the heavy overview of epistemology
TRANSCRIPT
1
The Heavy Overview of
Epistemology
Unpacking the definition of
knowledge as “properly justified
true belief”
2
Intro: What
Epistemology
asks…
What‟s knowledge?
How can we get it?
What should we
believe is true?
3
“How will you know that
American claims about
Saddam Hussein are true?”
A proof is a proof…
and when you have
good proof, it‟s
because it has
been proven
Intro: sometimes people have a hard time saying how
they know something is true…
4
“As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the one‟s we don‟t know we don‟t know… it‟s the latter category that tend to be the difficult
ones.”-- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (Globe, September 16,
2005)
Intro, sometimes people have a hard time telling
apart what they know and what they don‟t know
5
Knowledge is
Properly Justified
True Belief
1. We have many
beliefs about the
way things are
2. Some of those
beliefs are true
3. For some of those
true beliefs, we can
offer good reason
why they are true
Intro, the definition of
“knowledge” we’ll use in this course:
6
This slide show shows
1) why belief (faith) must come before
knowledge, and some resulting dangers
2) what “truth” can mean
3) how “properly justified” has been
understood in the West
intro
7
1. beliefs
1.1Beliefs come before
knowledge
1. In the development
of every person
2. In situations calling
for precursive faith
3. In the form of basic
beliefs
8
1.1 Belief is Prior to Knowledge:
(1) developmentallyAs children, before we can reason, we believe
When we are first able to think for ourselves, we find ourselves floating down the river of life on a raft of beliefs we acquired as children
9
When I was a child…
“When I was a child, I
used to talk like a
child, and think like
a child, and argue
like a child, but now
I am a man, all
childish ways are
put behind me.”
-- 1 Cor. 13:11
developmentally
10
1.1 Belief is Prior to Knowledge:
(2) practically (pragmatically)
there are situations
where, unless we
first believe, we
cannot know
William James
called this belief that
runs ahead of the
evidence,
“precursive faith”
11
1.1.2 practically Precursive Faith is
Justified When…Something
momentous is at
stake, and
The situation is
forced (putting off a
decision = deciding
NO), and
The belief is a live
possibility
12
practically Precursive faith and
getting to know a person
If we wait to trust a
person until he or
she has given us
sufficient evidence
of trustworthiness,
we‟re unlikely to get
to know anyone,
much less have
friends
13
1.1 Belief is Prior to Knowledge:
(3) logically – basic beliefsbelief is prior to
knowledge, as
taking a shot is prior
to sinking a basket
“I believe, that I
might understand”
– Anselm
Believe what?
14
1.1.3 logically Basic Beliefs
Some beliefs are necessaryfor any knowledge to be at all possible
They are the starting pointsof thought, not conclusions one can reason to
they‟re the basic belief-forming beliefs, the operating system your mind needs in order to run all the other software
15
logically Basic Beliefs – any argument for them,
presupposes them; we simply can‟t argue without such beliefs as…
Reason is, in
principle, reliable
There is a world
external to my
senses
Other minds exist
Memory is ordinarily
reliable
16
logically Basic Beliefs defended:
they‟re protected by the Principle of Belief Conservation:
For any proposition, P: If
1. Taking a certain cognitive stance toward P(for example, believing it, rejecting it, or withholding judgment) would require rejecting or doubting a vast number of your current beliefs, and
17
logically Principle of Belief Conservation (cont‟d)
2. You have no independent positive reason to
reject or doubt all those other beliefs, and
3. You have no compelling reason to take up
that cognitive stance toward P,
Then it is more rational for you not to take that
cognitive stance toward P (yeah, this is a variation
on Ockham’s Razor)
18
logically Application:
How do you know you‟re not a brain in a vat?
