of making things in the world correspond to those
inside my head. If God is not a deceiver, I can therefore understand the idea that God is good;
Theodicy. Thus intern meaning that the things in my head correspond to the outside world.
MacKinnon 6
Plato: Is it about correspondence? Or is it about the understanding, because it seems to me
nothing is hold true perfection but the ideas in the ‘form of the good’. If I could go back to
critique: John you claim your ideas come from the sense perception of reality even if it is
deceiving you, you say we start blank like a Tabula Rasa and our perceptions write on this table,
correct?
Locke: Precisely.
Plato: While then how do you explain your ideas of science and mathematics. You claim they
explain the real world which we cannot perceive. But if we cannot properly perceive them then
how did it ever appear on your Tabula Rasa.
Locke: This part of the world is one which I have admitted to not fully comprehending. Je ne
sais Quoi?
Plato: Socrates created the miautic approach to birthing our innate ideas. Claiming that
knowledge is within us, it just needs to be brought to life through teachers.
The divided line, which I promised to elaborate on, holds a place for scientific thought. I explain
that all humans are born with an innate knowledge, yet without light we cannot see. Atop the
dived line is the form of the good which is represented by the sun at the bottom of this vertical
line is complete darkness, in the dark you cannot see, therefore the bottom represents ignorance.
Yet you must understand that there is the possibility for darkness to be lightened. The process of
moving up the divided line is a representation of education which brings to light our innate
knowledge. The line is divided into two main sections, the intelligible realm and the visible
realm. The visible realm deals with sense perception and its blind acceptance. The intelligible
realm, which answers those questions that you could not John, is far superior as it deals with
eternal truths. Not all will be able to reach the top of the line.
MacKinnon 7
Locke: What makes the top superior and for what reason can humans not all reach it.
Plato: Located near the top are science and mathematics. These are eternal truths 2+2 will
always =4.Because of their continuation they are closer to the heavens perfection. Something
which continues on forever must be superior to something which is bound to die or fade away.
Not all humans will be able to reach this level of understanding for within every human there are
different parts, each individual is ruled by the part which is strongest within them: reason, spirit,
or appetite. Depending on their ruling part, determines where they should fall in terms of
knowledge and their place in society. For a philosopher king will reach the highest as their ruling
party is reason. Yet it is necessary to understand every party must properly participate in order to
have a functioning society.
Locke: It is the use of rationality which makes me unable to trust such knowledge.
Plato: Why can you not trust rationality?
Locke: My concern lies in the dependence of a thought upon prior unproven rationale, which
builds up a chain of rational ideas. For what would happen if the initial idea was proven
inaccurate, your whole argument would fall apart? I prefer to it my concept of intuition, the
highest form of knowledge. Intuition is when you comprehend immediately upon sense
perception. For example, if I were to look at a circle and a square I would instantly understand
that the two could not be added together. My intuitive knowledge is fuelled by my sense
perception. For if I could not sense I would not have intuition.
Plato: Are you suggesting that upon looking at a square and a circle you are able to distinguish
between the two with intuitive knowledge thanks to your sense perception?
Locke: Yes thanks to our sense perception we have these appearances of secondary qualities in
our minds and we are able to immediately distinguish certain things with intuitive knowledge.
MacKinnon 8
Some more complicated concepts require other types of knowledge but as the process involved
in gaining knowledge grows( when it is no longer instantaneous) the reliability of that knowledge
drops.
Plato: I find an over whelming problem with your argument: You first are contradicting your
foundational theory of a Tabula Rasa by saying that we are just able to understand with intuitive
reasoning. If the chalk board is blank how do we understand? If it is only your sense perception
which you require to make distinctions between a square and a circle, then why could a dog with
sense perception not make such distinctions?
Descartes: In Aristotle’s words, ‘all rational animals are human beings’
In that instance I caught Plato’s eye as he was about to speak, he looked at me but it felt
like he was looking into my soul. As he begin to walk towards the door, my instincts told me to
run, for what reason I am unaware, but I ran hard and fast. I was disappointed to miss the end of
their argument. Perhaps it was his intensive glare which frightened me with thoughts of what
could potentially happen. What I knew for sure was that I wanted to survive so I could carry on
the information I had overheard, not that anyone will ever believe my story. People will probably
claim the appearance of the situation did not match its reality, silly empiricist.