 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Kayla
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | Emmitsburg, Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 348 |
| First Name: | Kayla | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Atheist, kind-of Mormon, Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 03:36 pm |
|
I don't know if we have anyone here that has really studied philosophy, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyway... I've just written a paper for my epistemology class (yay for all-nighters) and it is something I am considering turning for publishing in our school's Philosophy/Theology journal. Although, I am of course looking to edit before doing so. I guess my favor I ask is, if you have the time or interest, would you mind reading and commenting? I'd like to get some opinions so I can revise and submit. Thanks!
Can we attain knowledge of this world through sensory perception? What role does sensory perception play in our ability to know something? These questions deal with the fundamental issue and challenge to the very possibility of knowledge itself: the relationship between human senses and human knowledge. This age-old question has been tackled by many of this world’s brightest philosophers and lays the foundation for further questions regarding knowledge (such as: Can we know material things? and What is it that we know?). The great ancient and medieval philosophers explored the relationship between sense perception and knowledge in great detail and this essay will discuss the ideas proposed by Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas.
In the beginning of the Theaetetus, Plato offers what many scholars consider a false proposition (or at least one which Plato does not believe to be true) about the relationship between sense perception and human knowledge. Through the character Theaetetus and his dialogue with the fictional Socrates, an initial definition of knowledge is conceived. Theaetetus declares, “I think that someone knows something when he perceives it… knowledge and perception are the same” (Theaetetus 30). For Theaetetus, perceiving something is exactly the same as knowing it. Thus it is the case that all things are relative, for Socrates says, “Each and every event is for me as it appears to me, and is for you as it appears for you” (30). This Protagorean Relativism claims that there is no objective truth and that knowledge for each individual is different from another individual. Even more, this relationship between sense perception and knowledge also implies infallibility in individual knowledge. Once again Socrates comments, “Since each perception is peculiar to my being, my perception is true for me… I am the judge of the things that are for me, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not” (46). Theaetetus is here content to accept the idea that perception is knowledge.
However, Plato is not yet ready to allow this idea to stand unchallenged. Instead, through the character Socrates, he proceeds to dispute Protagorean Relativism and the definition that knowledge equals perception. His first argument is the “self-refutation” argument, in which he challenges Protagoras directly saying, “If each person alone makes up his mind about his own impressions, and all of them are correct and true… how on earth are we to distinguish Protagoras, whose cleverness was such that he thought he was justified in teaching others for vast fees, and ourselves?” (48). Essentially Socrates is saying that by teaching others (and charging them for this teaching) his truth, Protagoras is contradicting himself, for he is claiming that his knowledge (perception) is true not only for himself, but also for others. By doing so he has made himself the measure of other men, rather than man being the measure of himself (30). Plato goes further than simply exposing this self-contradiction, however. In a series of questions and answers, Socrates is able to lead Theaetetus to recognize how constant change or flux, which Protagoras claims as a truth of reality, is also proof that sense-perception is not knowledge. Socrates comments to Theaetetus, “So if everything is changing in all respects, we shouldn’t talk of seeing something rather than not seeing it, and any other perception is no more perception than not perception” (83). Perception is unstable, since one is unable to perceive anything, because the something to be perceived is in constant flux. Therefore one is unable to have knowledge of anything.
It is quite clear that through the arguments presented in the Theaetetus, Plato disagrees that human knowledge and sense-perception are one in the same. Instead, Plato views that the intellect is distinct from the senses. Aquinas best summarizes Plato’s ideas in his Summa Theologica saying, “Plato held that intellectual knowledge does not come about by a change effected in the intellect by sensible things, but rather by participation in separate intelligible forms” (HK 98). This is a two-fold statement dealing with two separate yet intertwined ideas. Plato is dealing first and foremost with the relationship between sense perception and knowledge, but also with the question: What is it that we know? In this theory, human knowledge is only of the Forms, not the material or sensible world. Thus Aquinas continues to describe Plato’s position saying, “The senses are independently operating faculties; thus even the senses themselves—since they are spiritual faculties—are not affected by sensible objects” (98). To be more precise, he says, “Intellectual knowledge does not start from sensible knowledge… rather, sensible objects awaken the sensible soul to sense, and similarly, the senses awaken the intellectual soul to understand” (98). For Plato, therefore, the senses and intellect are completely separate.
