Philosophy
Is it Possible to Know Anything at All?
Philosophers have discussed the concept of knowledge and its definition for thousands of years. Is it possible to know anything?
There are two sides to this claim.
Some people agree with Socrates and Plato that having a definition of knowledge is possible. They give the traditional account of knowledge, which is that knowledge is justified, true belief.
On the other hand, some sceptics believe that knowledge is inherently impossible and absolute knowledge is impossible.
This blog will answer this question by giving the perspective of both sides.
The school of thought, which thinks that a definition of knowledge is possible and agrees with the traditional account of knowledge, has three parameters.
Justification, which means that we have a good reason.
Truth, which means that which conforms with reality.
Belief, which means being convinced of something.
For example, the claim that the Sun will rise tomorrow.
We understand how the Earth and Sun move. We have seen it in reality and are convinced that it does happen. Hence we know that the Sun will rise tomorrow.
The sceptics argue that one should hold judgement on every claim, and we can’t know anything for sure until it has happened already. Even then, it is debatable.
For example, take the Sunrise example.
We cannot be absolutely sure that the Sun will rise tomorrow because it is yet to happen. The justification that we “know” about the movements of the Earth and Sun is only sound if we assume that reason is reasonable.
Philosophers have argued for thousands of years on the definition of knowledge. They disagree on many things.
But they all agree that one cannot be absolutely certain in the ultimate sense about anything, including the claim that they cannot be absolutely certain.
We must start with some presuppositions. Existence exists, even if it is not the ultimate existence, and the reason is reliable. Our experience of reality is generally reliable.
Now, there is a difference between truth and reasonableness. Truth has nothing to do with reasonableness.
Now, if you meet a man and he tells you that his name is Rahul. It is reasonable to believe that that is true. Now, why is that? Because you know he is a guy, you know that a guy’s name can be Rahul. You have no ‘reason’ to believe this man is lying to you. So, you are convinced that this man’s name is, in fact, Rahul.
But it is still possible that their name is, in fact, not Rahul. Would you say it was unreasonable to believe their name was Rahul? No, right!
Let’s take the opposite scenario as well.
Let’s say a stranger tells you they have a real-life elephant in their house. It would not be reasonable for you to believe that that is true. Now, why is that? Because you know that elephants are giant creatures and generally cannot fit inside a house. You have no reason to believe that this stranger is telling the truth.
But, then they take you to their house. They have a vast place, and you see an actual real-life elephant standing in their home. You would have good reason to believe that his statement was true.
We do not act on absolute certainty and do not wait until we have absolute certainty to act. We act based on our beliefs.
“I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible” — Matt Dillahunty.
It is helpful for us to make our internal map of reality as accurate as possible. This quote brings out the essence of what it means to be a reasonable and logical person.
You see, both parts of the statement are essential. If you only wish to believe as many true things as possible, you accept everything. If you want to believe in as few false things as possible, you believe nothing. Only when you do both is your internal map of reality as accurate as possible to actual reality.
This brings us to the logical absolutes. There are mainly three logical absolutes.
Everything is what it is. It isn’t what it isn’t. And nothing is neither or both.
We know from Occam’s Razor that we must minimise the depth of our presuppositions to a level close to zero. Hence, if we assume logical absolutes, we should not assume anything else or anything beyond that.
The traditional account of knowledge of justified true belief only exists and is reasonable if we assume that reason is valid and justified.
This brings us to an unresolved question about hard solipsism. One can’t prove that you are not a brain in a vat and not in the matrix. Many philosophers have agreed that no solution exists, and it may be that a solution is not possible.
Sceptics believe that knowledge is inherently impossible. Suppose we assume the traditional account of knowledge that knowledge is justified, true belief.
In that case, it is still based on the assumption that reason is reliable and existence exists outside our experience. Also, knowledge should be independent of any presuppositions and not be dependent on any assumptions like the ones mentioned above.
The people who believe in knowledge argue that the question of why logical absolutes are true is non-sensible.
It’s like asking why is one, one? It is because it could not be anything else. Suppose it can be anything else, given the evidence to the contrary. In that case, it needs to be demonstrated, which is a heavy burden of proof.
Logical absolutes represent maximal certainty, and anything deduced from them, like math or set theory, is also maximally certain.
In conclusion, there is no conclusion. Both sides have valid arguments. It is impossible to determine. The school that believes that a definition of knowledge is possible is not wrong because they do not claim absolute certainty. They only claim maximal certainty. On the other hand, sceptics believe that certainty is impossible as we do not know whether the reason is valid.
Thanks for Reading! Show some love! I would love to know your thoughts in the comment section!
I am a freelance content writer, blogger and graphic designer. Please email me at: hnambiar200@gmail.com for work.
If you like my stories, kindly donate to the link below this article. Every tiny bit helps!