If I take the cognitive
stance of belief
toward the
proposition, “I am a
brain in a vat”, then I
would have to doubt
a lot of my current
beliefs, and…
19
logically Principle of Belief Conservation, cont‟d
…I have no
independent positive
reason to doubt all
those other beliefs,
and…
I have no compelling
reason to believe “I
am a brain in a vat”;
Therefore…
20
logically Principle of Belief Conservation, cont‟d
It is more rational for
me not to believe, “I am
a brain in a vat”
Our beliefs are a raft;
the raft may need
repairs, but it can
never be rational to
destroy the whole raft
at once while out at
sea
21
1.1 Summation Belief is prior to knowledge
Developmentally (Psychologically)
Precursively (Pragmatically)
Logically (Basically)
1.2 Belief Blocks or Allows Knowledge
- Prejudice and Gullibility Blocks
- Humility Allows
22
1.2 Being prior to knowledge, beliefs
can either facilitate or impedethe acquisition of knowledge.
1.2.1 Check out Mendelson Joe – he was interviewed by the Globe and
Mail, January 22, 1999
Prejudice blocks the possibility of knowledge
23
What Joe believes…about God
“There is no more evidence there is a
God than there is a tooth fairy. God is
invented by man to divide, dominate
and control others, especially women.
Man has the need to explain and
rationalize things. In my view, there are
no answers. Life‟s a mystery.”
1.2.1 Prejudice blocks the possibility of knowledge
24
What Joe believes…about faith in God
“People have faith in a Supreme Being
because people don‟t want to take
responsibility for their lives. When it comes
to absolving oneself, the God gangs want you
to confess your sins and, as soon as you do,
you‟re absolved. This keeps the world from
taking responsibility for its actions. People
have “faith” because they don‟t have faith in
themselves.”
1.2.1 Prejudice blocks the possibility of knowledge
25
What Joe believes… about morality
“Good is relative. Good is when we live
in harmony with each other and with
nature. Good is not a religious concept,
good is only action. Altruism is the
ultimate goodness”
[Selflessness or Love]
1.2.1 Prejudice blocks the possibility of knowledge
26
What Joe believes… about people
“Most people are, to quote the Pope,
part of a flock. Sheep. People are
weak and neutral.”
1.2.1 Prejudice blocks the possibility of knowledge
27
If there were a God, would Joe‟s beliefs
permit him to know Him?
“Jesus tells of father Abraham‟s words to the rich man in hell, that if the rich man‟s brothers still on earth „do not listen to Moses and the prophets neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead‟ (Luke 16:31).
This fits in well with Jesus‟ refusal to do religious stunts or signs for those who demanded them (Mt 12:39-40).
He refused because he knew that such deeds, no matter how wondrous, would be fruitless against the false mindsets of the observers….
1.2.1 Prejudice blocks the possibility of knowledge
28
…The signs, however, could not help. Our preexisting
ideas and assumptions are precisely what determine
what we can see, hear, or otherwise observe”-- Dallas Willard, Hearing God, 1984
Some beliefs prevent the formation of
knowledge: extremes of prejudice,
suspiciousness, skepticism, paranoia
1.2.1 Prejudice blocks the possibility of knowledge
29
don’t believe everything!
Still, though we don‟t want to adopt beliefs that block the possibility of knowledge, neither do we want to adopt beliefs that fail to discriminate between what is true and what is not true
1.2.2 Gullibility or blind belief blocks the possibility of knowledge
30
don’t believe everything!
Top 10 scams extend to mutual funds, annuities By Humberto Cruz
Salt Lake Tribune, 14 February, 2004
“… the most serious and prevalent scams in 2003, which they estimate cost investors billions of dollars a year.”
1.2.2 Gullibility or blind belief blocks the possibility of knowledge
31
don’t believe everything! Con artist sentenced to 14 years
FBI was outwitted as well as investors
Saturday, February 14, 2004 BY MARK MUELLER
New Jersey Star-Ledger
“Rejecting a defense lawyer's pleas for mercy, a
federal judge yesterday sentenced a mob-
connected swindler to 14 years in prison for
masterminding a sham business empire that bilked
investors out of $80 million while he served as an
FBI informant.”
