Thank you, Curtis L. Delyn, for such a significant question.
It is generally agreed that Plato came up with the classical definition of knowledge as “justified true belief”. This has been incredibly influential; many philosophers have accepted some form of this definition by filling in the relevant concepts with various theories and interpretations. Here, truth is thought of as a correspondence between what we say and what is real. Belief is a mental attitude about a proposition; I believe that grass is green, for instance. Justification concerns the method by which we have acquired the belief. For a belief to count as knowledge, it has to be acquired a certain way; it cannot be the result of chance. How do we make sure that the knowledge we have acquired is reliable? What is the correct method for reaching knowledge?
This brings us to the question of the sources of knowledge. Sense and perception have been recognized by many philosophers as the most reliable sources of knowledge of the world. I know there is a laptop in front of me because my senses are telling me so; indeed, I can see the letters that I am typing right now.
Descartes challenged this idea by using what he called “methodological doubt”. Everyone agrees that sometimes our senses can be deceived. Also, there seems to be no reliable way of determining whether or not I am dreaming at any moment. Descartes’ reply to this difficulty was to try to find one piece of “indubitable knowledge” which may serve as a foundation for all knowledge. Even though I may be deceived, I still know for certain that I am a being that is having such experiences. This kind of knowledge is certain; it is “clear and distinct”.
However, this criterion does not seem so reliable. How am I to distinguish between a clear and distinct thought and an unclear thought? This is a classic example of “internal” criteria, which has been subject to defence and criticism from various philosophers.
With Kant and Hegel, a more subtle and complicated theory of knowledge emerged. Kant pursued a novel line of questioning: What cognitive conditions need to obtain for there to be knowledge in the first place? Before trying to ascertain what knowledge is, we need to understand how our minds work. Explicating the concept of knowledge thus requires a thorough critique of reason, by which we recognize its limits and how best to use it.
Hegel extends Kant’s line of investigation by introducing a social and historical aspect to the emergence of reason, claiming that knowledge is not merely an individual endeavour but a communal effort. The central aspect of knowledge thus became the ability to be self-critical and to open up our claims to the assessment of others. By this communal endeavour, the limitations of an individual mind can be overcome by the joint effort of each inquirer. This, of course, requires an environment of free-speech, open-communication, and rational deliberation.
What do you think? How do we acquire knowledge? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Be sure to check out our podcast!
If you like what we do, you can support us by buying us a coffee!
Image: (credit)
I completed my MA and PhD at the Philosophy Department of Boğaziçi University. My main areas of research are history of philosophy, social and political philosophy, and moral philosophy. My dissertation was on Kant's account of conscience, so I had to work through most of Kant's texts. He is my favorite philosopher because he revolutionized the philosophical scene in Europe and still continues to be influential to this day. He was one of the first philosophers to work out a comprehensive system which integrates several areas of philosophy, and he has given me a remarkable sense of what philosophy can be.
Hegel’s statement seems to me the more complete one.