INTRODUCTION TO THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE

The branch of philosophy that studies the nature, source and limits of knowledge is known as epistemology. It is the theory of knowledge.The basic questions of epistemology can be put down in the following manner: 1. What is the nature of knowledge: this question asks what does it mean to say that someone knows. How do we distinguish between cases in which someone knows something and cases in which someone does not know something? 2. How do we acquire knowledge: here we try to find the sources and origin of our knowledge. How can we use our various faculties like reason, senses, or other resources to acquire knowledge? We try to find out how we gain the concepts we use in our thought. 3. What is the scope of knowledge or what can we know: this query tries to answer whether there are limits to what we can know. For example, whether there are things which are unknowable for us. Is it possible that we do not know as much as we think we do? This Unit will introduce you to the second question of epistemology, that is, how we acquire knowledge. ORIGIN AND SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE There are many ways that one might come to know something or acquire knowledge. We acquire our knowledge of empirical facts about physical world through perception, that is, by using our senses. Science is the best example of empirical knowledge with its collection of data. Our everyday knowledge also mostly comes from the senses, as we look, listen, smell, touch, and taste the various objects in our environments. But knowledge is not simply made up of sensations. All knowledge requires some amount of reasoning. Data collected by scientists must be analyzed before knowledge is yielded, and we draw inferences based on what is given to us by our senses. In case of knowledge of abstract or non-empirical facts one has to rely exclusively upon reasoning. Some philosophers regard memory also as a source of knowledge. In memory we come to know something which we knew in the past but which is no longer present to our senses now. Knowledge can also be acquired through testimony, that is, from the words of some trusted person or books that can be believed to be true. THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE There are four main theories of origin of knowledge. 1. Rationalism: It is a theory that regards reason as the chief source of knowledge. Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are advocates of Rationalism. 2. Empiricism: It is a theory that regards experience as the source of knowledge. Locke and Hume are the chief exponents of this theory. 3. Criticism: It is also called the Critical theory of knowledge. It is advocated by Kant. He advocated the view that both experience and reason together yield knowledge. 4. Intuitionism: It regards intuition as the source of knowledge. Henry Bergson is an advocate of this theory. RATIONALISM Rationalism is the theory of knowledge according to which reason or intellect is the main source of knowledge. Rationalism rejects all knowledge derived from sense experience. Socrates and Plato are the earliest rationalist philosophers. According to them, true knowledge originates from reason. The Rationalism that was advocated by these two philosophers became articulate in the philosophy of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. However, the rationalist philosophers differ among themselves regarding how much importance should be given to experience in yielding knowledge. Some rationalists regard experience as wholly misleading while others attach some values to it. They say that the knowledge given by experience is confused knowledge. But inspite of their differences they all agree that reason alone can give us certain and perfect knowledge. Rationalism is also called a priori theory of knowledge as according to this theory, knowledge is prior or independent of experience. Standpoints of Different Philosophers RENE DESCARTES (1596-1650) As it has been mentioned above, modern rationalism begins in the philosophy of Descartes. Descartes is considered as the father of modern western philosophy. Descartes was a mathematician and according to him, the perfect form of knowledge can be gained only through mathematical demonstration. Such demonstration consists in starting with self-evident principles and deducing other truths from these self-evident principles. Descartes divides ideas into three kinds: adventitious, factitious and innate. Adventitious ideas are imposed on the mind from without. They are not clear and distinct. Factitious ideas are created by the mind by the conjunction of ideas. These are created by imagination. They are also not clear and distinct. But innate ideas are clear and distinct. They are implanted in the mind by God at the time of birth. According to Descartes, knowledge is given by clear vision of intellect or reason. Descartes calls it intuition. For him intuition is the undoubted, immediate apprehension of self-evident truth by reason. God imprints certain innate ideas in the mind at the time of birth. They are self-evident. The idea of causality, infinity, eternity, perfect Being or God and the like are innate ideas. They are clear and distinct. Clearness and distinctness is the test of their truth. The