1.2.2 Gullibility or blind belief blocks the possibility of knowledge
32
don’t believe everything! Breatharians jailed after woman dies in
initiation St. Catharines Standard, 27/11/99
“A couple who follow the “breatharian” cult – which
claims that people can live on fresh air alone – were
jailed in Australia on Friday for the manslaughter of a
mother of nine, who died during a spiritual initiation at
their home.
Lani Morris was attempting a 21-day conversion to
breatharianism – which forbids all food, and prevents
participants from drinking liquids for the first seven
days.”
1.2.2 Gullibility or blind belief blocks the possibility of knowledge
33
“Just Believe”? No.
Beliefs are
unavoidable and
necessary for
anyone who wants
to know the truth
But some beliefs are
bad, wrong,
dangerous, blind,
mistaken, or untrue!
1.2.2 Gullibility or blind belief blocks the possibility of knowledge
34
Beliefs need to be tested
“Test everything. Hold on to the good.” -- 1 Thess.5:21
“At present, we are men looking at puzzling reflections in a mirror. The time will come when we shall see reality whole and face to face! At present, all I know is a little fraction of the truth, but the time will come when I shall know it as fully as God now knows me!
-- 1 Cor. 13:12
Believers
need to be
humble
1.2.3 Humility Allows the Acquisition of Knowledge
35
Humility is an epistemological virtue
If we are humbly
aware of how
little we actually
know, then we
can really begin
to learn
Love the truth
even more than
you love being
right -- Socrates
1.2.3 Humility Allows the Acquisition of Knowledge
36
2. Truthremember: knowledge is properly justified true belief
1. Could truth be
relative?
2. Truth is a map of
reality, and so …
3. Truth is Objective
4. Truth is Consistent
37
2.1 Is “truth” whatever‟s true for you?
This is the model of relativism
If it were true, no communication would be possible (neither of us would know what the other actually means)
Truth? What is
truth?
38
2.1 Is truth relative?
Many things people used to believe
was true, we now believe are not
true – for example, that evil spirits
cause epilepsy or that the earth is
flat. Therefore, different cultures
have different „truths‟.
39
2.1 Relativism is untrue
If it is true that there is no ONE TRUTH FOR
ALL, then the claim that there is no one truth
for all is not true for all. Relativism
contradicts itself.
That people have been wrong
about the truth in the past, does not
prove that there is no truth. For
example, whether people knew it or
not, the earth has always been the
third planet from the sun, and it has
never been flat.
40
2.2 Truth as Correspondence
Truth in thought is to believe of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. -- Aristotle
Truth is a map of reality. Knowledge is our possession of the map.
41
2.3 truth is
Objective
Any belief about
reality will be
either true or not
true
If the belief is
true, it is true for
everyone
A belief that is
untrue cannot be
“knowledge”
42
2.3 If truth is objective, then some beliefs can be wrong.
A belief is either true or
false, regardless of what
anyone thinks about it.
Believing that 2 + 2 = 5
does not make it so.
“It is natural for the mind to believe,
and for the will to love; so that, for want
of true objects, they must attach
themselves to false.”
-- Pascal
43
2.4 Truth is Consistent
No true belief can be contradicted by
any other true belief
Contradiction between beliefs is
ALWAYS a sign that at least one of
them is not true
44
2.5 but Consistency by itself is not
sufficient to guarantee truth
I.e., consistency is a necessary condition, but not a
sufficient condition of truth
Example: in both of these sets, the beliefs are
internally consistent, but both sets cannot be true
A
B C
D
Not-A
Not-B Not-C
Not -D
45
To sum up: Truth
1. not relative
2. map of reality – correspondence
3. objective – same for everyone; some beliefs can be wrong
4. consistent – contradiction always signals error, but
consistency by itself does not guarantee truth
46
3. Now that we‟ve touched on “belief” and “truth”,
what‟s “properly justified”? Remember: knowledge is properly justified true belief
