EPISTEMOLOGY PART 6: KNOWLEDGE
So far in epistemology we have covered concepts, and how the human consciousness is able to form concepts that are based in reality (as observed by the senses or one's consciousness). This is essential, as in order to move on we have to know that our concepts are grounded in reality, and that they aren't just subjective, arbitrary illusions. Whether it be first-level concepts like chair, table and human, or higher level concepts like organism, doctor, tennis, thought, friendship or love; if we properly form our concepts we can trace them back to reality.
TRACING BACK A CONCEPT
In the case of a complex concept like friendship, this might be difficult, but still possible. There is no way to observe "friendship" directly in nature, as it rests on many previously formed concepts. A "friend" designates a certain kind of human relationship, and differs from, say, an acquaintance, a stranger or an enemy. To differentiate this relationship we need to have formed concepts like "esteem", which means someone recognizes qualities in someone that they view as having a significant moral value. From "esteem" we can derive "affection", which is an emotional response that happens when one esteems another, and when they value the character of another. Esteem and affection are both based primarily off the concept of "value". "Value" is something desirable that one acts to keep or gain. Before value you need to understand concepts like "purpose", "choice", "desirable" and "undesirable". These are based off the fact that people have volition and the ability to act, and that actions have different consequences. This rests on the fact that there are people, which is a first-level concept, and we can point to someone and say, "there's a person!". If you wanted to reduce it even farther, this rests on the axiom that our senses are valid and ultimately the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity which we learned in Metaphysics Part 1, and are necessarily the foundations of all knowledge.
Whew!
While difficult and time consuming, it is possible to retrace a valid concept back to reality. Everyone should try it with the various concepts they have in their heads. It isn't easy, but it's invaluable to give yourself confidence in your own mind, and the ability to defend it from philosophical hucksters and other would be attackers. Now, if you try to retrace an anti-concept like "sixth sense", "demonic possession" or "extremism" back to reality, you'll see that it's impossible and a dead end, and I would advise you to throw concepts like these out of your head into the trash heap where they belong. (Note: you can still use such words for social reasons as long as you don't take them seriously and know that they don't exist in reality).
Once we've accepted we have the ability to form concepts rooted in reality, the next step is to define and pursue knowledge. Knowledge means for the mind to grasp the facts of reality. Notice that reality is the metaphysically given, or existence. The universe doesn't have or need knowledge, it just is. Our consciousness has the ability to perceive and understand reality, but it also has the ability to imagine and hold arbitrary concepts and contradictory thoughts. Just as concepts aren't an automatic function of our bodies and have the possibility of error, neither is knowledge automatic. In order to seek and gain knowledge, we need to identify what are and aren't valid paths to knowledge. Since knowledge means to grasp the facts of reality, we need to have a process that can validate our ideas according to reality. This process for humans is reason.
In the case of a complex concept like friendship, this might be difficult, but still possible. There is no way to observe "friendship" directly in nature, as it rests on many previously formed concepts. A "friend" designates a certain kind of human relationship, and differs from, say, an acquaintance, a stranger or an enemy. To differentiate this relationship we need to have formed concepts like "esteem", which means someone recognizes qualities in someone that they view as having a significant moral value. From "esteem" we can derive "affection", which is an emotional response that happens when one esteems another, and when they value the character of another. Esteem and affection are both based primarily off the concept of "value". "Value" is something desirable that one acts to keep or gain. Before value you need to understand concepts like "purpose", "choice", "desirable" and "undesirable". These are based off the fact that people have volition and the ability to act, and that actions have different consequences. This rests on the fact that there are people, which is a first-level concept, and we can point to someone and say, "there's a person!". If you wanted to reduce it even farther, this rests on the axiom that our senses are valid and ultimately the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity which we learned in Metaphysics Part 1, and are necessarily the foundations of all knowledge.
Whew!
While difficult and time consuming, it is possible to retrace a valid concept back to reality. Everyone should try it with the various concepts they have in their heads. It isn't easy, but it's invaluable to give yourself confidence in your own mind, and the ability to defend it from philosophical hucksters and other would be attackers. Now, if you try to retrace an anti-concept like "sixth sense", "demonic possession" or "extremism" back to reality, you'll see that it's impossible and a dead end, and I would advise you to throw concepts like these out of your head into the trash heap where they belong. (Note: you can still use such words for social reasons as long as you don't take them seriously and know that they don't exist in reality).
Once we've accepted we have the ability to form concepts rooted in reality, the next step is to define and pursue knowledge. Knowledge means for the mind to grasp the facts of reality. Notice that reality is the metaphysically given, or existence. The universe doesn't have or need knowledge, it just is. Our consciousness has the ability to perceive and understand reality, but it also has the ability to imagine and hold arbitrary concepts and contradictory thoughts. Just as concepts aren't an automatic function of our bodies and have the possibility of error, neither is knowledge automatic. In order to seek and gain knowledge, we need to identify what are and aren't valid paths to knowledge. Since knowledge means to grasp the facts of reality, we need to have a process that can validate our ideas according to reality. This process for humans is reason.
