Short introduction to Knowledge: In Relation to Truth, Knowledge and Metaphysics (Discussion)

Back

2015-06-03

Short introduction to Knowledge: In Relation to Truth, Knowledge and Metaphysics

Philosophy of Knowledge:In Relation to Truth, Knowledge and Metaphysics.

In contemporary idealism, especially those of Kantian inspiration, knowledge is considered as the primary and radical philosophical discipline. According to them: “metaphysics itself must be submitted to the previous judgement of the theory of knowledge, which would determine whether it is viable or not.”[1] This sentence could be summarized into this phrase: How can the theory of knowledge leads us to truth? On the other hand, how can we know that it is true?

According to a Kantian metaphor: “reason stands accused before the tribunal in which reason itself is to be the judge.”[2] So if our capacity to reason to reach truth is in question, how will we ever be able to resolve this dilemma?

In a few decades, there have been many philosophers rejecting knowledge, and considered it as a “dead letter.”[3] Heidegger, was one of them who criticized the philosophy of consciousness, where he denounced the substitution of certitude for truth[4] and the consequent interdependence of reality and its depiction.[5] Which ends with the ultimate loss of being.

It cannot be like what Heidegger thinks, because according to Milllan-Puelles:

Gnoseology can certainly aid us to understand better our knowledge and to correct errors. […] In fact “the intellectual faculty” is capable of understanding sense knowledge and, above all, (…) is capable of reflecting on its own acts and deficiencies of fact; in this sense we use terms like ‘to rethink’, ‘to reconsider one’s opinion’, ‘to revise our judgements’, etc. However, all of this presupposes that even if-in fact, and in an accidental way-it is susceptible to error and deviation, our understanding is essentially apt to attain its proper end.^{^[6]}

If not, than it would be meaningless to attempt to make up for its mistakes, because an understanding incapable of grasping the truth would never be wrong, no matter how many times it went over the same ground.

Looking at the scientific discoveries in the past, and how all the methods and precautions of science, implies that the fundamental certitude that truth is accessible in some way. There is a consequence to present knowledge, as the problem of whether or not truth and certitude can be attained is supreme naïveté, no matter what attempts it tries to disguise themselves with spectacular criticism. Because if we are going to doubt our knowing faculty, and to question if it is truly effective, than it seems to be senseless to try to use it to measure its own value. All those who adopts this critical position ends up against an inevitable obstacle: how can we possibly find out if our faculty of knowledge is ‘valid’ if, in any case, we have to use it to ‘validate’ itself in order to carry out our investigation?

To clarify truth, will always be accompanied by the effort to dispel error. As the human intellect is normally oriented towards truth, but there is a fact that it is limited in some way, and some occasion, affected by improper moral dispositions of the subject. These errors affect even the first principles of knowledge.[7]

One example found in the old Greek, as Aristotle says that, “There are some, who maintain that a same thing both is and is not.”[8] This kind of denial of the principle of non-contradiction is even found at present time, since “the overcoming of contradictions” is one of the basic elements of Marxist dialectic. It happens, therefore, that throughout history, the first principles and the most evident truths have been denied or deformed[9] metaphysics, going deeper into the fundamental certitudes, has proceeded to refute such fundamental deviations.[10]

Aristotle, the first philosopher who made a serious and complete balance of the philosophical ideas developed by his predecessors and contemporaries. In doing so, he comes up against errors, which affect not only a specific truth, but also the totality of human knowledge. Some of the sophists, considering man to be “the measure of all things”, fell into relativism, which led to scepticism: to the paradoxical thesis that man cannot know truth. Aristotle, in a series of discussions pointed out with extraordinary acuity, both the internal difficulties of these theories, which lead to a dead end, and the negative practical consequences, which they entail.[11]

This defence of the value of human knowledge does not stop with Aristotle, because throughout a long process, it develops and enriches by scholars from classical and medieval philosophy. One example, worth mentioning, are the arguments of St. Augustine against them sceptics, to whose pretensions of universal doubt, the saint opposes, among other certitudes, the very existence of doubt: si enim fallor, sum [Even if I err, I am].[12]

