#Philosophizing (Part II): About knowledge and how we come to know

In our last post we talked about what is Philosophy, what kind of questions do philosophers ask themselves, and what is the link between philosophy and knowledge.

Today we’ll focus a bit more on knowledge itself. I'll try to be more concise than on my last posts, so as not to make this a heavy(er) reading.

What is Knowledge?

First thing we need to clarify is what do we mean by knowledge. This is one of those concepts (like Philosophy) that we kind of take for granted. How so? Well, because we think we know what it means to know, to have knowledge of something, but when we try to define knowledge or even put it into words we find it more difficult than we let ourselves admit. Abstract concepts are universal and complex and their essence cannot be reduced in just a few words. To be able to understand them in all of their complexity, instead of trying to “define” them (as in, limit them) we need to explore them from different view points.

Let’s then focus on describing, not a determined knowledge and whatever characterises it, but that which is essential to every knowledge, let’s try to figure out in what consists its general structure.

Source

I find it really interesting that the word for "know/knowing" in Spanish, "conocer", does not share the same origin however holds more or less the same meaning. While the origins of the English workd "know" are (proto)germanic, the origins of the Spanish word "conocer" come from Latin and Greek. The French version "connaître" shares that origin, because it also belongs to the Romance Languages family.

Source: Vox Dictionary Greek/Spanish

The word (to) know originates from the latin “cognoscere”, composed by co (with) y gnosco (to have notion of). It also has a Greek origin, linked to the word γνϖσις (gnósis), that also means aknowledging, having notion of, knowing.

There isn’t only one and universal definition of knowledge, but we could try to establish what we mean when we say that we know something.

We state that we know something when:

We perceive an object as something different from everything that the object is not.
We are aware or familiar with the object, be that by direct or indirect experience, by physical or theoretical understanding of said object.
We acquire and accumulate a series of data, facts or information in general about an object, that have been obtained by diverse means (education, instruction, experience, practice, skills, intuition, theoretical understanding, etc.)
We comprehend in some measure the origin, composition, behaviour and/or essence of the object that we say we know, just as its qualities, faculties and links to other objects.
We are in possesion of a justified true belief.

The Subject-Object Relation

We’ve talked about knowing things y knowing objects. In Philosophy, an object is not necessarily a thing. A philosophical object is not a football or a toy, these are mundane things. When we talk about an object we mean “the thing that is being known”, that is, the “object of study”. This object exists in relation to a subject that knows it. We have then a subject-knower and an object that is known.

In knowledge, the consciousness and the object face each other, the subject and the object. Knowledge presents itself as a relationship between these two elements that remain in it, eternally separated from one another. The subject-object dualism belongs to the essence of knowledge. – J. Hessen.

The subject is, then, a conscious subject: the subject-knower is aware that it is knowing, or at least needs to know that knowing is a part of its nature. Even though when at first sight it seems these two elements are completely separated and they have nothing to do with one another, between the subject and the object of knowledge we find a special connection:

The relationship between the two elements is at the same time a correlation. The subject is only a subject to the object, and the object is only an object in relation to a subject. They both are what they are in so far as they are to each other. – J. Hessen.

This relationship establishes the essence of knowledge. When we say that they are correlated we mean to say that there cannot be one without the other, that each exists as long as it is linked to its opposite.

The relationship is not necessarily irreversible, it is possible to consider that a subject of knowledge is at the same time an object, when the object of knowledge is also a subject-knower.

FOR EXAMPLE: a psychologist's object of knowledge is the human psyche, to be able to study someone's psyche and know it, understand it, a psychologist (subject-knower) must establish a relationship with a pacient-person that has a particular notion of reality. In so far reality is this person's object of knowledge, the patient-person is also a subject-knower.

An object of knowledge can be a text, a field of study, an idea, God, the world, reality… or ourselves.