Aristotle takes a rather different approach than his predecessor, claiming that knowledge begins with perception. In his Posterior Analytics, Aristotle argues the process known as induction. He claims that all animals share a “congenital discriminative capacity which is called sense-perception” (HK 72). More than simply having sense-perception, however, human beings “can continue to retain the sense-impression in the soul and when such persistence is frequently repeated a further distinction arises” (72). This leads to the ability to systematize the impressions into memories, and it is said that “a number of memories constitute a single experience” (72). Further, from several experiences the universal can be abstracted and one can thereby have knowledge. The entire process of acquiring knowledge, for Aristotle, is begun in sense-perception. Near the end of Book II he clarifies his claim saying, “When one of a number of logically indiscriminable particulars has made a stand, the earliest universal is present in the soul: for though the act of sense-perception is of the particular, its content is universal” (72).
Aristotle would agree with Plato, however, that there is indeed a gap between the intellect and sensation. In the De Anima he says, “Observation of the sense-organs and their employment reveals a distinction between the impassibility of the sensitive and that of the intellective faculty” (78). The difference between Aristotle and Plato is found in Aristotle’s belief that, as Aquinas says in his Summa Theologica, “sensation is not an activity of the soul alone but of the body-soul composite” (98). For Aristotle there is a way to bridge the gap between the senses and the intellect, for Plato there is not.
Aquinas follows Aristotle’s theory of knowledge very closely and also claims that knowledge begins with sense-perception. In fact, he deals with the relationship between perception and knowledge rather directly in his Summa Theologica, Question 84, Article 6, asking: Is Intellectual Knowledge Taken From Sensible Things? In this article he echoes Aristotle’s theory of knowledge and also the relation of sense-perception to that knowledge. He also further explores Aristotle’s “bridging of the gap” between the senses and the intellect. Aquinas recognizes that this gap is due to the fact that those objects which are perceived are physical, material objects, and that the intellect is not a physical or material object. “Nothing corporeal can make an impression on an incorporeal thing,” he writes (98). What, then, connects the corporeal to the incorporeal? Aristotle mentions it briefly in Book III of the De Anima and Aquinas says in his Summa, “That higher, superior agent called the agent intellect, by a process of abstraction makes images received from the senses actually intelligible” (98-99). In the De Anima, Aristotle compares the agent intellect to light by saying, “while there is another which is what it is by virtue of making all things: this is a sort of positive state like light; for in a sense light makes potential colours into actual colours” (79). The agent intellect is that which bridges the gap between the corporeal and the incorporeal; it is the factor which allows for the universal to be abstracted from the particulars and thereby allowing for human knowledge. In all of this, however, Aquinas makes it very clear the relationship between sense-perception and human knowledge. He concludes his argument in the Summa by saying, “Intellectual activity is caused by the senses by way of these images… it is not right to say that sensible knowledge is the total and complete because of intellectual knowledge—better to say it is somehow the material of the cause” (99).