St. Thomas defends the man’s capacity to know the truth of things, above all against the errors of his times: logicism, nominalism, Averrorism, etc. He holds to the unity of the truth, and the distinction and harmony of reason and Faith. He assigns human knowledge to the place which corresponds too it, as far from exaggerated rationalism as from a fideism which would deny the value of natural intelligence. The Gnoseology of St. Thomas Aquinas has the characteristic features of presenting a metaphysical realism in which being measure knowledge, and an anthropological realism according to which the human intellect attains to the truth of real things. This realistic tradition recedes historically into second place with the rise of the philosophy of consciousness, but its internal validity has survived the trial for centuries of profound cultural transformation to this present day.[13]

Altogether, the broadest and deepest study of the truth, in other words, of true knowledge, corresponds to metaphysics, as transcendental wisdom. Because, according to Aristotle saying that: “The consideration of the being in knowledge has a strict transcendental character, since it refers-in principle-to all of reality inasmuch as it is-or can be-known by this being which “is, in some measure, all things.”[14] Therefore, Gnoseology studies being inasmuch as it is present in the human mind through knowledge, and inasmuch it is true. Moreover, it does not constitute a separate and special kind of study of knowledge, but is, rather, properly metaphysical. Therefore, Gnoseology should be considered as one of the principal parts pf metaphysics. [15] In other words, it is the metaphysical theory of knowledge.

According to García López, saying that

Metaphysics is wisdom, […], the supreme science in the natural order; and therefore it cannot relinquish to any other science the defense or justification of its own proper principles. The principles on which metaphysics is based are the first principles of human knowledge attained, however, in their maximum universality and purity. No other science, apart from metaphysics, can take on the task of defending these principles. Moreover, it is metaphysics which provides to each science the most universal principles upon which it is based. To justify its own principles (showing their evidence and combating contrary reasoning) and to provide to other sciences the principles upon which they rest, is a mission which corresponds in full right to metaphysics in its quality as supreme science.[16]

Gnoseology is the metaphysics of truth. Its calm study has theoretical importance and vital relevance. This is true today, because it wards us against fundamental errors, which are very common now. For millennia, there is a tendency to look upon all knowledge, especially the knowledge of man.[17] The value of truth-in-itself comes to be replaced by an approach in which truth has no meaning, if it has any at all, only as “truth-for-me”. In the face of this attitude, it is fitting to remember the words of the contemporary poet:

“Your truth? No. the truth,

and come with me to seek it.

As for your truth…: keep it.”[18]

The conclusion is that do discover anew the value of truth, amounts to recovering being as the primary and original metaphysical value. It comprises, without a doubt, an intellectual task of great scope and with profound practical consequences.

[1] LLANO, Alejandro. Gnoseology. Manila: Sinag-Tala Publishers Inc., 2001, p. 8.

[2] Loc. Cit.

[3] Cf. PRAUSS, Gerold. Einführung in die Erkenntnistheorie. Darmstadt: Wissenschafliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980, p. 1.

[4] HEIDEGGER, Martin. Neitzche II. Pfullingen: Neske, 1961, p. 42.

[5] Ibid., p. 436.

[6] Cf. LLANO. Op. Cit., p. 9.

[7] Cf. LLANO. Op. Cit., p. 11.

[8] ARISTOTLE, Metaphysics, IV, 4, 1005b, 35 – 1006a 1.

[9] For example the reality of causality, the existence of the extra-mental world, the validity of moral norms…

[10] Cf. LLANO. Op. Cit., p. 11.

[11] Loc. Cit.

[12] AUGUSTINE, De civitate Dei, book XI, ch. XXVI.

[13] Cf. LLANO. Op. Cit., p. 12.

[14] ARISTOTLE, De Anima, III, 8, 431b 21; Cf. Ibid., 5, 430ª 41 ss.

[15] Along with ontology and natural theology.

[16] LÓPEZ, García. METAPHYSICS, Gran Enciclopedia Rialp, vol. 15, p. 634.

[17] For example ethics, which ignores the reality of things and pays attention only to the ruling conventions, to subjective reactions or to pure pragmatic efficacy.