Philosophy begins with an imperative

Source: Vox Dictionary English/Spanish

"Know thyself" is one of the most popular phrases related to philosophy. Its authorship is usually attributed to Socrates, who started from introspective knowledge as the first basis of all knowledge, however, according to the Greek writer Pausanias, this aphorism was inscribed on the façade of an ancient temple to the god Apollo, in Delphi.

Knowing oneself is something incredibly difficult; it involves assuming not only everything we know from our relationship with the world and the things in the world, but also everything we do not know.

Source

Recognizing that we do not know is also very difficult, that is why to Socrates, the truest knowledge is that which starts from the "Learned Ignorance" (Docta Ignorantia), that is, from the awareness that one does not know everything. Only by admitting that (in fact) we do not know, can we truly enter the path of knowledge.

The statement "I know that I know nothing" is often attributed to Socrates, based on a statement in Plato's Apology. The conventional interpretation of this is that Socrates's wisdom was limited to an awareness of his own ignorance. Socrates considered virtuousness to require or consist of phronēsis, "thought, sense, judgement, practical wisdom, [and] prudence."- Source: Wikipedia

Socrates used irony and a pedagogical method that he called "Maieutics" to encourage men to find the truth starting from introspective knowledge. Socratic philosophy takes learned ignorance (not flat and plain ignorance) as a starting point for knowledge, truth and virtue.

The theory of knowledge

As a phenomenon, knowledge contains and poses a series of problems related to the origin, essence and possibility of knowledge. These problems can encompass several spheres of knowledge, such as logic, psychology, and ontology, all of which stem directly or indirectly from the subject-object relationship.

Theory of knowledge is, as its name implies, a theory, that is, an explanation and philosophical interpretation of human knowledge.

In this post we talk a little more about what Theory of knowledge means as a branch of philosophy and as a subject of the International Baccalaureate.

As a branch of Philosophy, Theory of Knowledge poses questions such as:

Can the subject really apprehend the object? Are they really separate consciousness? This is the question of the possibility of knowledge.
Is reason or experience the source and basis of human knowledge? Or are there other sources of knowledge? This is the question of the origin of knowledge.
Is the subject determined by the object or vice versa? This is the question of the essence of knowledge.
What criteria could tell us if knowledge is true or false? What could we understand by "true knowledge"?

These questions still have no answer or concrete solution. I usually think that both in Philosophy and in life, asking questions is more important than getting answers. It keeps us critical.

More than looking for answers, I intend to present you with the most important solutions that have been found in the course of the History of Philosophy, the most relevant positions that some philosophers have taken on the subject and the direction that each one of us could take to be able to direct it to our own personal search for knowledge.

Well, that's all for today. I hope I didn't bore you to death and that you found this reading somewhat interesting.

^{Consulted sources:
J. Hessen, Theory of Knowledge

Wikipedia article about Socrates}

In the next post we'll explore a bit more on Socratic Philosophy and develop on the notion of introspective knowledge or self knowledge.

What do you think? What is/was your opinion on Knowledge? Has your way of thinking about it changed after reading this? Share it with me on a comment below! I welcome any kind of constructive feedback.

Is there any specific content that you want to read on my blog? Also leave it in the comments.
The Subject-Object image was made using this app

If you want to continue reading, do not hesitate to follow me! @lilixblack

See you next time on #Philosophizing

Alicia xx

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

silentscreamer (69) · 7 years ago

Wow. You really go deep into this. Its one of those posts that, once you read it, you have to read it again to understand everything. Quite interesting topic.
Id like to write more, but the limitations of my understanding stop me from doing so.
You could say: "I know nothing" :D

$0.00

lilixblack (53) · 7 years ago

Well, according to Socrates you are very well on the path of knowledge once you assume that hahah ;)

Yeah, this is a topic that I'm really passionate about so I put a lot of effort into it. I only wish It could get more exposure, but I guess not many people are interested in the subject :/ hahaha or at least as much as me.

It really means a lot to me that you took the time to read it haha I know it's not a light subject! And I also thank you for comenting! xx