what is knowledge?

back in the day (which despite what others may tell you, was NOT a Wednesday), I was an astute philosophy student. to this day, I often revisit my term papers to compare my current views and beliefs on topics to what I believed back then. surprisingly, my moral compass has not shifted much and I tend to believe a lot of the same things today as I did in 2003. so, if you're looking for some explanations, read on!

what is knowledge? PHI 101, 24 January 2003

If all 6.2 billion living people were asked "what is knowledge?", it is quite possible that one would arrive at 6.2 billion different responses. along with the inquisition of such a different word comes the variation of each individual's philosophy of knowledge. in such as instance, it becomes necessary to define which explanation of knowledge is most plausible through attempting to analyze and justify what is believed to be true. by examining both Plato's Theory of Knowledge and Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, it is apparent that each philosopher has taken a very different approach to the proposed question.

Plato, an ancient rationalist philosopher, proposed a theory of knowledge stating that reason is the key element to true knowledge. throughout Plato's dialogue, he distinguishes reason from sense perception and explains that they are two different worlds: the world of being and the world of becoming, respectively. in other words, Plato believed that reason leads to the world of being, or unchanging and absolute ideas which are independent of experience (a priori).

Hume, contrastingly, was a skeptical empiricist who believed in acquiring knowledge through sense perception. his theory argued that knowledge comes with experience and is comprehended through impressions. as a skeptic, Hume also doubts knowing anything for sure, arguing that certainty, at best, is only probable because knowledge acquired through experience is based on ideas (reason), rather than impressions (sense perception).

the philosophy of knowledge cannot be summed up by rationalization simply because the concepts of innate ideas and reason do not present themselves plausible. experience and sense perception are imperative elements for acquiring knowledge. for example, if I were to touch the burner on a stove with my hand for the first time, I would quickly pull my hand away to relieve it from the scalding heat. a rationalist, who believes that knowledge is independent of experience, would say that I knew prior to touching the stove that it would burn my hand. but, had I known that, I would never have touched the stove in the first place. an empiricist, on the other hand, would claim that I knew not that the stove would burn me, and that only after I had experienced the burning would I realize that I should not touch it. even if I had known in advance that the stove would burn me, I would have acquired the knowledge by either watching someone else burn his or her hand and react in the same way, or through verbal communication, two forms of sense perception.

not only is experience imperative for acquiring knowledge, sense perception also contributes to the comprehension of simple, even complex, concepts. in Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he addresses the idea that lacking certain senses is associated with the inability to understand specific corresponding ideas. he names an instance in which a man who is deprived of sight cannot see colors. for example, since he has lost his ability to see, it would be impossible for him to understand that grass is green, a concept rationalists claim can be grasped through reason. obviously, he would have no idea what green looked like even if it was explained to him because he would not be able to relate the idea to something he understood. however, if his sense of sight was suddenly restored, he would find no difficulty understanding the concept of green.

in conclusion, it can be said that if, in fact, we can know anything, it can only be known through experience and sense perception. knowledge is not something that can be touched with a hand or seen with the eye, so whether or not it even exists or can be justified at all is uncertain. however, reason can still only give us the intangibles and phenomenon which can never be explained thoroughly without some sort of skepticism, whereas sense perception presents a clear impression of true beliefs.