(This is my first attempt at "philosophy". If you find the ideas over here redundant, pointless, or rubbish, do tell me. But in an agreeable tone. Don't pounce on me.)
According to epistemology, knowledge is a justified true belief. We know P, if P is true, if we believe that P, and we have a justification for believing P. Of course, there are some problems with this definition (Gettier problem), but that's not a point of contention right now. Let's continue with the above definition. So, if we have to gain some
new knowledge, the set of ideas that potentially make up that knowledge must be true, and we must have a justified belief in that set of ideas. The process of believing some idea is inclusive of justification. We believe in something because there are some "justifiers", some "evidences" that will help us believe.
Let us make this interesting by bringing in the notion of "existence and reality". Each one of has his or her own existence within which we exist. There is a reality without us. It is independent of existence. And each one of us has his or her own perception of reality. This perception affects our existence. Now let us fit in truth. Let us say that truth is a part of reality. So, truth is also independent of existence.
Let me call this 'perception of reality' as knowledge. Supposing there is some way to quantify the knowldge we have, if I have K units of knowledge then I have perceived reality worth K units. If I gain some new knowledge, I have perceived something new about reality. Since something becomes knowledge only if it is true, and since truth is part of reality, knowledge is just our perception of truth. Knowledge does not have truth, because knowledge, or the perception of truth is part of existence.
How do we gain knowledge? We gain knowledge when we are able to find some "justifiers" that will make us believe in some truth. What is it that leads us towards finding new justifiers? The perception of truth or the knowledge or the set of justifiers that we already have, leads us. So, the pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of these justifiers. Scientific process (and even arts?) is essentially a process of justification of truth.
-----
Now, there is a question that get raised at this juncture. We seem to have assumed that reality is static. It does not expand. "Entire truth" is already there as part of reality. But is it that truth is what we are able to justifiably perceive, or is it that what we are able justify becomes a perception of truth? Or does this question does not hold at all? We are able to justify something only because it is true; were it not true, we would not be able to find its justifiers?
-----
Since knowledge relies so heavily on truth, it would be interesting to explore the 'nature of truth'. I won't be talking about that in this post for it will become too huge. In the next post (in this series) I'll take the example of the atomic theory and argue that some popular theories of truth like 'Correspondence theory' and 'Coherence theory' are inadequate.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Nice post, but I'm not clear what is the point being made here?
Is it "what is the nature of truth?" I know. The answer is:
42.
:-)
Well, this is "the" ultimate question that people have been asking since eons.
"Why is reality the way it is?" "What does reality want to achieve?"
Well, if only we knew.. I believe that not only we cannot know, but there is no such thing as an answer to these questions. All our understanding (and justifications) and concepts like purpose, objective, etc. lie strictly within the existensial world. Existence itself cannot be explained by existensial terminology.
The nature of reality is beyond the limits of knowledge.
Sigh, once, when I was a student, a friend had asked me whether I believe in life after death. I responded saying that I find life before death itself so unbelievable and bewildering, I've not particularly thought about life after death..
I find life before death itself so unbelievable and bewildering, I've not particularly thought about life after death..
Nice one! :)
what is the point being made here?
Right now, not much. I am just trying to dissect different theories. Here, for example I take epistemoogy and reality as axioms and try to see what knowledge is in this framework. Next, I would like to argue that some theories about truth are inadequate. This may not give out any "new" points that we didn't know already either. I might arrive at the same conclusions that you mentioned, but at least I'll be doing in some of my own ways. That will help my understanding, and in addition might provide some interesting reading to others.
That apart, there is still one question that I ask here. Is truth what we find, or what we find is truth? In other words, Is there a chance that existence can affect(i.e. expand) reality through knowledge? Supposing I concede that "the nature of reality is beyond the limits of knowledge". But still that cannot reject a chance of existence unknowingly or unintentionally expanding the realms of reality, though we may not even be aware of it. Can it?
Nkk, did you read this paragraph -
Now, there is a question that get raised at this juncture. We seem to have assumed that reality is static. It does not expand. "Entire truth" is already there as part of reality. But is it that truth is what we are able to justifiably perceive, or is it that what we are able justify becomes a perception of truth? Or does this question does not hold at all? We are able to justify something only because it is true; were it not true, we would not be able to find its justifiers?
----
And I have taken "reality is independent of existence" as an initial assumption. It might be an axiom or not. In that case, why does my question become illogical?
Post a Comment