a thinking thing

On Metaphysical Knowledge

The problematic process of finding the truth of many things, such as historical evidences and prophecies, on which many beliefs are based upon, brings me back to the essence of knowledge. The first question is, undoubtedly, what is knowledge? Over centuries have the world's greatest philosophers tried to define knowledge, debated over its nature and acquisition, and a thin line could be drawn among their dark pages of theories, although it may not be exactly clear nor correct. Knowledge is justified true belief. Belief, or opinion, is what people think about anything. True belief, or true opinion, is a belief that somehow match with the real truth, regardless how people come about believing it; it could just be Homer Simpson's Eenie Meenie Miney Moe or through deep reasoning. Knowledge is justified true belief. In a completely closed, insulated, sound-, light-, scent-proof, a group of people may give different opinions whether it is raining outside, assuming they have been there for such sufficient time that they, indubitably, cannot have any insight of ouside's weather. All of them have opinions, but some of them have true opinions whereas the other have false ones. Only after they confirm that it is raining outside, that the opinion saying that it is raining outside can be a knowledge. That means, that true belief's truthfullness must be proved before it can be 'upgraded' to knowledge. Here the problem comes into light. Who is to be the judge to justify whether a true belief is really true? How can he be sure that it is really true?

It is premature acceptance of opinions to be knowledge that has been causing sciences, with mathematics, geometry, and sciences of that sort as probable exceptions, went through hard times of buildings, collapsings, and recontructings over and over again. Rene Descartes, the Father of Modern Philosophy, realized this and hence tried, in his book "Meditation", to find a strong, sound, and lasting foundation of science. I have just read his First and Second Meditations, and thus can only ponder those two, although I have also read a very brief synopsis of the subsequent Meditations. In his search, he uses the famous method of doubt, which basically doubts everything. The principal rule is: For any belief of His, B, if he can think of any reason, R, for doubting B, he will doubt it. If he cannot remove or counter R, by subsequent reflection or investigation, he will conclude that he dows not know B. And by 'think of any reason for doubting', he effectively instructs himself to ask something like: Can I think of any way in which, for all I know, it might turn out that B is false?

Descartes' Method:
1. Never accept anything doubtful.
2. Divide each difficulty into as many parts as possible.
3. Conduct my thought in an orderly way.
4. Make complete enumerations and general reviews.

His "First Meditation" is completely devoted to doubt. He gives some arguments. One of them is the dream argument. What if I am in our dream? What if this reality is just my dream , a dream that I might not be able to wake up from? Could I tell that I am in my dream? Most of the time I cannot. Then the so-called knowledge I got from our sense perception would just be vanity. I could not tell whether it was true, since in a dream everything can happen. The only thing I can still accept as true is mathematical expressions, like 1+1=2, a rectangle has 4 lines, and so. Now consider a malignant being, all powerful evil-demon who constantly deceives me at all time in my life. In this case, absolutely all my beliefs are destroyed. I cannot believe that 1+1=2, since it may be so because the evil-demon is constantly whispering in my ears, saying that it is true, in spite of the absolute truth that, say, 1+1=3. The naming and symbolizing are not the problem here, but the concept is. If this radical skeptical assertion cannot be countered, I cannot hold any single belief! Plato, in "The Republic", gives a clearer description of this Matrix-like argument by his "Myth of the Cave".

In the Second Meditation, Descartes finds one thing that can still be believed even if the evil-demon argument stands, namely that I am, I exist, since I think, and I exist if I think. I must first exist before the evil-demon can deceive me. Hence the sole essence of man is mind, a thinking mind, and not necessarily body. Modern scientists may argue that without body, especially brain, mind cannot exist anyway. However, that is not the main point here.

Now that the only thing I can be sure of its existence is I, the only one possible judge to determine and justify the truthfullness of belief to be accepted as knowledge is me. However, there is a possibility that I am blindfolded in determining something's truthfullness by catching only the reasonings that favour my own opinions. Hence I am back with this unanswered enquiry of man's nature of knowing. Can I know anything at all? Sometimes I feel I might be better not questioning anything and living happily in this earthly world, as people who took the blue pill in The Matrix and whose lives were completely controlled by the Matrix...

posted by nicho @ 5:31 PM