1. Skeptic: “nothing”
2. Pre-mod: “authority”
3. Rationalist: “reason”
4. Empiricist: “senses”
5. Idealist: “ideas”
6. Post-mod: “will”
47
3.1 Skepticism argues
Neither our reason nor our
senses are completely
reliable
Beliefs about what is true
have changed - relativism
Different people have
different beliefs about what
is true - subjectivism
Therefore, all we have is
opinion, not knowledge
48
3.1. arguments against skepticism…
1. If all is doubtful, then “all is doubtful” is doubtful -- so skepticism is self-refuting
2. Skepticism implies that we must have either total certainty or total uncertainty –false dilemma
3. Where does the skeptic get his car fixed? Expertiseexists!
More…
49
4. Unless the skeptic believes he knows the meaning of his words, he cannot express his theory – communication refutes skepticism
5. If skepticism were true, then nobody could ever lie: the liar believes, “X is the case”, but says, “not-X is the case”.
To lie, one must know what one believes is the case
50
6th objection to scepticism:
doubt is dependent on knowledge.
In order to doubt, I must know…
That I exist
That I am doubting; that I don‟t know something
That a proposition is either true or not true
That I would prefer my beliefs about what is the case to correspond to the facts of what is the case
51
3.2 Pre-Modernism argues
Traditional authorities (texts or persons) reveal truth to us
So that we may conserve and transmit what has been received
“if it‟s true, it isn‟t new”
Reason, senses, and private judgment must yield to authority
Note: it’s a mentality,
not a time period:
remember Socrates,
Plato, Aristotle, and
Aquinas
52
3.2 arguments against pre-mod
1. What if authorities conflict?
2. If one assumes that the source of a belief determines its truth, isn‟t that the genetic fallacy?
3. many beliefs that
once were accepted by
authorities as true, now no
longer are
4. many truths we now
possess were once not
known by traditional
authorities
53
3.3 Modern - Rationalist
E.g., Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Method of doubt to achieve goal:
foundation of certainty
First, rule out all beliefs which are
based on the senses
Secondly, remove all beliefs which could
be part of a dream
Thirdly, reject any beliefs which could be
doubtful if there were a powerful evil
spirit intent on deceiving oneself… what‟s
left?
56
3.3 Cogito ergo sum:
“I think, therefore I am.”
Can‟t be doubted: to doubt it, you have
to exist
Even if an evil spirit were deceiving you,
there has to be a “you” for the evil spirit
to deceive
57
3.3 Is that the whole
foundation for knowledge?
No: the cogito only proves that I exist,
not that
I have a body
My senses tell me about a real world
Other minds exist
58
3.3 so what else goes into the
foundation?
Thinker examines his thoughts, for any
other clear and distinct ideas, besides
the cogito
Thinker discovers the idea of a perfect
being (without defect or limit in power,
knowledge, goodness, or any other
possible perfection)
59
How does having the idea prove
the perfect being exists?Since an effect cannot be greater than its cause [try to think of a counter-example]
Therefore the cause of the idea of perfect being must itself be perfect
Since Descartes has never experienced a perfect being
Therefore we can rule out “experience” as the cause of the idea
So Descartes must have been born with the concept of a perfect being – it‟s an innate idea
And the cause of the idea must have been a perfect being
60
O.K., so what if the perfect
being exists?A perfect being would be perfect in goodness
and power
But it would not be good to allow Descartes to
be subject to the deceit of a powerful evil
spirit
Therefore, Descartes can have back all the
beliefs he had to reject during the third stage
of his doubt; plus, most of the beliefs he had
to reject in stage two (what if I‟m dreaming?)
61
Thus, Descartes‟ modern, rationalistic epistemology depends on the existence of a perfect being who guarantees the basic reliability of Descartes‟ mental processes
A lot of thinkers have ridiculed Descartes‟ argument: let‟s take a closer look at it, and the dream hypothesis, and the fallibility of the senses before we leave Descartes behind
62
3.3 A Dialogue on
Descartes‟ Perfect BeingBryan: Descartes argues that if he has an
idea of perfection, then the cause of that idea
must be at least as great as the idea. So
there has to exist a perfect cause of the idea
of perfection.
