Blinded by the Sun: The existence of knowledge in its many forms.

Essay by: William Gannon

“Diotima shows us that knowledge is found in many ways. We gain access to

some through our perceptions, our senses. Some knowledge is reached through
insight, the mind. And, Diotima explains, some is found between, like love.”

-- Chris Marvin

Knowledge in all of its forms cannot hold up to the expectations most

philosophers place on it. Common sense, scientific, moral and religious
knowledge are all interconnected in ways in which we obtain and justify these
beliefs. These concepts are completely dynamic in nature and if we determine
that any form of observation or justification is totally unreliable our whole web of
beliefs comes crashing down, or so it may seem. Many of the great
epistemological thinkers in history have questioned what knowledge really is and
if it can hold up to the definitions of knowledge. From perception to common
knowledge, we strive to understand the world we live in by turning observations
into beliefs, which lead to what we call knowledge. It is my assumption that not
all knowledge should be treated in the same fashion. Scientific and religious
knowledge are, as I see them, on opposite ends of the spectrum of knowledge and
should be dealt with, from an epistemological standpoint, as such. The same can
be said about common sense and moral knowledge. All forms of knowledge are
very different creatures, and you would not handle a lion and a lamb in the same
manner, to do so would be folly. Let us then examine common sense, science,
morals and spirituality and try to establish each as what they proclaim to be,
knowledge.

“It is now some years since I detected how many were the false beliefs
that I had from my earliest youth admitted as true, and how doubtful was
everything I had since constructed on this basis; and from that time I was
convinced that I must once for all seriously undertake to rid myself of all the
opinions which I had formerly accepted, and commence to build anew from the
foundation, if I wanted to establish any firm and permanent structure in the
sciences” (Descartes; Meditation: 1). Let us then take a look at common sense
and scientific knowledge, because I feel that out of the four areas we will discuss,
these two are more closely related. Even though, we can obtain knowledge in all
areas through many of the same methods, each type of knowledge relies more
heavily on certain methods over others. As I mentioned before, these are dynamic
concepts but common sense and scientific knowledge are based on our most basic
concepts and perceptions. Immanuel Kant mentions that things like geometry and
arithmetic are known through synthetic apriori beliefs, and just like much of our
common sense knowledge, we analyze our previous data obtained by our
perceptions to formulate beliefs about these things without having experienced
them before hand. However, no scientific knowledge can be truly trusted without
the basic agreements, between thinking beings, about what is the foundation of
these concepts. When we see two objects, an agreement has been forged that the
word “two” indeed does represent 1 + 1 objects. Without these communal
agreements about objects/concepts science would indeed fail to be knowledge as
Ludwig Wittgenstein might suggest.

Does common sense rely so heavily upon other minds and a consensus
about certain concepts? I would tend to think it does not depend on other minds.
However, most of what humans define as being common sense was taught to
them via other minds, namely parents and teachers. “Don’t touch a hot stove” and
“Look both ways before crossing the road” are fine examples of what we call
common sense. Yet, how do we come to know these things? I know, through
experience, my mother has warned me of the potential danger of touching a hot
stove burner. There was however this one time, I had turned on the burner and
got distracted by something. I dropped an object that fell beneath the already hot
burner. I then proceeded, without thinking, and tried to lift the burner to obtain
the object. My prior belief was then reinforced. I can definitely now say, “Don’t
touch a hot burner, you will burn yourself”. It’s not that I never believed the
things that my mother had informed me of, yet after the experience, my beliefs
were solidified. No amount of reasoning or inductive processes can ever trump
first hand experience. This does not invalidate the things we learn from other
minds. I am sure that many of the things we learn to be common sense, were
obviously learned through first hand experience somewhere in the past. So, this
would lead me to believe that through other minds we can call the things we learn
knowledge. However, these concepts can be questioned and should be dealt with
in such a manner that we do not risk relearning a fatal lesson for all humanity.

“A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because
his pastor says so, or the assembly so determine, without knowing other reason,
though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy” (Clifford
quoting Milton p. 79). This statement can be applied to all areas of knowledge.
This is especially true of religious and spiritual beliefs. It is amazing to me, how
many of those so well versed in the popular religions, never in their lives
questioned where or how the things they were taught to believe came into being.
I’m willing to bet that most monotheists would proclaim other religions to be
wrong without actually knowing the basic concepts or amazing abundant
similarities between religions. A huge percentage of human knowledge is merely
building from the bricks that were created in the past. Very few things that we call
knowledge are invented from nothingness, especially when talking about religion.
So how do we come to “know” things about the intangible? We can use any
number of methods; deduction; induction; perception; analysis; synthesis; and
coherence. However, when used individually, these methods might not be enough
to constitute knowledge. Together, these methods can strengthen beliefs and bring
our concepts closer to being knowledge. Knowledge is much like truth or god. In
order to truly know, we have to obtain as much information about any topic,
including falsities and truths. Socrates said something to the extent that, “I know
nothing except the fact of my ignorance”, and this suggests to me that he thought,
the more beliefs about any topic he obtained, the closer he came to knowledge
and the truth. The more that I reflect upon the divine, the less I believe mortal
humans can actually call knowledge about god. We can have knowledge about
the infinite, but we can never truly know until we shed our physical selves and are
thrust into the afterlife, if there is such a thing. It is then we will, without a doubt,
truly know or come to find another path that will lead us closer to the answer. But
let us not get so distracted from the reason we are here in the first place.

