To understand something you need to rely on your own experience and culture.

Does this mean that it is impossible to have objective knowledge?

Alexandra rdaneta Theory o! "nowledge December #$ %&'% (ord )ount* '$%+#

"nowledge , in its ambiguity , is a concept that many philosophers$ over thousands o! years$ have sought deeply to de!ine. (e struggle to pinpoint an exact de!inition o! knowledge because it holds no precise meaning. -everal philosophical theories$ including empiricism$ rationalism$ philosophical skepticism and linguistic relativity$ explore the human mind and its abilities to gain knowledge. in addition to this$ they investigate into the grounds and nature o! knowledge itsel!. /owever$ we are aware that knowledge can be ac0uired through sense perception$ logical operations 1reason2$ and emotional reactions. (hat is true knowledge? "nowledge is usually de!ined as 3!acts$ in!ormation$ and skills ac0uired by a person through experience or education4. /owever$ my de!inition o! knowledge is 3the combination o! in!ormation$ !acts$ belie!s that an individual personally and scienti!ically believes to be correct4. There!ore$ allowing an individual to rely on their both their 3truths4 and 3belie!s4 in order to posses true understanding. This process is demonstrated in the 5enn Diagram below.

Assuming that knowledge possessed by an individual is invariably linked to culture and belie!s , as the 0uestion does ,$ we can conclude that knowledge that is truly objective may never

be possessed by humans. This statement is supported by the theory o! 6hilosophical -kepticism which presents a point o! view which states that we$ as humans with a !allible perception$ can know nothing$ that nothing is certain$ and that everything is open to doubt. According to writer and teacher Austin )line$ Although there may be sound logical and pragmatic reasons !or assuming that there are things which are true independent o! us and our belie!s$ we should ask ourselves whether that constitutes solid grounds !or actually believing that truth is objective. Arguing that we don4t have such grounds is known as 6hilosophical -kepticism. /owever$ this claim is not necessarily true. 7n some occasions$ it is possible !or knowledge to be independent o! culture and there!ore$ bias. This possibility o! separating culture !rom knowledge grows with every passing day due to the increasing globali8ation o! technology in our modern society. The 7nternet$ television and radio are vast sources o! in!ormation that reach even the most isolated parts o! the world. This globali8ation allows most o! the world4s population to be exposed to in!ormation and perspectives that otherwise$ would not have been attainable. As a result$ people are able to separate themselves !rom their own culture and provide room !or the perspectives and outlooks o! other people in their system o! belie!s. )onse0uently$ enabling the division o! culture and bias !rom knowledge. This only leaves the human4s sense perception to be 0uestioned. /ow is knowledge gained? The theories o! rationalism and empiricism explore the boundaries o! this 0uestion. The !irst states that knowledge is obtained through through pure reason or$ in other words$ knowledge that is ac0uired a priori 19atin meaning 3be!ore the !act42. An example o! this would be Albert :instein4s most !amous e0uation$ e;mc%. This is a priori because the laws and theorems o! math are constant and unchanging and$ regardless o! experiment or observation$ it is true. This theorem was discovered$ not constructed. we$ as members o! the human race$ simply de!ined it. There!ore$ one has the knowledge o! the concept without experiencing the actual science o! the e0uation. /owever on the other hand$ one could also argue that the truth in mathematics is subjective because one must accept the laws o! math !or them to exist. The study o! relationships between

mathematics and culture$ or :thnomathematics$ to some measure$ debunks the concept o! mathematics being completely objective. This study re!ers to a broad cluster o! ideas ranging !rom distinct numerical and mathematical systems to multicultural mathematics education. Also$ assuming that humans did not create mathematics and simply discovered the concepts$ how does one know that the perception o! the human 3discovering4 these concepts is not !aulty? The process o! discovering will ultimately depend on human < and there!ore$ somewhat unreliable < cognitive reasoning. "nowledge can also be gained empirically. :mpirical knowledge is knowledge that is obtained through experience and is ac0uired a posteriori 19atin meaning a!ter the !act2. The issue with this concerns how one knows the proposition or claim in 0uestion=what justi!ies or grounds one>s belie! in it. The knowledge gained a posteriori can be both objective or subjective depending on our own perception o! the experience. /aving said that$ to what extent is knowledge gained a posteriori unbiased due to a potentially !lawed perception? Approximately seventy years ago$ ?enjamin 9ee (hor!$ the creator o! the -apir<(hor! /ypothesis$ let loose an alluring idea about language4s power over the mind$ and his stirring prose seduced a whole generation into believing that our mother tongue restricts what we are able to think. This hypothesis states that language and culture are so closely connected that one de!ines the other. @or example$ Aargaret Aead pointed out that some o! the -outh 6aci!ic people whom she studied did not have a word !or BwarB in their vocabularies. 7nterestingly$ these people did not participate in war. -o$ the hypothesis is that we must be able to think o! some phenomenon be!ore we can name it or experience it. Cne o! (hor!4s mistakes included assuming that our vernacular constrains our minds and prevents us !rom being able to think certain thoughts. 7n reality$ a person does not need to acknowledge or actively experience an event !or them to have knowledge in it. @or instance$ almost everyone has !elt l4espirit d4escalier 1@rench. literally translated to 3staircase wit42$ or the !eeling