Brenda: But there is nothing perfect about
Descartes‟ idea. His idea of perfection is not
itself perfect, any more than it is infinite or all
powerful, or all knowing.
63
Bryan: Yes, but ideas are not about
themselves. We can‟t discredit Descartes‟ idea
of perfection by saying that it is imperfect.
Brenda: Why not?
Bryan: Well, do you expect the idea of
heaviness to be heavy, or the idea of delicious
food to be delicious?
Brenda: No, that would be silly.
Bryan: Then why would you say that Descartes‟
idea of perfection has to be perfect, in order to
show that a perfect being exists?
64
Brenda: But doesn‟t there have to be a perfect
idea in Descartes‟ mind, in order for his
argument to show that there actually is a
perfect being, that is the cause of that idea?
Bryan: No. Descartes just has to be able to
say, “Look. There‟s this idea I have. It‟s an
idea of a being who has no limits, who is
perfect in every respect.
Brenda: Yes, I see that he‟s saying that.
Bryan: Now, notice that there is nothing in
Descartes‟ experience that could cause this
idea.
65
Brenda: Like a unicorn?
Bryan: No, we‟ve experienced horses and
horned creatures. Every aspect of the unicorn
has an identifiable cause in things we‟ve
experienced. But we‟ve had no experience of
perfection. Therefore, the idea of perfection
cannot have been caused by any element of
my experience.
Brenda: I think I can explain the cause of the
idea of perfection without assuming that
something perfect actually exists.
Bryan: How?
66
Brenda: Look at a line whose beginning and
end you can see. Then imagine that the line
has no beginning and no end. Thus, to arrive
at the idea of something that we‟ve never
experienced (and never could), all we have to
do is subtract something (beginnings and ends)
from what we have experienced. You‟re
probably right about the idea of unicorns: the
idea is assembled from bits and pieces of our
experience. But in the case of the idea of a
perfect being, we work by subtracting. Start
with any imperfect being, and then begin
mentally to subtract limitations, defects and
imperfections.
67
Bryan: But neither Descartes nor I, nor anyone
else who has the idea of a perfect being, is
aware of having developed the idea in the way
you describe.
Brenda: My argument doesn‟t suppose anyone
has. Its aim is to show that Descartes‟ idea of
a perfect being need not have been caused by
a perfect being.
Bryan: Do you believe that a good argument for
God‟s existence is possible?
Brenda: If it is, it won‟t come from rationalism.
Questions of real existence are empirical.
68
3.3 A Dialogue on Whether
We‟re DreamingDoubter: We can‟t know if we‟re dreaming right now, or not.
Nikki: I know I‟m not dreaming right now, because I‟ve experienced both dreaming and waking up
Doubter: How do you know that “waking up” wasn‟t part of a dream?
Nikki: You mean, while I was dreaming, I might have been dreaming that I woke up?
69
Doubter: Yes. How do you know that the one
dream (of waking) wasn‟t inside another
dream, from which you haven‟t woken up
yet?
Nikki: Ockham‟s Razor.
Doubter: Please explain.
Nikki: Suppose there are two theories to
explain my experience of “waking”. Theory
ONE says, “I was dreaming, then I woke up.”
Theory TWO says, “I was dreaming, then I
dreamt I woke up, and I still haven‟t woken up
from that second dream.”
70
Doubter: It seems that both theories
account for your experience of “waking
up”.
Nikki: But theory TWO introduces an
unnecessary entity: the second dream.
It isn‟t needed to explain what needs to
be explained – my experience of waking
up. And there‟s no facts or data to
justify the hypothesis of the second
dream.
71
Doubter: But how do you know that you aren‟t
dreaming about Ockham‟s Razor?