REASON
Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by our senses. It consists of three elements:
Data: For humans, the data we collect is provided by our 5 senses. Our brain then almost instantaneously converts them into percepts (which was covered in Epistemology Part 1). Again, our only contact with existence (reality) is our senses, so this is the only place the data can come from.
Form: Our brain can organize our percepts into concepts, and this gives us the ability to form abstractions from reality which is our basis of understanding the world. This has been covered in the last 3 lessons.
Method: Logic. Logic is our way to sort out our concepts properly and according to the Law of Identity.
If you ask the question "is reason a valid means of knowledge?" you are asking:
1) Are the senses valid?
2) Are concepts valid?
3) Is logic valid?
We've already shown the first two are valid, so now let's validate logic.
Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by our senses. It consists of three elements:
Data: For humans, the data we collect is provided by our 5 senses. Our brain then almost instantaneously converts them into percepts (which was covered in Epistemology Part 1). Again, our only contact with existence (reality) is our senses, so this is the only place the data can come from.
Form: Our brain can organize our percepts into concepts, and this gives us the ability to form abstractions from reality which is our basis of understanding the world. This has been covered in the last 3 lessons.
Method: Logic. Logic is our way to sort out our concepts properly and according to the Law of Identity.
If you ask the question "is reason a valid means of knowledge?" you are asking:
1) Are the senses valid?
2) Are concepts valid?
3) Is logic valid?
We've already shown the first two are valid, so now let's validate logic.
LOGIC
Logic sometimes gets confused as being reason itself, but in epistemology the two have distinct meanings. Reason is the complete process, while logic is one component, the method of how we reason.
Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. To put it more vulgarly, it's our way of cutting through the BS in our minds and knowing what's true. Aristotle was the first to define and explicitly identify logic, which was one of the most profound breakthroughs in philosophy, although unfortunately even he wasn't consistent with it in all of his work. Logic can still most eloquently be shown in the ancient syllogism:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal
or it's updated equivalent:
All Kardashian sisters are annoying
Kim is a Kardashian sister
Therefore, Kim Kardashian is annoying
If you accept the first two premises in either syllogism, then it would clearly be absurd to argue with the third statement. If Socrates is a man then he can't be immortal, because if he was immortal he wouldn't be a man. If all Kardashian sisters are annoying, then Kim couldn't not be annoying and still be a Kardashian. To come to any other conclusion would be to hold a contradiction, and one of Aristotle's greatest achievements was to show that contradictions can't exist in reality. Logic is a result of, and obeys the Law of Identity (remember Metaphysics Part 1?!). Something cannot be A and non A at the same time. A table can't be a chair, a man can't be a cat, etc. Contradictions can't exist, because existence exists and can't contradict itself. Contradictions can't exist, and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.
It's important to understand that in order to use logic, your observations have to be correct and based in reality, not arbitrary whims. In order for the first syllogism to work, we have to accept that all men are mortal. This is done by observation, and must hold all the available evidence we have on the matter. If we observe that all men eventually die, and later through science discover why this is so, then it is an observed fact about men. Proving that Socrates is a man is pretty straightforward, but still involves observation that is grounded in reality. An arbitrary syllogism would go something like this: all women enjoy strip clubs, my girlfriend is a woman, therefore she loves strip clubs. While I applied "logic" here, I started with incorrect premises, and therefore the resulting conclusion is invalid (and dangerous!).
The importance of being vigilant and adhering to reason and logic throughout all your thoughts cannot be overstated, as unfortunately we have the ability to hold contradictory ideas in our heads (aka being intellectual hypocrites). The fact that someone may be smart or follow reason most of the time doesn't mean they can't still make errors and hold contradictions if they don't actively seek and destroy them in their minds. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were two of the greatest political minds in US History, and their ability to reason gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. However, they both owned slaves and thus held huge contradictions in their heads. Both, on some level realized that slavery couldn't exist in a free society, but their actions often were the opposite. While the US certainly didn't invent slavery, the attempt in the founding of the United States to establish a government that protected individual rights, yet allowed slavery, was a monstrous contradiction, and one that couldn't persist. Eventually, this contradiction lead to war. A similar war will go on in your mind if you hold contradictions. Either you confront and eliminate the contradiction, or you must continue to evade thinking about the contradiction by avoiding reality (unfortunately this seems easy for some!).
Logic sometimes gets confused as being reason itself, but in epistemology the two have distinct meanings. Reason is the complete process, while logic is one component, the method of how we reason.
Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. To put it more vulgarly, it's our way of cutting through the BS in our minds and knowing what's true. Aristotle was the first to define and explicitly identify logic, which was one of the most profound breakthroughs in philosophy, although unfortunately even he wasn't consistent with it in all of his work. Logic can still most eloquently be shown in the ancient syllogism:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal
or it's updated equivalent:
All Kardashian sisters are annoying
Kim is a Kardashian sister
Therefore, Kim Kardashian is annoying
If you accept the first two premises in either syllogism, then it would clearly be absurd to argue with the third statement. If Socrates is a man then he can't be immortal, because if he was immortal he wouldn't be a man. If all Kardashian sisters are annoying, then Kim couldn't not be annoying and still be a Kardashian. To come to any other conclusion would be to hold a contradiction, and one of Aristotle's greatest achievements was to show that contradictions can't exist in reality. Logic is a result of, and obeys the Law of Identity (remember Metaphysics Part 1?!). Something cannot be A and non A at the same time. A table can't be a chair, a man can't be a cat, etc. Contradictions can't exist, because existence exists and can't contradict itself. Contradictions can't exist, and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.
