Kessler ch 8 Is Knowledge Possible?

8.1 Intro: Epistemology Questions Can we trust our intuition? What are the limits of human reason? Are there things that we cannot know? But how could we know that? Does everything we know come from experience? What is truth? Can we be certain about any of our beliefs? Do we need evidence, and if so, what kind, to support our beliefs?

8.1 Empiricism: Type of epistemology Empiricism: knowledge based on our 5 senses; if it’s not referenced to experience, then it’s an opinion. Born as blank slate (tabula rasa); senses allow collection of experiences of what’s true or false Knowledge = posteriori knowledge = inductive by inducing future events by past and present experience. May be wrong but probability is the best we can hope for.

8.1 Rationalism: Type of epistemology Rationalism: knowledge based on the use of reason. 2 plus 2 is 4 because that’s the rule of addition and you follow by reasoning the rule. Addition is a rational activity. Rejects tabula rasa; born with innate ability to reason/compute, to make sense of our senations Knowledge = priori (prior to or independent from experience) Deductive: we deduce that a fat cat is fat by definition

Empiricist vs. Rationalist empiricism rationalism tabula rasa Innate ideas Sensation Reason A posteriori A priori inductive deductive

“But wait…how do you know what you know?” Asked the skeptic p.334 Skepticism: Greek, means to reflect on, consider, examine. Skeptic: known as doubter Common sense skepticism: we all doubt about something at one time or another Methodical skepticism: philosophers & scientists use in search for truths Ex: water freezes at 32 F? I might doubt that hypothesis and conduct various experiments against that hypothesis Absolute skepticism: doubts the very theory of knowledge; arguments on the opposite side of issues cancel out the truth… If it is true that we cannot know anything, then how do we know that it is true that we cannot know anything? LOL

8.2 Sufi Mysticism and AL-Ghazali Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali born in Persia 1058 @ 33 professor of Islamic theology at Uni. Of Baghdad but left post 4 yrs later to become an ascetic; Returned to teaching later Disappointed w theology’s intellectual achievement Disappointed w/ philosophy because philosophers held beliefs contrary to Islamic revelation Turned to Batiniyah, who taught that truth attained not by reason but by accepting the pronouncements of the infallible imam (religious leaders) Politics: at this time it was the official ideology of the Fatimid caliphate with its center in Cairo. Disappointed also because he found the imam’s teachings trivial & their knowledge “feeble” and “emaciated” Finally, he found peace in Sufism, an Islamic mystical movement Teaches that direct and immediate experience of Allah is possible Thus, not satisfied with rationalism, empiricism, or skepticism Had spiritual motivation for his search of truth; this reveals to us the limited nature of epistemological theories. His critics: Islamic philosopher Averroes (Ihn Rushid, 1126-1198) Wrote “The Incoherence of the Incoherence” in responding to Al-Ghazali’s book “Deliverance from Error”

http://www. britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/56025/Batiniyah retrieved 9/9/2012 Bāṭinīyah, Muslim sects—the Ismailis (Arabic: Ismāʿīlīyah), in particular—that interpreted religious texts exclusively on the basis of their hidden, or inner, meanings (Arabic: bāṭin) rather than their literal meanings (ẓāhir). This type of interpretation gained currency about the 8th century among certain esoteric Shīʿite sects, especially the Ismailis, a religiously and politically schismatic group. The Ismailis believed that beneath every obvious or literal meaning of a sacred text lay a secret, hidden meaning, which could be arrived at through taʾwīl (allegorical interpretations); thus, every statement, person, or object could be scrutinized in this manner to reveal its true intent. They further stated that Muḥammad was only the transmitter of the literal word of God, the Qurʾān, but it was the imam (leader) who was empowered to interpret, through taʾwīl, its true, hidden meaning. Speculative philosophy and theology eventually influenced the Bāṭinīyah, though they remained at all times on the side of esoteric knowledge; some Ṣūfīs (Muslim mystics) were also placed among the Bāṭinīyah for their insistence that there was an esoteric body of doctrine known only to the initiate. Although the Ismailis had always acknowledged the validity of both bāṭin and ẓāhir, about the 12th century this balance was upset by the Nusairis (Nuṣayrīyah) and the Druze, who accepted only the hidden meanings and exalted the imam to extraordinary heights. Sunnite (traditionalist) Muslim scholars condemned the Bāṭinīyah for all interpretations that rejected the literal meaning and accused them of producing confusion and controversy through a multiplicity of readings; this, the Sunnites alleged, allowed ignorant or mischievous persons to claim possession of religious truths and thus deceive those who lacked the knowledge to expose them. The Bāṭinīyah were further labeled by the Sunnites as enemies of Islām, bent upon destroying the Sunnites’ conception of the faith. See also tafsīr.

Critical Questions p. 343 What is the proof of prophecy, and do you find the proof convincing? Why, or why not? How does al-Ghazali answer the question, “Is knowledge possible?” What do you think is wrong with his answer, if anything?

8.3 Is Certainty Possible? Rene Descartes Rene Descartes = methodical skeptic who employed the method of doubt to obtain knowledge; also a rationalist due to his belief that it’s only true if supported by sound argument. Meditation I: all beliefs based on sensations can be doubted; even arithmatic can be wrong (reject rationalism here) Meditation II: One thing can’t be doubted “I think therefore I am” or “cogito, ergo sum” Deduced that God exist from his own existence as a thinking thing and to show that God is perfectly good and hence no deceiver. Not logical: if we exist, therefore God exists, and God is no deceiver, then we can also know that our sensations must represent the external reality. If they do not, we would live in ignorance, and this a perfect God would not allow.

8.3 Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rejected direct realism (there is a reality that exists apart from human sensations, and our senses put us directly in touch with reality” Proposed theory called indirect, or representational realism: our sensations represent physical reality. We are not directly in touch with physical reality; we are only directly in touch with our sensations of physical reality.

Critical Question p. 351 #4 How did Descartes answer the question, “Is knowledge possible?” what is one major problem with his answer, and why is it a major problem?

8.4 Empiricism and Limited Skepticism David Hume p.351 Every thing we know about the world derives from our senses Questioned whether there are in fact any firm foundations on which knowledge rests other than customary and habitual associations of ideas

See Soccio’s ch. 11 on Locke, Descartes, Hume See Ms. Le’s other powerpoints

8.5 Should we believe beyond the evidence? William K. Clifford = evidentialist = can’t accept any statement as true unless we have good evidence to support its truth. William James = pragmatism = truth is dynamic, something that happens to ideas when they lead humans into ever more satisfactory experiences.

8.6 Classical Indian epistemology Udayana (1000) argued that knowledge can be analyzed into four different parts: perception, inference, comparison, and reliable testimony Influenced 2 Indian schools of philosophy: Vaisesika and Nyaya John Koller’s analysis focuses on the 4th one: the sources of knowledge

8.7 Feminist epistemology Critiques existing theories of knowledge Reveals how gender plays a large role in supposedly universal and objective theories of knowledge Alessandra Tanesini: Knowledge reflect some particular standpoint, what would convince you that one standpoint is more privileged than another? Kessler p.387