1 / 34

April, 16, 2010

April, 16, 2010. EPISTEMOLOGY. EPISTEMOLOGY. Historically. As a discourse / issues on knowledge. As an independent study / branch of knowledge. Since Greek antiquity. Arose since 17 C / 18 C. On the source or tool of knowledge. Some examples issues:. On the certitude in human knowledge.

anaya
Télécharger la présentation

April, 16, 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. April, 16, 2010 EPISTEMOLOGY

  2. EPISTEMOLOGY Historically As a discourse / issues on knowledge As an independent study / branch of knowledge Since Greek antiquity Arose since 17 C / 18 C On the source or tool of knowledge Some examples issues: On the certitude in human knowledge On the measure (mizan) of knowledge 1

  3. Some epistemological issues On the source or tool of knowledge Since Greek antiquity Concerning the instrument of knowledge Heraclites (500 BC) Parmenides (early 50 C. BC) Emphasized on Sensorial perception Emphasized on mere rationality Plato (428BC - 347 BC ) We could not have knowledge from sensible world Aristotle (382 B.C. - 322 B.C) Both Rationality and Sensory perception are valuable RATIONALISM After this ages, the western philosophers stand separately and APPOSITIONALLY in one of both sides, EMPIRICISM Such as EPICUREAN (the followers of Epicurus [3441-247 BC]) : Only sense is valuable, there is no value for rationality as the tool of knowledge 2

  4. Some epistemological issues ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? On the problem of certitude in human knowledge Since Greek antiquity Problem of Sophism Reject any certainty in knowledge Questioning (C 5 BC) Is it possible that we have any knowledge at the level of certitude? one of the most difficult subject in epistemology Human is the measure of all thing Protaghorias Human as parameter of knowledge Relativism Established skepticism Phoron 3

  5. Some epistemological issues On the measure (mizan) of knowledge Since Greek antiquity Foundationlism This theory holds that beliefs are justified (known, etc.) based on basic or foundationally beliefs, that is beliefs that give justificatory support to other beliefs. So this basic beliefs must be self-evident(badihi, self-justifying), or not justified by other beliefs (non-badihi, not an inferential justification). In this theory, a belief is justified only if it is justified by a basic belief or beliefs, or it is justified by a chain of beliefs that is supported by a basic belief or beliefs, and on which all the others are ultimately based. The proof can be traced back to Aristotle 4

  6. EPISTEMOLOGY explanation Definition The theory of knowledge A branch of philosophy which concerned with The nature and scope The presuppositions and basis of knowledge The limit The general reliability of claims Paul Edwards, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 5

  7. Three examples / spheres of meaning Is “Jakarta” a knowledge? No it is object of knowledge What is knowledge ? Analysis of EPISTEME (Knowlegde What is “to know” ? Analytic philosophers’ division of the word “TO KNOW” in 1 I know driving, swimming, etc. Knowing “how to” means has skill to do something Knowledge as Skill I know Jakarta, the book, etc 2 Knowledge by acquaintances 3 I know that statement A is true Propositional Knowledge Knowing on one’s knowledge Knowledge of proposition 3 USAGES & not epistemic meaning of “knowing” action Analytic philosopher use of the word “to know” 6

  8. The word “TO KNOW” ≠ The philosophical meaning The Usage ≠ Obscurity in differentiating both : CONFUSION = mixing both the word “to know” in use as it in epistemological meaning 7

  9. Concept Proposition Proposition Tashawwur Tashdiq Tashdiq EPISTEMOLOGY : in Western Analytic Philosophy (20 C) Before 20 C Domain of Epistemology After 20 C Domain of Epistemology After 20 C : Analytic philosophers focus themselves merely to Propositional Knowledge 8

  10. Domain of Epistemology The aim of epistemology: Coming to the fact Grasping the reality Recognizing true & false Knowledge of Proposition The merely focus of Analytic philosophy X Concept Proposition Tashawwur Tashdiq e.g. : “pen” e.g. : “the pen is blue” WHY ? Their answer by correspondence 9