[18] MACHADO, Antonio. Proverbios y Cantares, LXXXV.

2015-08-19

Short introduction to Knowledge: In Relation to Truth, Knowledge and Metaphysics

Reply to Pliniell Fernando

Ian Stuart

Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi

No, I'm sorry. I sit in the other camp.
"Truth" is completely unknowable. It can never serve as the base for knowledge.

You say:

Aristotle, the first philosopher who made a serious and complete balance of the philosophical ideas developed by his predecessors and contemporaries. In doing so, he comes up against errors, which affect not only a specific truth, but also the totality of human knowledge. Some of the sophists, considering man to be “the measure of all things”, fell into relativism, which led to scepticism: to the paradoxical thesis that man cannot know truth. Aristotle, in a series of discussions pointed out with extraordinary acuity, both the internal difficulties of these theories, which lead to a dead end, and the negative practical consequences, which they entail.

I use Aristotle myself - his thought has a lot of similarities to Indigenous philosophy - especially in Ethics.

We cannot know the truth. We are unable to obtain a position exterior to this world so as the observe, from an objective point of view, whether we really do know the 'truth' about this world. Therefore the truth is unknowable. And yes, these philosophical approaches have lead to a dead-end. The knowledge systems of the Europe and its derived cultures cannot show an actual base for their knowledges.

I do not see why Relativism is such an issue. ALL things are based in culture, therefore all things are relative.

Metaphysics is not wisdom. There are some basic assumptions that people make when they engage in metaphysics - and those assumptions cannot be proven.

Yes, we need to place being as the primary and original metaphysical value. However, being is Man (and women) . Are you sugesting there is another "being" on which we gound knoweldge?

We should put aside concepts of 'truth' and stop acting as if we can know the truth.

2015-08-26

Short introduction to Knowledge: In Relation to Truth, Knowledge and Metaphysics

Reply to Ian Stuart

Pliniell Fernando

The problem with relativism is that it contradicts and refutes itself: when you are using the statement "all is relative" it would turn into an relative statement or as an absolute.

So if it is relative, then you statement is not ruling out absolutes. If your statement is an absolute, then it provides as an example of an absolute statement, which proves that not all truths are relative.

This argument against your "relativism statement" only works, if you positioned truth as relative.

And to add for you sentence of "metaphysics is not wisdom..." Aristoteles himself defined wisdom in his work "Metaphysics" as causes. knowing why things are a certain way, which is deeper than merely knowing that things are a certain way.

In other words, metaphysics is considered wisdom, to know why things works in their certain ways, which we can discuss through metaphysics.

Adding further by Aristotle who said: adequatio rei et intellectus. Which means the correspondence between the mind and reality. in other words, it states that the mind has the same form as reality. This means when the form of the object is in front of someone the accidents: type, color, shape, capacity, etc. is also the form that is in their mind, then what they know is true because their mind corresponds to objective reality.

If you cant cite authorities to support your argument, then you did not read my work well enough.

on the question of if there is a "being" on which to ground knowledge, as we both know, none of us made our faculty of reason to know the truth, so the question is what made it then? Is there a "creator" of our faculty of reason? Eventually your mind can only make one answer to that question...

2015-08-31

Short introduction to Knowledge: In Relation to Truth, Knowledge and Metaphysics

Reply to Pliniell Fernando

Ian Stuart

Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi

I will reply to each point below .. I have tried to put it in italics so it is easier to see my discussion

The problem with relativism is that it contradicts and refutes itself: when you are using the statement "all is relative" it would turn into an relative statement or as an absolute.

Yes - I get that. That is self-evident.

This argument against your "relativism statement" only works, if you positioned truth as relative.

Not quite. (I do agree - but I would frame it a little different). I'm suggesting that we can never know the truth. In that case we should discard the concept ... so I am not positioning truth as relative - I am throwing out the concept completely. It is unkownable, and the search for "truth" leads nowhere, and in fact, raises more issues than it resolves.

It also seems to me that you are arguing from 'justified true belief'. Your statement that "scientific discoveries in the past, and how all the methods and precautions of science, implies that the fundamental certitude that truth is accessible in some way." certainly suggests to me that you accept the basis of knowledge as 'justified true belief'.

