Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology both challenge the view of knowledge as a detached, intellectual activity. Do you think they are right? How do you think we should think about knowledge?
Yikes! Now that I've read some different philosophical theories and views of knowledge, I feel more confused than ever about what I think it is. I used to think knowledge was possession of the truth about something. And truth was just a fact. Opinion didn't really come in to it, something was true or untrue, whether you liked it or not. Seems like that was a pretty simplistic idea! I still feel like in most cases the truth is the truth, no matter what your opinion about it is, and so knowledge is knowing that truth. Mostly. I am making room for the new ideas of truth and knowledge that I've read about in the last few weeks, though, so I have to acknowledge that I've been taking the easy approach when it comes to thinking about reality, knowledge and truth.
I see where the Feminist philosophers are coming from when they say that generally accepted truths are not necessarily true for everyone because they've been told to us for centuries from the male perspective. What might be true, in general, for (or about) men is probably not true, in general, for women. In using the male perspective to apply a standard truth for everyone across the board, we are probably distorting what is considered "truth", and therefore distorting knowledge. Consider the source, because everything may have to be reconsidered...:)
What was a little bit harder for me to wrap my head around was the Pragmatists idea of truth and knowledge. There's a part of it that just doesn't seem right, to me - the idea that something can be considered "true" until the truer version emerges, just because it served the needs of the people well, up until that point....? Am I misunderstanding that? (the example given in the book was about the medieval beliefs about the motions of the planets, which they got wrong). If it's not true, it's just not true! Never mind that they were able to use the wrong info in a lot of useful ways - that was lucky for them, but it didn't make it true! Aside from that bit, I actually think their idea of knowledge makes total sense. The idea of knowledge as this static thing that you either possess or don't possess seems a very dead way to think about it, now. Instead, the idea of knowledge as being an active part of your day or your life, something to be used and tested and modified, sometimes rejected in favor of a better or more useful belief that doesn't contradict things you already know are true, it just seems so much more interesting - and useful. It sort of makes the whole concept of knowledge and truth more relevant, in a way, and brings it right into the lives of every person, instead of just the intellectuals who spent their lives studying these things.
What do you make of empiricism's claim that all of our knowledge is based on the use of our senses?
Is all our knowledge just based on the use of our senses, and nothing else? I don't think so... I don't really think it's a good idea to make a claim like that - that ALL of our knowledge just comes from one source. If we didn't have our senses, then of course it would be pretty hard to even begin to know anything - but just having our senses wouldn't be enough either. Don't we have to have some sort of a sorting process? - to actually make sense out of what we get from our senses? If we don't need our intellect or our reason, if we don't use it to organize sensations and experiences into knowledge, then why do we have it? Is it just some fun ability our minds have so that we can entertain and amuse ourselves? Hmm. maybe...
At least the empiricists do acknowledge that their theory only allows for probable knowledge, and not certainty. Just relying on past experiences really can't give us any certainty about what will happen in the future. The chicken story really made that point pretty clear! If the chicken had been able to use reason, it might have thought ... why is this farmer feeding me every day? and where is the other chicken that used to live here?
I don't really think reason alone is enough to claim true knowledge either, though. In the case of mathematics or logic, maybe it is, but there are other areas where reason just can't answer all the questions. To state the obvious one - reason can't tell us whether or not there is a God. We can talk about all the reasons why we do or don't believe in God, but as for a definite answer - I don't think it's possible. I mean, even if you don't believe there is any reason at all to believe in a God, if you think there is absolutely no evidence, then you're still trying to prove a negative, and that seems impossible, even to the most rational mind. So experience can't always bring you certainty (as per the chicken), and reason can't either.
But they both bring something to the table - I am sort of surprised nobody came up with blending the two theories of empiricism and rationalism together until Kant came along.
According to Descartes we are more certain of our thoughts, the content of our minds, than we are of the world around us, and even of mathematical or logical truths. He uses methodological skepticism to reach this conclusion. What do you think of methodological skepticism? Do we ever follow this procedure in our daily lives? Or do we do the opposite? - do we tend to believe things until it becomes impossible to believe them, rather than doubting everything we can? If so, does this suggest that methodological skepticism is not a good strategy?
I think he's right - we are more certain about what's in our own minds than we are of the world around us. I admire Descartes' dedication to his search for truth...but wow - when I started to read his writings on the whole thing, I don't know. I just started to think "what's the point???" His description of tumbling into an abyss of doubt, finding reasons to suspect that absolutely everything could just be an illusion or a deception - it was like being inside the mind of someone who is going mad. If, after all his agonizing, the only sure thing he could come up with was that he existed - and then the dubious second part - that God exists too (which I think he came up with under a bit of an iffy presumption) - then I think he tortured himself for a very meagre result.
For use in daily life, the process of methodological skepticism is just too much. Was Descartes able to prove anything else at all, by using this process? From what I read in the book so far, it looks like he couldn't. So if we can't prove anything by it, and all it does is cast doubt on the things we think we know, why employ this method at all?
Of course we do need to have some skepticism in life. We can't just blindly accept everything other people tell us - politicians will try to ruin their opponent's reputations, advertisers will tell you their product will make you thinner, richer, happier etc., and we know better than to just take their word for it. But we don't normally bother to totally scrutinize the claims, either. Taking them apart piece by piece just seems like far too much hard work, when we can usually use our experience and our reason to figure these things out without so much effort.
However - if someone was to tell you something bad about your best friend, you'd probably apply a bit of methodological skepticism there. You might ask questions like how do they know this thing happened? could they be mistaken? and what do they gain by telling you this? I am much more likely to put things I don't want to believe through more of a methodological skepticism process than I do other things. That's probably not a good strategy in life, actually!
Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology both challenge the view of knowledge as a detached, intellectual activity. Do you think they are right? How do you think we should think about knowledge?