development of true knowledge consists in the logical deduction of other truths from these principles. Thus Descartes applies mathematical method to philosophy. Therefore, Paulsen has characterized Descartes’ philosophy as Mathematical Rationalism. According to Descartes, certainty is the criterion of truth. Therefore, he rejects knowledge derived from sensation. He starts with universal doubt. He doubts all knowledge including mathematical demonstration. One can doubt everything, but in doubting one cannot doubt the doubting itself. To doubt is to think. To think is to exist. “Cogito ergo sum”. “I think, therefore, I exist”. Once he establishes the existence of the self, Descartes moves to prove the existence of the external world. Each one of us has the innate ideas of which God is the most important. From this idea of God Descartes proves the existence of God. The idea of God is the idea of infinite Being. But I being finite cannot produce this idea of infinite Being in me. Another human being cannot produce it, as he too is finite. This idea also cannot be produced by addition of finite beings and things as the sum of finite is also finite. So, this idea of the infinite Being must be produced by that which itself is infinite, that is, by God himself. So God must exist. Now God is benevolent and truthful. As such he cannot deceive us. And we have conviction that external things exist. So, they must exist. For otherwise God will turn deceitful. Descartes thus proves the existence of the external world. CHECK YOUR PROGRESS 1. Theory of origin of knowledge is studied in the branch of philosophy known as Metaphysics. True/ False 2. Plato’s philosophy cannot be claimed to be rational in nature. True/ False 3. A priori means ‘knowledge is after experience’. True/ False 4. Innate ideas are implanted in the mind at the time of birth by God. True/ False 5. What are three kinds of ideas according to Descartes? 6. What is the criterion of truth according to Descartes? BENEDICT SPINOZA (1632-1677) Spinoza gave a developed form to the rationalism initiated by Descartes in modern western philosophy. Like Descartes, Spinoza had immense faith in reason. Like a true rationalist Spinoza holds that we can know truth through reason. Reason can give us knowledge of reality because reality itself is rational in nature. According to Spinoza, God himself creates the world rationally and intuition is the realization of true knowledge. It is intuition by which one knows the necessary relations between different phenomena. According to Spinoza, the goal of philosophy is to get complete knowledge of things. He holds that this is possible only by clear and distinct thinking. Like Descartes he believed that if we start with self-evident principles and prove the steps involved in the argument then we will be able to reach certain and universal knowledge. Spinoza uses geometrical method to philosophy to arrive at certain truths. His method is geometrical because he lays down certain definitions, axioms and postulates and from these principles he deduces propositions with proofs. Spinoza starts with the innate principle or idea of God or Substance. According to him, a substance is that which exists by itself and is conceived by itself. This substance is infinite and it has infinite attributes. Out of these attributes we can know only thought and extension which themselves are infinite. They are parallel and co-exist with each other. These attributes are modified into infinite intelligence and will and infinite extension and motion. They are the infinite modes of Substance. Infinite intellect and will are again modified into finite intellects and will or finite minds. Infinite extension and motion are modified into finite extension and motion or finite objects. Thus finite minds and finite objects are modification of the one and same Substance. 1. The method in philosophy used by Spinoza is: a. mathematical b. geometrical 2. According to Spinoza, God has a. two attributes b. three attributes c. infinite number of attributes GOTTFRIED WILHELM LEIBNIZ (1646-1716) Leibniz was a famous mathematician. He held that the world has logical and mathematical order. Laws that govern this world order are rational. Therefore, the world can only be comprehended by reason. Leibniz’s theory of knowledge is based on his metaphysical theory. Leibniz established that the world is composed of dynamic units or immaterial, unextended, simple units of force. These are called monads. According to him, monads are windowless and hence they cannot receive any knowledge from any external source. Leibniz holds that we cannot derive any invariable law concerning the functions of the universe on the basis of sense experience. Knowledge is simply brought out and manifested by experience. He holds that nothing can exist in the intellect that did not first exist in sensation- except, he adds, the intellect itself. The rational laws governing the world are to be found only in reason because the world has been created by God on the basis of reason. EMPIRICISM JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704) Locke revolted against Descartes’ rationalism and criticised his theory of innate ideas. he criticised the theory of innate ideas on the following grounds: 1. If there were innate ideas they should be equally