However, if that is the case, previous scientific discoveries, which have now been proven wrong, were 'justified true belief', and therefore knoweldge. However, they have now been proven wrong, and so are no longer 'justified true belief'. How the do we accept the current scientific 'knowledge' as 'justified true belief'? What priviliges the current justified true belief over the former justified true belief'? (Dancy, J. (1985). Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. Malden, MA, Blackwell.)

I would also place Feyerabend's work in this context (Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against Method. London, Verso.Feyerabend, P. (1987). Farewell To Reason. London, Verso among others). and the debate between Feyerabend adn Lakatos (Motterlini, M., Ed. (1999). For and Against Method. Chicago, Il, University of Chicago Press.)

Let me also come back here to part of your original post:

according to Milllan-Puelles:

Gnoseology can certainly aid us to understand better our knowledge and to correct errors. […] In fact “the intellectual faculty” is capable of understanding sense knowledge and, above all, (…) is capable of reflecting on its own acts and deficiencies of fact; in this sense we use terms like ‘to rethink’, ‘to reconsider one’s opinion’, ‘to revise our judgements’, etc. However, all of this presupposes that even if-in fact, and in an accidental way-it is susceptible to error and deviation, our understanding is essentially apt to attain its proper end.

This assumes A) there is a truth to be known and B) Human beings can discover it. Statement A may well be true - but I suggest that statement B is not correct. We are unable to discover the truth, and therefore we are unable to substantiate statement A.

Further - if statement A is correct, then why do we not just move to that truth now,. Why waste time correcting errors, reconsidering opinions and erevising judgements. How do we know that we were niot closer to the truth 200 years ago? (Feyerabend in Motterlini, M., Ed. (1999). For and Against Method. Chicago, Il, University of Chicago Press.)

I also want to go back to a statement in your first post " the human intellect is normally oriented towards truth ..."

I disagree. I think that is a First world/western orientation which is not necessarily accepted by the Indigenous world in particular. For instance, there is no word in the Māori language which means "truth" We have words that we use in place of the word "truth" but these words of ours do not exactly mean 'truth'. They mean authentic, belief, correct (but not in a 'truth' sense).

Again, I disagree with Aristotle if that statement is meant as an absolute. (I don't always disagree with Aristotle, but certainly in this case I do). There are many and varied beliefs about why things are a certain way. Indigenous Ontologies (which is basically what we are talking about) are substatially different from Christian Ontologies, which are different from scienctific ontologies (the last is a bit of a generalization, but I hope you get the point). There is nothing that priviliges any one of the wide range of ontologies - the wide range of why things are they way they are - and the causes.

As well, as soon as metaphysics is brought to the table it is complgtely challengable and cannot provide a firm basis for knowledge.

In other words, metaphysics is considered wisdom, to know why things works in their certain ways, which we can discuss through metaphysics.

What proof does Aristotle have to make that statement? Many of us do not agree. Building from the Kantian argument, we receive the sense data about the external world, then order it according to the worldview/plausability structures we have in our minds, learnt from the social settings in which we live, grow and learn.

A Plausibility Structure is the web of beliefs that are so embedded in the minds and hearts of the bulk of a society that people hold them either unconsciously or so firmly that they never think to ask if they are true. In short a Plausibility Structure is the Worldview of a society, the heart of a society. The society can be any size – for example, a small Amish Community, an academic discipline like anthropology, or a whole nation or groups of nations
One of the main functions of a plausibility structure is to provide the background of beliefs that make arguments easy or hard to accept. (Sire, (2004),The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalogue. Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press. p. 112)

We observe the world through filters build into our minds as we grow and learn.

Wittegenstein: "From its seeming to me - or to everyone - to be so - doesn't follow that it is so." Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On Certainty. New York, NY, Harper Torchbooks. propostion 2)

"My life shows that I know or am certain that there is a chair oveer there, or a door, and so on - I tell a friend e.g. "Take that chair over there", "Shut the door", etc. etc.