  11. Knowledge of Proposition The merely focus of Analytic philosophy Concept : Pen, book, chair, etc Proposition : The pen has blue color; that book is thick, that is a wooden chair, etc. e.g. Can the concept of “pen” be the subject of correspondence to reality? “Pen” It is pen The pen is blue The idea in the man’s mind doesn’t correspond to anything since he just point the concept without connote to any object in reality to which correspondence function can be applied The knowledge of the man corresponds to the reality 10

  12. Knowledge of Proposition The merely focus of Analytic philosophy Does the concept of “pen” correspond to reality ? Concept of Is it possible there is pen “in itself/ in its own essence” without any attribute? “Pen” The reality of The collection of attributes Solidity + the color of blue + long size + curve surface + etc Mind create the unification of all accumulative various attributes as : “Pen” There is no “pen” in itself. “Pen” in its own essence is a creation of mind Hence, ESSENCE is not real Analytic philosophers’ standpoint 11

  13. Islamic Philosophy Analytic Philosophy vs Thing in itself (Essence) Thing in its essence has no reality but in mind It has reality in the real world It Is mind’s creation Is not mind’s creation it depends to the existence of non-existence of the knowing subject It is independent to the existence of non-existence of the knowing subject Hence, there is no thing in itself, but real thing always has attributes Hence, there is thing in itself Epistemology So knowledge can be in the form of: A knowledge on something in order to correspond to reality, it must : Concept & Includes all attributes e.g: “The pen is blue, solid, long size…etc” PROPOSITION PROPOSITION Subject + predicate (attribute of subject) 12

  14. notes Epistemology in Analytic philosophy Epistemology Knowledge by Correspondence Knowledge by Present Proposition Concept Propositional epistemology Conceptual epistemology New modern epistemology of Analytic philosophy All western philosophers from Plato until modern 13 Comprehensive epistemology Islamic epistemology

  15. since A PEN (in external reality) A real thing always with attributes, such as : Solidity Light blue color Certain size There is no pure PEN (thing) Certain shape In reality essential concept of pen without any attributes pure PEN = the essence of pen = Analytic philosophers’ standpoint Concept (alone) cannot report reality 14

  16. Analytic philosophers’ standpoint 1 Concept (alone) cannot report reality Coming to the fact, grasping reality, finding whether or not a knowledge is true (corresponds to the reality) 2 The purpose of epistemology In epistemology, we cannot use concept alone The domain of epistemological inquiry is limited to only PROPOSITUON (predicate-included subject) 15

  17. Three examples / spheres of meaning Is “Jakarta” a knowledge? No it is object of knowledge Analytic philosophers’ division of the word “TO KNOW” in 1 I know driving, swimming, etc. Knowing “how to” means has skill to do something Knowledge as Skill I know Jakarta, the book, etc 2 Knowledge by acquaintances 3 I know that statement A is true Propositional Knowledge Knowledge of proposition Knowing on one’s knowledge Analytic philosophers' use of the word “to know” 16

  18. Analytic philosophers on knowledge Analytic Philosophical analysis of knowledge 1. Definition of knowledge 2. Analyze the definition TRUE BELIEF 3 Finding 3 necessary attributes of knowledge JUSTIFIED 3 conditions of knowledge Definition : KNOWLEDGE = JUSTIFIED-TRUE-BELIEF (JTB) 17

  19. KNOWLEDGE = JUSTIFIED-TRUE-BELIEF (JTB) 3 attributes : True, Belief, Justified Notes: Figure of common argument on these 3 Analytics’ Definition Haspers Edmund Getie According to Socrates A reduction/replacement But we could not precisely know what he means by the three attributes: True, belief, Justified belief acceptance 18

  20. KNOWLEDGE is JUSTIFIED-TRUE-BELIEF (JTB) What is the meaning of ? ? ? ? Is such a definition of knowledge universal and proper (jami’-mani’) 19

