Part 1 Where Does Knowledge Come From?
We have considered some basic concepts such as belief, truth, justification, knowledge and rationality. We can now begin to apply these concepts in considering some big philosophical questions. The first question that we will devote ourselves to is the question of epistemology or "Where does our knowledge come from?" This is a question concerning theories of knowledge. There are two schools of thought about this: Empiricism and Rationalism.
Part 2 The Empiricists
John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume proposed the empiricist position. They are usually called the British Empiricists of the 17th century. The empiricists maintained that all knowledge derives from sensory experience. We see, touch, hear, taste, and smell the external world. We then extract all of our concepts and knowledge from this sensory perception. There is no other source of knowledge than the deliverances of stimuli upon the senses of the senses and the senses are our only route to truth.
We might be inclined to say that we get knowledge from our teachers as sources or from testimonies. But this is not the question we are interested in. We are concerned with where did the original person get the knowledge from or where did knowledge originate? Where did this knowledge come from in the beginning? The empiricists said you could trace the chain all the way back to sensory experience. They held that all knowledge derives from sensory experience and nowhere else.
The empiricists thought of a knowing consciousness confronted by the external world providing information and this information impinges on consciousness and as a result certain things are known.
For example, where does the concept of red come from? I experience red and that is imposed upon me and I recognize it in the future based on a mental image, which turns into a mental belief. I combine red with a fire engine and I derive all of this from my sensory experiences.
This is what empiricism says about knowledge. It should be pointed out that empiricism was intended to undermine the claims of religion. Religion argued for revelation as a source of knowledge. The empiricists wanted to undermine this idea since the monarchy used this revelation knowledge to further their agenda's, such as the divine right of kings. They desired to limit the source of knowledge to sensory experience.
Part 3 The Rationalists
On the other hand there were the rationalists. The main two of the rationalists were Descartes and Leibniz. Spinoza is sometimes included among the rationalists but it is questionable as to whether he actually believed completely as the rationalists did. The rationalists acknowledged that some knowledge actually derives from experience. They did not completely dismiss experience but proposed that only some knowledge derives from experience. For instance, logic, math and philosophical knowledge were regarded as innate to the individual. Obviously, science, geography and certain other types of knowledge originate from experience.
But the question emerges as to where the innate knowledge comes from?
Someone may counter that we learn mathematics from experience. But this is not true in the sense in which we are concerned in this discussion. We are concerned with where the knowledge originally comes from where did the original person gain the knowledge of mathematics? Second, when I acquire knowledge in that way, understand that I come to see that things are true myself. In other words, I then verify that knowledge for myself. I don't know certain things such as mathematics only because the teacher said it to me, but because I can see that it is true for myself.
From where is this knowledge derived?
Part 4 Mathematics
The rationalists argue that there is another source of knowledge beyond empiricism or sensory experience. This source of knowledge is reason, rationality or as Kant argued pure reason and this is a difficult idea for us to grasp. We can find out things according to this theory simply by thinking about it. The rationalists argued that the human has reason or rationality and that its operations are familiar to each of us.
For example, if I know what the number 2 is and what plus is then I can come to know that 2 plus 2 equals 5. The same thing can be done with the number 3. Once I know the concepts I can discover the progression of numbers. I know the number series is then infinite and this kind of knowledge, at least according to the rationalists, is not derived from experience but from my reason and I can then deduce from that point forward.
This is a very different type of knowledge than that advocated by the empiricists.
In the last discussion we addressed the topic of logic. I asked you to consider the laws of logic. We then addressed the manner in which these laws are true. By so doing, we are using the faculty of pure reason and doing so without the benefit of empirical observation. To utilize experience would be to ask you to step out and see the stripe on the road or the dog in the next room as verification. The rationalists argued that there are certain types of knowledge which exist prior to this verification.
For example, suppose we are thinking about a bachelor. I say to you, "All bachelors are unmarried males." You look at me in a funny sort of way and ask, "Who in the world would deny that? A bachelor by definition is an unmarried male." You would be correct. Now suppose I said to you, "Bachelors tend to be unhappy." You can counter this statement. This is not always the case. But you can't counter the statement, "All bachelors are unmarried males." This is what is termed an "analytic truth." The same can be done with other statement such as all triangles have three sides or a vixen is female. We do not have to observe these things in order to know that they are true. They are true by definition.
Part 5 Apriori and Aposteriori Knowledge
Now we should introduce the term "apriori knowledge." This is knowledge not based on experience. It is knowledge that is gained or held prior to experience. This is why it is "prior" knowledge. In addition, the term "aposteriori knowledge" refers to knowledge that is based on experience. It is knowledge that is gained after experience. This is why it is referred to as "posteriori" or "after" experience.
Part 6 Kant's Solution
Immanuel Kant finally brought together the two schools of knowledge. He determined that it was not an either/or but a both/and proposition. He argued that knowledge is both innate and gained from experience. In a sense Kant was arguing that the external stimulates us and the mind or brain is hardwired to receive the information which the external world imposes upon us.
Suppose that I have a bottle of water in front of me. The bottle stimulates my eye, the eye stimulate my brain with the experience of the bottle of water and there is the image of the bottle impinging upon me. The external object has a causal impact on me and I know to know various things by experience and the brain possesses built in categories which enable me to process this external data or stimuli. I may not know exactly how the brain converts these neural impulses into consciousness but I know that there is a connection between the external world and my internal knowledge.