The difference beteeen the concept of 'knowing' and the concept of 'being certain' isn't of any great importance at all, except where "I know" is meant to mean: I can't be wrong. (Wittgenstein's On Certainty, propositions 7 and 8)

If you cant cite authorities to support your argument, then you did not read my work well enough.

I'm sorry but my working library is not near my desk - it is at home in boxes in my garage (a bit of a hassle - but that's the way it is.) I do have some articles in digital form, and some in print form, but most of my library is not easily accessible right now. This means I can only directly cite some works which I have used in my own writings - this should have probably been moved to the top - but this webpage won't let me do a drag and drop.

I get your second point. I do get it. I'm suggestng there exists a compltely differnet intellectual strand which is contrary to the astrnad you oput forward, and poses major challenges to that strand. I would go to your conclusion in your first post.

The conclusion is that do discover anew the value of truth,

I argue that is unachievable

amounts to recovering being as the primary and original metaphysical value. It comprises, without a doubt, an intellectual task of great scope and with profound practical consequences.

I think this is hugely significant. It is a task that I suppose I might claim I am engaged in right now. But I am working on, (but not quite yet ready to articulate) a very different approach, based in Indigenous philosophy, and not based on the search for truth - as that is unachievable. In Indigenous Philosophy Being is often the centre. What I am also attempting to articulate is not a metaphysics, but based in a concrete reality, even though interpretations and meanings differ from culture to culture, from person to person. It is therefoere unashamedly relativist.

Hmmm .. that certainly suggests to me that all is relative. Descarte's answer that "God made me a knowing being, and God is not a deceiver" (forgive the lack of reference to a book in a box in my garage) relies on a belief in the Christian God - and so if we make our own answer, then that supports relativism rather than absoluteism.

I think that is sufficent for now. But let's continue our discussion.

2015-09-03

Short introduction to Knowledge: In Relation to Truth, Knowledge and Metaphysics

Reply to Ian Stuart

Pliniell Fernando

Thanks for a well-made response to my post, and it seems to be that you know a lot in the terms of relativism.I would say that we agree to disagree regarding this issue. I must admit that I am a human being trying, by a lot of effort to find the truth, I ask a question to another human being, and the answer this person makes is either true or false. Which my knowing-faculty in me distinguishes. Through many years of living in this reality, I've encountered that there are many "truths" in this world, then we need to ask; which one is the most true? (and eventually which one is false?)
In other words, some truths has more value to each one of us, depending on how it will benefits us. This position that you are holding right know, seems to me that you are putting a lot of walls, blocking you from reaching to something that maybe would give your life a more profound meaning.
I am certain that you do trust, belive and have faith in friends and family, in relation to that whatever they say are true.

I found your citation very interesting:
Further - if statement A is correct, then why do we not just move to that truth now,. Why waste time correcting errors, reconsidering opinions and erevising judgements. How do we know that we were not closer to the truth 200 years ago? (Feyerabend in Motterlini, M., Ed. (1999). For and Against Method. Chicago, Il, University of Chicago Press.)

What you do not see is that relativism removes the notion of error, to quote some philosophers who stated that some forms of relativism makes it impossible to belive that one is in error, If there is no truth beyond an indidividual's belief that something is true, then the person cannot hold their own beliefs to be false or mistaken. This kind of relativizing truth will eventually destroy the distinction between truth and false. _{(Cf. Maria Baghramian. The Many Faces of Relativism. London/ New York: Taylor and Francis. 2014 and further details on _{http://philosophynow.org/issues/97/Moral_Relativism_Is_Unintelligible)}}

This question of the "the truth" will in the end reach to the question of the existence of God. which is a bigger theme,than we are discussing right now. Maybe philosophy hits the wall because of the limitations it has in releation to reason.
I quote
In order for me to put a new perspective to this discussion, I will have to surrender myself to theology, citing from the bible: Thomas said to him: Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?(Which is a symbol of the position you are holding right know.) Jesus said to him: I am the truth, and the way and the life" (Which unfortunatley is a revelation which has nothing to do with philosophy.)