  21. 1st Criteria of Knowledge (episteme) The Proposition is necessary to beTRUE 20

  22. The Proposition is necessary to beTRUE 1st Criteria of episteme Non-knowledge Proposition “I hope Plato is alive” “In my opinion ………” “It is probably that…. …” This kind of propositions does not deal with the matter of true / false So we can EVEN TO say : “I hope 1 + 1 = 5” Since this is not a knowledge Hence is not necessary to be true 21

  23. The Proposition is necessary to beTRUE 1st Criteria of episteme Incorrect use of proposition so Proposition of a KNOWLEDGE The proposition must be true, “I know Plato is alive” We cannot suppose any doubt of this proposition “I know that…” • Since : • The word “know” indicates the proposition is a knowledge, and • knowledge necessary to be true, • hence : • the speaker presuppose that the proposition is true • Conclusion: • “Plato is alive (must be/) is true” But the proposition does not correspond to the fact, In fact, Plato had been passed away Speaker Proposition Reality 22 OBJECTIVE CONDITION of episteme TRUE

  24. 2nd Criteria of Knowledge (episteme) BELIEF 23

  25. BELIEF 2nd Criteria of episteme ≠ ≠ Yellow for A Yellow for B true Objective condition of episteme Speaker Proposition Reality BELIEF SUBJECTIVE CONDITION of episteme It’s a Brown square Its Yellow square A B The blind color eyes The normal eyes I like yellow I like yellow too ` A cannot say “he knows that it is yellow square 24 A do not have BELIEF on it, he just have CONFIDENCE

  26. 3RD Criteria of Knowledge (episteme) JUSTIFIED 25

  27. JUSTIFIED 3RD Criteria of episteme belief true Subjective condition of episteme Objective condition of episteme Speaker Proposition Reality JUSTIFIED 1 Wow..he didn’t know, but his guest is true I bring you my friend, standing behind you 2 Let me guest! Your friend is a girl, isn’t she? 4 3 You are right, how do you know that? Well, I just feel confident, although it is true, but it is not justified. It is not a knowledge, I don’t know, I just guest. 26

  28. Notes in the three criteria of knowledge :True, Belief, Justified 27

  29. On TRUE ? Correspond to reality Consider this example: Misunderstand since the case of similarity 2 My pen has red color. I know that is my pen. No it is mine. It just similar with mine. Your pen is behind you. 1 A The A’s pen 3 B Ough…I am sorry The “A-man” feels he knows the fact, but in fact he misunderstands He has no certainty He just has opinion that he has certainty 28

  30. When “A” said : … I know that is my pen. While it is not. Did he lie? If he did not lie, was he true? In this situation, consider 2 kinds of truth ! ETHICAL TRUTH LOGICAL TRUTH Speaker’s belief in his mind External reality Relation between Speaker Relation between … (Proposition) 29

  31. SO, knowledge as T J B Which “True” ? If If LOGICAL TRUTH ETHICAL TRUTH So “JUSTIFIED” criteria is not needed So “BELIEF” criteria is not needed Since, the proposition of knowledge has a prior presupposition that it is automatically justified Since, it is enough for the proposition of knowledge to have correspondence with belief in mind 30

  32. belief true Subjective condition of episteme Objective condition of episteme Speaker Proposition Reality JUSTIFIED Speaker’s belief in his mind External reality … (Proposition) To what point the” justified” criterion is applied? If your belief / what is in mind Can it also automatically justify external reality? If Yes Skepticism If No 31 How it can be that what occurs in mind justify what occurs in external reality ???

  33. ANOTHERAMBIGUITIES 27

  34. On “Justified” criteria Analytic philosopher's dictum: All knowledge must be justified When one make a proposition, he suppose : & Predicate Subject Inconsistent with 1 It is sufficient to accept the “subject” and “predicate” in proposition without any justification, because it is supposed as primary self-evident in proposition ≠ Means, all sentence to be a knowledge must be justified 2 The statements is supposed without any justification self-reference

More Related