Of all the relationships between sensory perceptions and human knowledge explored, the Aristotelian-Thomistic theory of knowledge seems to best answer the problems posed, for it is the only theory which adequately addresses how it is that the corporeal interacts with the incorporeal. Unfortunately, this theory also runs into its respective problems or challenges. Perhaps the largest concern lies in the question: Can the agent intellect lead to false knowledge? For certainly it can be conceded that all human beings have been deceived by something they thought they once knew. Consider the case in which a certain collection of images allows for an abstraction that assigns to the consequent species false qualities about the essence of the species. An example of this would be a certain person who has seen many, many other human beings, all of one particular skin color. After a large gathering of images, all of which perceive other human beings as having the same skin color, the first person finds himself under the assumption that this skin color is a necessary component to the essence of human beings and henceforth considers it universal. Then, one day, this person comes across another creature which would appear to have all of the necessary characteristics of being human, except for skin color. This new creature has a different skin color than all of the human beings that the initial person has encountered. Did the agent intellect therefore lead the mind astray by creating a false species?
Neither Aristotle nor Aquinas seems to take such a scenario into account. However, it is unlikely that either would concede to such a supposed fatal flaw. Instead, both would likely respond that this problem is solved by experience. The more images gathered and the larger repertoire of particulars that one has, the more accurate one’s knowledge can be. There is a constant process of refinement, by which one further systematizes the essential characters of a species. If, based on only a small amount of experiences, one concludes that the quality of being green is essential to being an apple, one would simply be refining the idea of an apple when they encounter or have an experience of a red apple, which has all of the same characteristics thought to be essential to the green apple, besides its color. This process of refinement is an ongoing process.
Of course, this answer does not satisfy many. How can we know when we know? How can we have certitude in our knowledge? How can we be sure that we are not constantly being deceived? Such questions are very real concerns, especially for the modern philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Kant. The difficulty they are experiencing, however, is not in Aristotle or in Aquinas, but rather in their own definitions of knowledge. They have assigned absolute certitude as an attribute for human knowledge. Such a standard is unreasonable for human beings—that is a standard acceptable for Divine alone! Even Socrates has said, “The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing.” By accepting that one will not know everything or even have absolute certitude in any of their knowledge, they can have assurance and conviction (not absolute, to be clear) that what they think they know, they do indeed know, at least to a reasonable degree.
And, for the record, the conclusion is going to be reworked so that I might better express what it is I'm trying to get at. It was written at 8:30am after having gotten no sleep whatsoever. In fact, I think I plan on reworking most of the intro as well..
____________________
I believe, Lord, help my unbelief.
Jesus, I trust in You!
There's not a lot of job security for us after death. I suppose that's one advantage of being a philosopher. - Peter Kreeft
http://kayla23mount.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 04:31 pm |
|
Whoa! This reading material won't help anybody stay up long, much less pull an all-nighter. Better have a coffee pot handy. You'll be needing it!
You have my (sincere) prayers and best wishes.
____________________
For anyone suffering from a mental illness or has a loved one with a mental illness, my book "Lead kindly Light: A Devotional For The Mentally Ill" might be of some help: http://www.lulu.com/ (Use search box at the top of page.)
|
|
|
Kayla
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | Emmitsburg, Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 348 |
| First Name: | Kayla | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Atheist, kind-of Mormon, Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 15th, 2008 08:28 pm |
|
Haha, well, luckily we did not have to read the entirety of all of the texts that I referenced in the paper. Besides the Theaetetus, which we read a decent chunk of, we read only bits in a pieces of the other works. Basically only the parts which strictly had to do with human knowledge.
Steven Barrett wrote: Whoa! This reading material won't help anybody stay up long, much less pull an all-nighter. Better have a coffee pot handy. You'll be needing it!
You have my (sincere) prayers and best wishes.
____________________
I believe, Lord, help my unbelief.
Jesus, I trust in You!
There's not a lot of job security for us after death. I suppose that's one advantage of being a philosopher. - Peter Kreeft
http://kayla23mount.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 16th, 2008 01:21 pm |
|
Well, at least you can recall what you worked on after everything. I co-worked on a project about Kant, and can't recall a thing except the grade, an A-minus, one of the very few given out by this prof called "Jack the Smack" who was a former seminarian, turned philosphy professor that was reputed to brag about how many guys he used to wash out of his classes.