It's important to understand that in order to use logic, your observations have to be correct and based in reality, not arbitrary whims. In order for the first syllogism to work, we have to accept that all men are mortal. This is done by observation, and must hold all the available evidence we have on the matter. If we observe that all men eventually die, and later through science discover why this is so, then it is an observed fact about men. Proving that Socrates is a man is pretty straightforward, but still involves observation that is grounded in reality. An arbitrary syllogism would go something like this: all women enjoy strip clubs, my girlfriend is a woman, therefore she loves strip clubs. While I applied "logic" here, I started with incorrect premises, and therefore the resulting conclusion is invalid (and dangerous!).
The importance of being vigilant and adhering to reason and logic throughout all your thoughts cannot be overstated, as unfortunately we have the ability to hold contradictory ideas in our heads (aka being intellectual hypocrites). The fact that someone may be smart or follow reason most of the time doesn't mean they can't still make errors and hold contradictions if they don't actively seek and destroy them in their minds. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were two of the greatest political minds in US History, and their ability to reason gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. However, they both owned slaves and thus held huge contradictions in their heads. Both, on some level realized that slavery couldn't exist in a free society, but their actions often were the opposite. While the US certainly didn't invent slavery, the attempt in the founding of the United States to establish a government that protected individual rights, yet allowed slavery, was a monstrous contradiction, and one that couldn't persist. Eventually, this contradiction lead to war. A similar war will go on in your mind if you hold contradictions. Either you confront and eliminate the contradiction, or you must continue to evade thinking about the contradiction by avoiding reality (unfortunately this seems easy for some!).
Take that, contradictions!
Like it or not, reason is our only valid way of gaining knowledge, as it's the only way we can confirm something we know matches with reality and doesn't have contradictions. Other claims to knowledge, like revelation or intuition, cannot be justified in any worldly way without resorting to mysticism and the supernatural. Often, logic is thought of today as a social function, a way to make someone else accept your ideas, and as only an arbitrary construct. "What you're saying is logical, but we just have a different opinion. My opinion is just as valid as yours!" Valid how? By what measure? Can your opinion be validated in reality, or should I just accept it on a whim or prayer? Reason's purpose isn't to batter down one's opponents or prove them wrong (although it's often tempting), its purpose is to identify the facts of reality, and use reality as the judge of what's true or false. As humans, we have an uncanny ability to convince ourselves we're right, and to hold contradictions without even being conscious of it. Reason is the only warrior capable of fighting this properly, as it has reality on it's side. To say reason or logic isn't valid is to say existence isn't valid, and it's essential whether you're living in LA or on a desert island. Think of logic like mental Jedi's. They are the good side, and while the battle may be long and fierce they can and will prevail (just try not to think that Jedi's themselves are illogical!).
The importance of showing the validity of reason cannot be overemphasized in philosophy. After all, it's the means of how we achieve knowledge. Whenever reason is brought into question, the foundations of philosophy implode on themselves, and potentially destructive and irrational ideas are allowed to take root. As empirical evidence, simply look at human history. Most totalitarian governments were based on or justified through various philosophies. Believe it or not, brilliant philosophers throughout the centuries have attacked reason on various grounds. From the ancient Greek Skeptics to St. Augustine and Christianity, to Thomas Hobbes, to David Hume, eventually culminating in the 19th and 20th century with some truly bizarre philosophers like Nietzsche, a great deal of philosophical thought has been devoted to contemplate why reason and human knowledge are invalid. In the case of Nietzsche, he's so crazy that even 3 Minute Philosophy wouldn't touch him!
The importance of showing the validity of reason cannot be overemphasized in philosophy. After all, it's the means of how we achieve knowledge. Whenever reason is brought into question, the foundations of philosophy implode on themselves, and potentially destructive and irrational ideas are allowed to take root. As empirical evidence, simply look at human history. Most totalitarian governments were based on or justified through various philosophies. Believe it or not, brilliant philosophers throughout the centuries have attacked reason on various grounds. From the ancient Greek Skeptics to St. Augustine and Christianity, to Thomas Hobbes, to David Hume, eventually culminating in the 19th and 20th century with some truly bizarre philosophers like Nietzsche, a great deal of philosophical thought has been devoted to contemplate why reason and human knowledge are invalid. In the case of Nietzsche, he's so crazy that even 3 Minute Philosophy wouldn't touch him!
The
next post will deal with another critical aspect of the human
consciousness, emotions. We'll get into more detail what their nature is, and why they aren't to be used as sources of knowledge.