o! thinking o! the per!ect comeback !or an argument only a!ter you4ve walked away$ but in :nglish there is not per!ect term to describe it. Cther examples include jayus 17ndonesian2$ or a joke executed so badly that you can4t help but laugh at it$ wabi<sabi 12$ or the Dapanese concept o! !inding beauty in the imper!ections o! li!e and accepting them$ etc. These words and phrases all widely experienced but$ in the :nglish language$ their existence is lacking !rom our vocabulary. (e$ as !luent speakers o! the :nglish language$ are actively participating in these activities$ !eelings and emotions. yet$ we do not have knowledge o! it. :rgo$ an individual will continue to experience these things regardless o! its existence as a word in his or her mother tongue. 7t is important to take into consideration that 7$ as a human being$ am also biased by my culture and past belie!s to some extent. To write this essay$ 7 made claims that were based on past knowledge. there!ore$ 7 am basing my essay on prejudiced judgements. /owever$ as the author o! an academic and$ supposedly$ impartial essay$ 7 attempted to be unprejudiced and to explore all possible claims$ whether 7 believed in them or not. "nowledge is a concept that has not been able to be generally established as one speci!ic idea. The notion o! knowledge in itsel! brings an assortment o! 0uestions and doubts. 7n !act$ there is a complete study dedicated to the grounds and nature o! knowledge 1or$ epistemology2. There is a variety o! types o! knowledge$ !rom empirical to rational to objective and subjective. "nowledge can be both independent o! culture and dependent on belie!s and culture. 7t is by understanding the di!!erences and complexity o! knowledge that the concept o! knowledge can be made clearer. An individual must examine their perception$ emotion and reason in order to determine whether or not their belie!s are truth!ully objective or subjective. 7deally$ we would depend on a balance o! 3true4 !acts and our own$ personal belie!s in order to compound our system o! knowledge. Thinkers must be able to grasp di!!erent types o! knowledge in order to be able to 0uestion it and ultimately$ obtain objective knowledge.

?ibliography BA 6riori vs. a 6osteriori.B A 6riori vs. a 6osteriori. About.com$ n.d. (eb. Ehttp*FFatheism.about.comFlibraryFglossaryFgeneralFblde!Gapriori.htmH. )handler$ Daniel. BThe -apir<(hor! /ypothesis.B The -apir<(hor! /ypothesis. I.p.$ n.d. (eb. &# Dec. %&'%. Ehttp*FFwww.aber.ac.ukFmediaFDocumentsFshortFwhor!.htmlH. B"nowledge.B De!. A'. I.p.* n.p.$ n.d. Aerriam<(ebster. Aerriam<(ebster$ 7ncorporated. (eb. Ehttp*FFwww.merriam<webster.comFdictionaryFknowledgeH. -troud$ ?arry. BThe -igni!icance o! 6hilosophical -cepticism.B Cx!ord -cholarship Cnline. Cx!ord niversity 6ress$ Iov. %&&J. (eb. Ehttp*FFwww.ox!ordscholarship.comFviewF'&.'&KJF&'K+%LM#'J.&&'.&&&'F acpro!< KM+&'K+%LM#'#H. niversity o! Aiami. BNou can>t do the math without the words* Ama8onian tribe lacks words !or numbers.B -cienceDaily$ %& @eb. %&'%. (eb. B(hat 7s :pistemology? 6hilosophy o! Truth$ "nowledge$ A ?elie!.B About.com Agnosticism F Atheism. I.p.$ n.d. (eb. Ehttp*FFatheism.about.comFodFphilosophybranchesFpF:pistemology.htmH. (inslow$ 9ance. B(hat 7s True "nowledge?B :8ine Articles. :8ines$ %J @eb. %&&M. (eb. E http*FFe8inearticles.comF?(hat<is<True<"nowledge?Oid;L#PL&& H.