Nikki: Even in a dream, if reason shows an
idea to be unlikely to be true, the dreamer
must reject it in order to be reasonable.
Doubter: But reason may be mistaken.
Nikki: That possibility can never justify a
decision to be unreasonable. And so,
Ockham‟s Razor shows me that it cannot be
reasonable for me to believe that I am
dreaming right now.
72
3.3 On the Tricks Our Senses Play on
Us
The earth is rotating on its axis, once every 24 hours. Since the circumference of the earth is about 40,000 km, then at the equator, the surface of the earth is moving at 460 m per second (1,600 km/hr) –doesn‟t seem like it, though…
73
As well, earth rotates about the sun every year, at a speed of 30 km per second – that‟s 107,000 km/hr: why don‟t our senses suggest this?
Familiar distortions: train tracks that seem to converge at the horizon, things far away seem smaller than they are, a pencil put into a glass of water seems broken
74
Responses to Descartes:
1. If the senses were in principle unreliable, how
would anyone know that their sense were
unreliable? Doesn‟t any test of the senses use
the senses?
2. Can Descartes‟ epistemology survive the
failure of his argument for God‟s existence?
3. What‟s the connection between the thinking
part of Descartes and the physical part?
4. Is there evidence for “innate ideas” of any
kind?
75
3.4 Modern -- Empiricist
3.4.1 John Locke (1632-1704):
Beliefs are properly justified when
they are based upon data taken in
by the senses (“experience”)
At birth, our minds are tabula rasa
(blank slates)
All our true beliefs are derived
from information which has been
received by the senses, and
sorted & compared by our mind
76
3.4.2 David Hume (1711-1776):
Hume‟s fork: any proposition is either
ANALYTIC, A PRIORI, CERTAIN, TRIVIAL
[known, even before checking]
[true by definition]
SYNTHETIC, A POSTERIORI, PROBABLE
[known only after checking]
[true by experience]
NONSENSE = neither true by definition
nor based on observation
77
My mother is a parent;
A triangle has three sides;
My brothers are siblings
It is not the case that it is raining and not raining at
the same time
Four quarters are one dollar
Analytic propositions: the predicate adds no new information
to the subject: that‟s why they‟re certain
and trivial
78
Synthetic propositions are only
probable, since there‟s always the possibility of better
observation or disconfirmation
My mother is at home right now;
There‟s a triangle carved into my truck;
My brothers are playing cards
It‟s raining in St.Catharines
I have four quarters in my pocket
79
Nonsense propositions are neither
true by definition nor based on a specific perception
Humans have rights
God exists
The sun will rise in the east tomorrow
“A” caused “B”
80
the idea of “cause” IS NONSENSE?
Check your sense data: you find…
One thing happens beforeanother
One thing touches another
But, you‟ll never observe a necessary connectionbetween one event and another.
When we say, A causes
B, we‟re really only
reporting our expectation
81
THIS IS KNOWN AS THE “Problem of
Induction”
Even if A was followed by B
innumerable times in the past, that does
not justify our claim to know that it will
do so again in the future
What makes us so certain that the
future will behave like the past? If we
answer, “Because it has always done
so,” we are begging the question.
82
But Hume had a bigger problem:
According to Hume‟s epistemology, what‟s the proper category for his proposition, “All propositions are either analytic, synthetic, or nonsense”?
It‟s not analytic (true by def.)
