Ma. Keala Mae M.

Bleza
2006-48425
Theory of Knowledge
Dr . Ciriaco Sayson

When a person is confronted with myriads of inexplicable dilemma, where does he

turn to? Reason. Man's ability to think provides the path to a wider selection of options.

However, we wonder, through all the spectacle of the nerves processing the thought – is

there a unifying concept or principle that serves as the foundation of thinking and to an

extent foundation of knowledge.

Let me reiterate some positions previously held by thinkers throughout the course

of time, these are theories of knowledges that are incorporated in a branch of Philosophy

called Epistemology. Ironically, in this realm of thought the foremost wary of the notion

of knowledge seem to be paving the path towards discussion of the ways in finding more

about knowledge. The Skeptics are not adamant in displaying their utmost disagreement

in the possibility of attaining knowledge. Though there may be a ladderized notion of the

level of being a skeptic they all exude an attitude of uncertainty. Doubt. What is

knowledge? When you think you know something, is it really considered as knowledge

already?

In general, also taking Hilary Kornblith's point of view in naturalizing Epistemology,

we have an idea of knowledge but in a vague sense. There are knowledges that are

theoretical in nature, these are ideas that are already present in our minds even without

experiencing it. The notion that these are innate in a person supersedes the notion that

there are knowledges that are based on actual experience. These are our practical

knowledges – how our reasoning plays the in the realm of real life experiences. Some

would say that these are the products of applying theoretical knowledge, others would

claim that these are the real source of knowledge. True enough, they may possess

similar characteristics but the knowledge that we ought to have and the knowledge of
real life differs from each other for the simpler reason that they answer different

questions.

The theoretical knowledge are the things we ought to know though not necessarily

used. These are the more basic type of knowledge that cannot be neglected. For

example, ethical principles are the things we speculate though not necessarily will

encounter in our lifetime. We often know ethical values and remain a commentator in

issues that concern ethical dilemmas.

On the other hand, take the practical knowledge as part of daily and menial tasks.

In driving, there are theoretical skills that you have acquired when you were still trying

to learn how to maneuver the car. Right now, driving is no longer the issue but the

fastest way to get to somewhere by means of driving. Consider this, theoretically

speaking one can go back home faster b driving through the highway by calculating the

distance, the gas that will be consumed, and the direction of the traffic but because you

have a previous knowledge of heavy traffic during rush hours you will opt to run through

maze-like inner roads and smudge your car in mud puddles just to get home earlier

compared to driving in the highway. Your practical knowledge literally guides you in

everyday experiences and these may even replace all your theoretical knowledges

combined.

This kind of replacement has been present, though different in presentation,

throughout the course of the history of Philosophy. Plato has the idea that there is a

world that is separate from ours. This world holds true knowledge and we copy it

imperfectly. The world of ideas or forms have the perfect image of the copied world of

phenomena. Plato views the world of ideas as the source of imperfect knowledge that we

possess right now, hence what we know are practically a fraction of the real thing.

Further, he corroborates this notion by telling a metaphorical story of the allegory

of the cave. We are all cavemen trapped in a cave where the sole source of light comes

from a small opening in the cave. This small light produces monstrous shadows

representing our illusions in life. We all think that we are already experiencing and seeing

the reality of this world but all we see are illusions. We are terrified by our own shadows

that are merely produced by the small light from the opening. To be able to be

enlightened and see the real thing – one has to go out of the cave and face the blinding

light. Through this, one is freed from the illusion that the cave brings and is finally free.

Another notable version similar to this is the idea of Maya or illusion in Indian

Philosophy. Maya is the phenomenal world that creates an illusion because of the

relationship of man and objects. Indians believed that they have to escaped this maya

and hence join the Brahman as the enlightened person.

The whole history of Philosophy is characterized by the domineering attitude of

dogmatic principles. This attitude is considered as fallibilist holding that there are

justified beliefs that serves as the foundation of knowledge. These beliefs cannot be

doubted and thus, are infallible. They do not fall into the category of ideas where you

have to justify and explain how you arrived to that knowledge, they are automatically

true.

Empiricists claimed that knowledge is purely acquired by the direct sense

experience of the external world. What we experience sensually are the very knowledge

of this world and there needs no other process to obtain it. Our five senses interact

directly with the external reality and such relationship is the act of knowing and is the

only reliable source of knowledge.

On the other hand, Rationalists would contradict such belief by noting that there

are intuitive or innate account of knowledge. Descartes' “Cogito, Ergo sum.” implies that

the only thing you cannot doubt is the fact that you are doubting and all this is due to
one's reasoning capacity. Rationalism denies the relationship of the senses and the

external world for the reason that it is not reliable.

The senses are not always perfect. In the discussion of the distal knowing, seeing

an object from a distance lets you form an idea of something. By increasing the

frequency of you exposure to such object, you are claiming to gain knowledge of it and

will conclude what it is if you see something similar. The ratio of the true and false is a

good basis of gaining knowledge but the senses may deceive us, vision is blurred by the

absence of light, the olfactory system adapts to its environment if exposed in a log period

of time, the sense of touch can be calloused by excessive friction, and so on.

For a fallibilist frame of mind, there is no room for the other. Only one principle is

correct in corresponding to several questions. Such state is not solely exclusive to

Epistemology, it can also be present in Ethics, Sociology, Psychology,and other social

sciences. This is more of a subjective mind trying to investigate something. The main

challenge is, what does a fallibilist framework do to us?

Fallibilism implies that there is a universal approach to knowledge or truth in

particular therefore denying the possibility of relative functions. It captures a vision of a

black and white portrait of a scenario, one is always right and whatever is against it is

ultimately mistaken. Such notion is no longer workable in our postmodern life. We are

slowly promoting inter-cultural dialogues that are crucial to understanding other people.

If we hold fallibilism as the source of knowledge then we can go back to the era of

slavery and irrationality.

There may be principles that are indispensable for many but it can be applied in a

case to case basis. For a fallibilist frame of mind, it is always easy to just impose to

someone his or her idea to be true. This is the reason why there are movements that

promotes theories that are against fallibilism.