Epistemology
Epistemology is the theory of knowledge that attempts to discover exactly what
we can know for certain. Plato set up knowledge into two major parts; one was the
visible world and the other was the intelligible world. The visible world is the one that
we open ours eyes to every day. It is physical sights such as cars and it is also basic
beliefs and images we have in our head. The intelligible world is the one you have to
work hard to truly see what it consists of. This world is made up of mathematical objects
and knowledge. Plato believed that people that stay strictly in the visible world will
claim that what they experience is “real”, but that the only way to know what is “real” is
to experience the intelligible world. He thought that once we had entered this world, it
would be relatively easy to acquire knowledge. I agree with the skeptics on this theory
and their argument that if obtaining true knowledge were as easy as Plato made it out to
be, then there would true knowledge everywhere.
Skeptics argue that the only thing that we know is that we do not know anything.
They argue that true knowledge is impossible to gain, and that all we will ever have is
theories. Skeptics think that every theory, even those that claim to be entirely true, can
be doubted. I think that his is a very pessimistic group, but also a group that is almost
impossible to disprove. The reason that skepticism is difficult to argue against is because
you truly can cast doubt about nearly everything that human beings know, even to the
point of casting doubt on the very existence of humans. I agree that you can cast doubt
on most all things, but I do not think that you can cast doubt on absolutely all things.
Descartes argued with skeptics by at first agreeing with them, and them using their own
thinking against them. He believed that a person could doubt all things, except that they
doubt. I think that this is the best argument against skepticism. It shows that they cannot
doubt that they doubt, and this shows that they have absolute knowledge in one area: that
they can doubt.
I do not agree with Descartes completely, just mainly in his argument against
skeptics. I most closely agree with the teachings of Kant who is a cross between a realist
and an empiricist. Kant argued that all knowledge begins with experience, but that we
can learn more from what we go through than the experience itself. To Kant it was a
process. First we would have an experience, then we would process the experience in our
mind, and then we would be able to get all the information out of the experience. Not
only do we use the knowledge that we have from that exact experience, but we also use
the knowledge we have gained from previous experiences. I believe that this is the
closest theory to the way that I function. I believe that I have previous experiences that I
have stored in my mind. Whether I can remember these experiences or not, they are still
in my mind. When I come across a new experience, all my knowledge that I have gained
from previous experiences comes to help my mind gleam new knowledge. What is life
other than experience after experience after experience?
Another theory that I party agree with is that of Bertrand Russell. The way he
uses a simple object such as a table to distinguish between appearance and reality showed
me what the difference truly was between them. The appearance of the table is a matter
of opinion, and it can be changed with lighting, positioning, and simply the observer.
The reality of the table is a matter of fact and will not change. Finding the appearance is
relatively easy, but finding the reality of the table is an extremely difficult matter.
I have concluded, after studying the different views on Epistemology, that I agree
with parts of several theories in our book. I agree with Plato when he writes that if a
person ever finds true knowledge that they will never be able to go back and view the
world the same. It will change them forever, even making them appear “ignorant” to
people still in the dark. I agree with Descartes in the fact that the only thing we can know
for sure is that we can doubt. He is a very rational person and I feel that rationalism is a
very important characteristic of a logical argument. I agree with Kant almost completely
because his way of thinking makes the most since to me. I think that it is practical and
puts forth a logical argument. I agree with Russell partly, because I think that he shows
how people can how different descriptions of the same table. I believe that his argument
is not only practical in Epistemology but also in everyday life. It explains how different
people’s perspectives can be on the same exact situation.