It‟s not synthetic (nobody‟s observed “all”)
Ergo, if Hume‟s epistemology is correct, then it must be nonsense (not correct)
83
Quick Recap of the Moderns:
Descartes the rationalist found he needed God to guarantee the reliability of his reason, from which came all knowledge
Locke the empiricist thought he could trace all knowledge back to sensory impressions
Hume took empiricism to its logical conclusion, and ended up in nonsense
84
3.5 modern - Idealist
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
There is such a thing as a
SYNTHETIC A PRIORI
truth, a meaningful
statement about reality
whose truth is known
independently of
observation
85
3.5 Idealist
The empiricists were right: we never
perceive time, only sense data; we
never perceive space, only sense data
Space and time are not sense data, but
the synthetic a priori foundations of all
our perceptions
86
An a posteriori sentence like, “The cat is on the mat,” presupposes the truth of the sentence,
“Objects exist in time and space”.
that‟s neither analytic, nor a posteriori, so it must be synthetic and a priori
87
Kant asked,
“What are the
necessary conditions
for perception to be
possible?” and concluded that time and space
were not features of external reality, but
features of the structure of the mind
The mind analyzes the data it receives in
terms of space and time.
Space and time are the “irremovable goggles”
through which we perceive the world
88
“How is knowledge of the world possible?”
asked Kant. It is based on a synthetic a
priori foundation -- the categories of
understanding – including
UNITY/PLURALITY/TOTALITY
CAUSALITY
The mind is structured in such a way that it
analyzes its data in terms of a particular set of
synthetic a priori rules – sort of like a
permanent program in a computer, which
produces ideas when fed information by the
senses
90
Kant agrees with the rationalists that sense data
alone could not provide knowledge
Kant agrees with the empiricists that there could be
no knowledge without sense data
But Kant claims we can only know the
way things appear AFTER our mind has
processed/interpreted incoming data =
phenomenal world
We can‟t (Kant) know ultimate reality as
it actually is = noumenal world
91
Our knowledge is limited to the phenomenal (interpreted) world; we can‟t know the noumenal
Kant assumed that every sane and healthy mind uses the same grid of space and time and the same categories of understanding: so agreement and growth in knowledge about the phenomenal world is possible – i.e., science
93
Rationalists, Empiricists, Idealists
Before Kant
Reason and observation show us the way the world is – we can know it if we‟re careful; knowledge is same for all sane people
Kant is the hinge on which modern epistemology turns into something else
94
After Kant
We can only know our
interpretations of the world,
never the world itself
Our beliefs don‟t correspond
to the way the world ultimately
is, but to the way our minds
are structured
Nothing & nobody can get
through my interpretive grid
Why assume that there is a
“right” way to interpret
incoming data?
One kind of
reaction to Kant‟s
idea
97
3.6 Post-modernism (a completely unbiased account)
Authority of
reason/observation
is eclipsed by the
power of the will
The proper
justification of
belief is my
decision to
believe it
98
Post-modernism
Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
An irrational force runs
through all things
It is a force of violence and lust, but it is
cunning, concealing from us its true nature.
It motivates us, and shows us what it wants us
to see.
Only classical music can tame it for a while.
99
Post-modernism
Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
We must take a leap of faith.
Faced with life‟s most important choices, we
will never know enough to be sure we‟re
making the right choice
We have to choose: when we leap into the
darkness, over the abyss, there are no
guarantees we‟ll reach the other side, or be
happy with what we find there
100
Post-modernism
Nietzsche(1844-1900)
Will to power. All claims to
know are attempts to
impose one‟s will on others
It is the nature of the strong to impose their
will, their interpretations, on the weak.
Might makes right: the belief of the strongest
will prevail
101
Post-modernism
Marx(1818-1883)
Up to now, philosophers
have only interpreted
the world in various
ways; the point is to
change it. Stop
analysing – seize power
and make the revolution
happen.Just do it.
102
Post-modernism
James(1842-1910)
Pragmatism claims that the only justification a
belief requires is that it seems to work for the
person who holds it.
The truth of a belief (or its “cash value”) is the
practical difference it makes to the life of the
person who believes it
What‟s true for one person certainly needn‟t be
true for another
Pierce (1839-1914)
103
Recap: Post-mod.My interpretation of the
world may be based
on unconscious
drives of lust and
aggression; the will to
power, to dominate
others; a blind leap of
faith, or whatever
works.
Truth claims are either subjective (“true for me”), or
suspicious (motivated by personal agenda, class,
gender, conditioning, desire).