present in all minds. But there are no such innate ideas which are equally present in all minds. For example, we do not find that savages, children or idiots are concious of so called innate ideas like causality, infinity, eternity etc. 2. If there were innate ideas they should be the same in all minds. But the ideas of morality, God and the like are not the same in all minds. Different ideas are held in different socities. Sometimes the same society may hold different view at different times or ages. 3. Even if there were the same ideas in all minds, it would not make them innate on that account. Everybody has the same idea of fire. But all of us get the idea of fire from experience. It is not an innate idea. Universality of an idea does not prove the innateness of it. According to Locke, at the time of birth the mind is a tabula rasa or blank sheet. Mind is a clean slate in the beginning on which expereince writes. According to him, ‘there is nothing in the intellect that was not previously in the senses’. Mind receives ideas from expereince. This expereince is two fold: sensation and reflection. Sensation is the source of our knowledge of the sensory qualities of objects. Reflection is the source of our internal states of mind, such as, perception, belief, thought and reasoning etc. We get our first ideas from sensation and then we reflect upon it. Sensations are the materials on which the mind thinks. According to Locke, the mind is passive in receiving ideas. But it is active in comparing and combining these ideas. The ideas that are passively received by the mind are the simple ideas. these simple ideas are combined by the active power of the mind into varieties to make complex ideas. Locke says that there are four simple ideas: Firstly, the ideas which enter our minds through one sense organ only. For example, colour, sound, taste, heat, cold solidity. Secondly, the ideas which enter the mind by more than one sense organ. For example, space, figure, rest, motion which enter through both sight and touch. Thirdly, the ideas that are received by reflection only. For example, perception, retention, discerning, comparing, compounding, naming and abstracting. Fourthly, the ideas that we receive both through sensation and reflection. For example, pleasure, pain, power, existence, unity, succession and duration. According to Locke, the power that an object has to produce idea in our minds is a quality. But he makes an important distinction between primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities belong to the objects themselves. They cannot be separated from the object. As such he calls them objective. Examples of primary qualities are solidity, extension, motion, shape, size, impenetrability etc. Secondary qualities on the other hand are mere sensations or ideas in the mind of the knower. They are sensations produced in the mind by the primary qualities. They vary under different conditions. They are subjective. Locke is an empiricist, but he believes in the existence of matter, mind or soul and God though they are not given in experience. He says that we have to assume the existence of matter as the substratum of primary qualities of objects though we do not perceive it. Similarly, the existence of mind is inferred from various mental operations. Its existence must be assumed as the substratum of power of perceiving, thinking, feeling and willing. Similarly, we infer the existence of God as the maker of the external world. Locke being an empiricist refuses to believe that knowledge can be derived from any other source than sense-experience, but he crosses the bounds of empiricism by accepting the existence of matter, mind and God. 1. Why empiricism is called a-posteriori theory of knowledge? 2. Locke maintains that at the time of birth we are born with innate ideas. True/ False 3. Reflection is prior to sensation. True/ False 4. Locke is a thorough going empiricist. True/ False 5. Mind is given in experience and therefore, according to Locke we should believe in its existence. True/ False DAVID HUME (1711-1776) Hume developed Locke’s empiricism to its logical conclusion. Hume is a true empiricist and he does not accept the existence of anything that is not given in experience. As such he denies the existence of mind, matter and God, because these are not given in experience. According to him, all knowledge comes from impressions and ideas. Impressions are lively perceptions and images are their faint copies. There are impressions of sensations or external perceptions and impressions of reflection or internal perception. They constitute the original materials of knowledge. Impressions and ideas are discrete or disconnected from one another. Impressions and ideas are automatically combined with one another by the laws of association, such as law of contiguity, similarity and causality. A picture suggests the object it represents due to law of similarity. An inkpot suggests a pen due to law of contiguity in space. A lightening suggests a thunder due to law of contiguity in time. Fire suggests burning due to law of causation. Thus discrete impressions get connected with one another due to the laws of association. Thus our knowledge is composed of impressions and ideas combined by the laws of association. Our knowledge does not owe anything to reason or