Religious and moral knowledge are similar concepts. Both can be

questioned as really existing as or being called knowledge. Granted we can have
true and justified beliefs about both, it can always be debated whether they are
considered knowledge. We see that in common sense and scientific knowledge,
many beliefs can be justified by empirical evidence. Yet, when it comes to
divinity and ethics, empirical evidence can sometimes be scarce. To say that is it
wrong to commit an abortion can be debated for eternity and we will never find
any evidence that it is ‘wrong’. Killing other people is wrong and we could test
this hypothesis. Strand 12 people on an island, make sure one of those people
will kill all the others, and then watch that person slowly kill themselves through
isolation and/or lack someone else’s assistance. Ethical knowledge can overlap
with common sense. “If I kill everyone, who will be there to dislodge this piece
of fish I am choking on or save me from drowning?” This may be a selfish moral
attitude, but it can justify a moral belief. We can still however, debate whether it
is right or wrong, even if it results in your own destruction. If you are a utilitarian,
you might say that it is not conductive for producing the greatest good, but for the
emotivists this choice has no supporting evidence that would make the
assumption true.

Much like the spectrum of knowledge, there is a sub-spectrum which can

be called moral knowledge. Adam Morton uses the examples of color, humor and
witches to explain moral beliefs. “Some other kinds of beliefs resemble moral
beliefs in interesting ways. There are resemblances to beliefs about humor,
beliefs about colors, and superstitious beliefs, which bring out important aspects
of our moral beliefs and allow us a perspective on philosophical theories about
them”(Morton pg. 138). The sub-spectrum starts with objectivity and moves
toward subjectivity and communal agreement. Much like with religious
knowledge, the more I push and pull to achieve some kind of answer, the farther
from that destination I have traveled. At this point I have no choice but to refer to
Morton, “So perhaps no one has a completely trustworthy opinion here. If this is
so then no one knows whether we have moral knowledge. But this does not show
that no one has moral knowledge. It is easy to get confused on this point knowing
something and knowing that you know it are very different.”(Morton pg. 145)
Let us get away from this quagmire of religious and moral knowledge, god
willing we will find the answers, but not today. I will however, go out on a limb
and say we can have knowledge of these things with the methods available to us.

As we have seen knowledge can spread from the tangible to the intangible.
Not all forms of knowledge require the same techniques in obtaining such as
knowledge. Many methods used in deriving specific knowledge can be used to
obtain other types of knowledge, but not all methods apply to all forms of
knowledge. For instance, aposteriori beliefs may be used widely in common
sense knowledge, but in some of our moral knowledge, aposteriori beliefs do not
exist. When we compare scientific and religious knowledge, we find that
empirical evidence is the basis of science and the nemesis of religion.
Information from other minds may have hidden errors which increase our
possibility of having false beliefs about everything. This can challenge all of our
knowledge down to the very core and throughout our entire web of beliefs. Many
philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Willard Quine have proven such
possibilities. Let us not despair over such things, for it is our knowledge that has
allowed creatures to exist and flourish here on the planet earth. Being able to
predict the future based on the events you have perceived in the past is a key to
survival. We can indeed know things, but it seems to me that we are missing
something from the equation (Tb&J)>K. We can have knowledge without true
beliefs. We can have true beliefs and knowledge without justification. We can
know things, but our words and definitions fall short of their goal, not our
knowledge.
 Bibliography

1. Adam Morton, (2003), “A guide through the Theory of Knowledge” 3rd

edition, Blackwell Publishing.

2. W.K. Clifford, (1879), “The Ethics of Belief”, taken from “Reason and

Responsibility” 7th edition, Wadsworth Publishing.

3. Rene Descartes, (1641), “Certainty and the Limits of Doubt”, taken from

“Philosophical Problems: Selected Readings”

4. Plato, “The Apology of Socrates” URL:

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

5. Chris Marvin, (2000), Diotima of Mantinea, URL:

http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/diotima.html