I didn't get an A for the course because I could never do well in objective test-taking, but it was a moral victory plus change just to survive his projects, never mind get an a-minus. So, don't hold your breath, but I'm sure you'll do better than I did in the final results.
Best of luck anyway and you've got my prayers.
Steven
____________________
For anyone suffering from a mental illness or has a loved one with a mental illness, my book "Lead kindly Light: A Devotional For The Mentally Ill" might be of some help: http://www.lulu.com/ (Use search box at the top of page.)
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 01:42 am |
|
Kayla, I didn’t get a chance to comment on your paper earlier, but better late than never.
You have covered the topic pretty well, certainly well enough for a good grade. Your reading probably didn’t include more of Aquinas, who is really worth reading, not only on the points you cover, but on the entire notion of human knowledge, its origin, its mechanics and its goal. He was the one who convinced me, at age 15, that I was on the right track in my quest for truth (rather than the psychologistic subjectivism that everyone around me accepted) and that my next step ought to be in the direction of Catholicism.
Another “must read” in epistemology is Jacques Maritain, whom I read a couple of years later. He speaks at length on the function of intuition, which fascinated me, since I am a very intuitive thinker myself.
David
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 04:00 am |
|
Psychologistic subjectivism* ... hmmmm. Even ol' Jack the Smack wasn't mean enough to pull that out of his bag o'snakes on a bad day in Miami with all the AC's out of commish and the priests catching us for having beer in our dorms because the maint. guys caught our cooling grates chock full of (formerly) cool beer and (formerly) relatively cool rooms. Yeah, we practiced relativism ... Psssst don't tell that elderly German fellow wearing all white and visiting that city to the southeast of you. It's verboten!
* Quite frankly I'd rather take a stab at explaining the infield fly rule to the Afghani army.
____________________
For anyone suffering from a mental illness or has a loved one with a mental illness, my book "Lead kindly Light: A Devotional For The Mentally Ill" might be of some help: http://www.lulu.com/ (Use search box at the top of page.)
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4979 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2008 02:50 am |
|
I think I understood about one word in five, but I got the gist of it at least. And yes I read every word -- even the parts that made no sense (to me) at all!!!
It occurred to me as I was reading that faith is an important component of knowledge, and that sensory perception alone can never be adequate because of the inherent limitations of our own experience. Knowledge must build upon knowledge. For example, my perception tells me that the world is flat and filled with water, since that is the environment in which I live. Deserts and mountains do not exist; swamps, bayous and rivers abound. My perception tells me that the sun and moon rise and set, but my intellect allows me to have faith in the work of those more knowledgeable than I that the sun is (relatively) stationary, that the earth rotates and circles the sun, and that the moon circles the earth as well as the sun. In earlier times, the earth was thought to be flat and at the center of the universe because knowledge was based on sensory perception alone. Irrational creatures (that is, lower life forms) still base their knowledge on sensory perception. That's why a dog that is habitually beaten will respond with cruelty even to kindness. It's perception of cruelty is the entire basis of its beliefs. Only a human can "turn the other cheek".
I have faith, so I can look beyond my perceptions. I don't just mean faith in God, but faith in science, and nature, and medicine, and many other things. I have faith that it is not magic that makes the light switch turn on the light, or that make the pretty pictures on the TV or computer screen. I have faith that all of you (our forum members) exist, even though I've never met any of you. Our entire lives are built on faith in one thing or another. And yet it is an underlying faith in God that brings it all together. Without my faith in God, all the other faith is like a house of cards waiting to collapse.
I don't know how relevant any of my ramblings are to your writing, or particularly to your assignment, but these were my thoughts as I read your post, and I thought I would share them with you. Good luck on your paper.
(I have not studied philosophy at all, but the other thing that stayed in my mind as I read your paper was an old saying: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****! In other words, it reminded me of some of the papers I used to write! Except, of course, that you actually know what you're writing about.)
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 10:35 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