intellect. However, these laws are subjective in nature. As such the connection they provide to the impressions are also subjective. Hume rejects the idea of material substance, mind and God, as we do not have any empirical evidence of them. He also rejects all metaphysical entities, as we cannot have any ideas of these entities. Hume admits only particular and contingent truths as they alone are given in experience. It is not possible to go beyond sensation to know reality outside them. Hume’s theory thus lands up in sensationism and scepticism. CRITICISM The doctrine of criticism is synthesis of rationalism and empiricism. As we see neither rationalism nor empiricism is a satisfactory theory of knowledge. By denying the role of experience rationalism has become one sided. Empiricism also is one sided as it denies the role of reason in knowledge. However, rationalism rightly emphasizes the universality or necessity of knowledge. But it is wrong in accepting innate ideas. If we accept innate ideas then we also will have to accept that there is no progress in knowledge as knowledge consists simply in analytical deduction of innate principles. Therefore, empiricists are right in emphasizing that knowledge is acquired through experience. But the problem with empiricism is that it denies universal and necessary knowledge as experience gives us only contingent truths. However, true knowledge should be universal and at the same time it should be novel. Immanuel Kant tries to reconcile rationalism and empiricism in criticism and give a satisfactory view of knowledge that is both universal and contains novelty. MMANUEL KANT (1724-1804) According to Kant, no knowledge is possible without sensation. But he also holds that knowledge is not wholly derived from experience, as it cannot give us universality. The part of knowledge that is not given by experience is a priori. According to Kant, human mind receives sensation from without. The sensations are produced by noumena or things-in-themselves. These are the materials of knowledge. These sensations are discrete or disconnected from one another. As such they cannot give us knowledge unless they are connected with one another by the mind with its synthetic activity. Thus the form of knowledge is supplied by the mind from within itself. According to Kant, both forms and matter of knowledge always go together. In the words of Kant: “Conception without perception is empty; perception without conception is blind”. Kant divides the faculty of knowing into three subordinate faculties: the faculty of sensibility, the faculty of understanding and the faculty of reasoning.Faculty of sensibility: When we perceive a thing, we perceive it in space and time. Space and time are the forms of perception that sensibility applies to the disconnected sensations and converts them to intelligible objects. Space and time do not belong to the things-in-themselves. They are the forms of perception. They are the a priori ways of perceiving things. Faculty of understanding: Categories of understanding are the universal necessary characteristics of experience which are found in all mental experience. Understanding applies its categories, namely, substance, causality, unity, plurality etc., to the sensations that are already arranged in space and time by sensibility. Like the forms of perception they also do not apply to things-in-themselves. Faculty of reason: Reason is the faculty by which the mind tries to employ its innate forms and categories where there is no sensuous experience. Sensations arranged in space and time by sensibility and subsumed under the categories of understanding are co-ordinated by reason. Reason co-ordinates sensibility and understanding according to its ideas of the world, soul and God. These three ideas of reason are regulative ideas. These are the ideas by which reason organizes the facts of experience into a system. The discrete sensations supplied by experience are reduced to a unity by the synthetic activity of the mind. According to Kant, sensations are the materials of knowledge, while the faculties of knowing-forms of sensibility, categories of understanding and Ideas of reason are supplied by the mind itself. Thus our knowledge is confined to phenomena or appearances only. Noumena or the things-in-themselves remain unknown and unknowable. Human mind cannot know them. All thinkers before Kant regarded that our perceptions correspond to the characteristics in the external world. Kant, on the other hand, maintains that objects in order to be known must conform to the constitution of our minds. Thus according to Kant, in knowledge, instead of mind conforming to an independent nature, it is nature that conforms to mind. This is known as the Copernican Revolution in philosophy. 1. Forms of knowledge are a priori. True/False 2. Mind can know only phenomena. True/ False 3. Why according to Kant we cannot know noumena? ANSWERS (I) 1. False 2. False 3. False 4. True 5. Adventitious, factitious and innate. 6. Certainty (II) 1. b 2. c (III) 1. False 2. True (IV) 1. Because according to empiricism, experience is the source of knowledge. 2. False 3. False 4. False 5. False (V) 1. Because we do not have any impressions of mind, matter and God. 2. False (VI) 1. True 2. True 3. Because faculties of knowing do not apply to noumena.