As each one of us have their knowing-faculty to distinguish what is true and false, we will need to put some effort to see what Jesus said in the bible is true or not. then we reach to the question of if He historically existed, what are those evidence of his existence, (right know you will use these evidents to decide if these are trustworthy or not. and many other evidences are to be found.

On your phrase: For instance, there is no word in the Māori language which means "truth" We have words that we use in place of the word "truth" but these words of ours do not exactly mean 'truth'. They mean authentic, belief, correct (but not in a 'truth' sense).

I do understand that some languages do not have their same definitions as others, for example some oriental laguages does not even have the verb "to be" which in its sense means to exist. (We would imagine, how in the world are they going to understand metaphysics if they do not know the word to be, being, existence etc...) However I will leave that problem to philosophy of language, and of course it is important out of respect for others, there is a need for clarifying your definition of these words for others to understand. And as I understood by your response, you knew what I meant in relation to the word "truth" here in the west, and out of my ignorance, I did not know in the language of New Zealand has a different definition for it. I will of course accept that some others have another definition for it, but of course I hope that they will accept my definition as well.

and to your last line: Hmmm .. that certainly suggests to me that all is relative. Descarte's answer that "God made me a knowing being, and God is not a deceiver" (forgive the lack of reference to a book in a box in my garage) relies on a belief in the Christian God - and so if we make our own answer, then that supports relativism rather than absoluteism.

We have to ask the question, why does this idea even pop up in my head? why even bother asking such a question, why even bother to think? repating myself, we did not make our facuty of reason, however, these questions keeps pointing to: if there exist a supreme being who made it. If so, we would think, that such a supreme being would probably give evidences for his existence. So where are those evidences pointing out to his existence? You will find out little by little, that his existence is not so relative as it is. Depending a lot on if these evidences are sufficient enough to make out your mind, or you will keep on struggling for more evidences, than you really need.
The posistion of relativism is not so neutral as you think, because eventually you have to chose if either truth exist, consequently it means error and false exist as well.
or the posistion which is incoherent, non-logic etc.

2015-09-08

Short introduction to Knowledge: In Relation to Truth, Knowledge and Metaphysics

Reply to Pliniell Fernando

Ian Stuart

Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi

Thank you for your response. I am njot quite ready to respond fully. But you have raised a point that will futher my own work. This one here.

What you do not see is that relativism removes the notion of error, to quote some philosophers who stated that some forms of relativism makes it impossible to belive that one is in error, If there is no truth beyond an indidividual's belief that something is true, then the person cannot hold their own beliefs to be false or mistaken. This kind of relativizing truth will eventually destroy the distinction between truth and false._{(Cf. Maria Baghramian. The Many Faces of Relativism. London/ New York: Taylor and Francis. 2014 and further details on _{http://philosophynow.org/issues/97/Moral_Relativism_Is_Unintelligible)}}

Thank you. I continue to look for holes in the espitemological framework I am developing. Your question points directly at a hole. I have been sort of aware of this hole, but your response clarifies it for me.

I agree - if I am tossing out truth, I am also to tossing out the possiblity falsity - but I do want to retain the possiblity of "being wrong" or 'being mistaken". So I need to build that into my framework - to plug that hole as it were. My initial thoughts are around the concept of "validity" and "rigourous methods" within a knowing community. However, I will see where that takes me.

The posistion of relativism is not so neutral as you think, because eventually you have to chose if either truth exist, consequently it means error and false exist as well.
or the posistion which is incoherent, non-logic etc.

Yes, I agree - the position of relativity is not neutral. The espitemological framework I am developing starts from a radically different beginning. It is not built on truth or knowing. It seems to me to be grounded in reality and I hope it is consistent within itself but as yet I am not quite ready to articulate it so I have yet to put it up for wider review and scrutiny.

Rather than continue - I would like to wait until I am ready to articulate it, and post here for some public review and scrutiny. (I anticipate that's only months away.) I would appreciate your feedback at that stage. I think that this discussion will prove fruitful for both of us.

Applied ethics	Epistemology	History of Western Philosophy	Meta-ethics	Metaphysics	Normative ethics
Philosophy of biology	Philosophy of language	Philosophy of mind	Philosophy of religion	Science Logic and Mathematics	More ...