Today we will be looking at chapter 2 and
that is the primary source of knowledge.
That is, we will be at epistemology, the study
of human knowledge and how we have come to
know what we know and how we know whether
it is true.
Here the author looks at the different theories
we have to help us understand how we came
to know what we know.
This includes the platonic theory of recollections,
the rational theory, empirical theory and
the dispossession theory.
The author first distinguishes the two types
of perception.
Perception is our ability to identify, organise,
interpret and appropriately respond to the
environment around us to help us better understand
it.
There is conception and assent.
Conception is simple knowledge, for example
our grasp of phenomena such as heat, motion,
light or sound.
Assent on the other hand is complex knowledge
involving judgment such as heat is energy
derived from the sun, the sun is more luminous
than the moon and that atoms are susceptible
to division and thus explosion.
Now, the platonic theory of recollections
is a theory founded by plato in which he suggests
that prior to the existence of the body, the
soul existed independently and with it came
previous information and archetypes of knowledge.
Aristotle later came along and disproved this
theory and the author concurs with aristotle
that it is false because the soul does not
exist in an abstract form prior to the existence
of the body, being the result of substantial
motion in matter.
Now the author goes on to make the case for
rational theory as being the most plausibly
sound theory to explain human knowledge and
its source and origin.
European thinkers david hume, Descartes, immaneul
kant and Berkeley also agree with the author.
The rational theory asserts that along with
sense perception such as conceiving heat,
sound, light and taste, there is innate nature
through the human mind whereby it possess
ideas and conceptions not derived from perception
but rather they exist necessarily and independently
from sense perception.
Our senses that we use to perceive phenomena
are only the source of understanding simple
conceptions and ideas but they are not the
source.
Thus the rational theory asserts that many
a concepts are innate and a priori.
The empirical theory first propounded by john
locke asserts that only sense perception is
the primary source of knowledge and that there
are no innate and a priori ideas and all our
concepts and ideas are derived from sense
experience, for example through experimentation
and nothing else.
However, the empirical theory as admitted
by david Hume fails to explain how we form
such concepts as that of causality; for we
know that, all that is derived from the senses
is succession, not causality.
For example we know that water becomes a gas
when heated and becomes a solid when frozen
and particles expand due to heat and that
a pencil falls to the ground due to gravity
when the table it rests upon is moved away
from underneath it.
Our senses provide us with this information
however what it doesn't provide is the relation
between the two phenemonas acting to produce
the cause of the effect.
It only shows us the succession of phenomena.
It does not provide us with causality, the
relation of and influence of one event on
the other in order for the other to exist.
The rejection of the principle of causality
by empiricists does not solve the difficulty,
because the fact remains that we do conceive
causality, which is not given in sense perception.
The final theory is the dispossession theory
favoured amongst the Islamic philosophers.
According to the theory there are two kinds
of concepts.
Primary and secondary.
Primary concepts are produced from the sense
perceptions, for example we conceive heat
by means of our touch, we perceive colour
by means of our vision and so on.
Here, the sense perception is the cause of
the concept and idea in the mind.
Now, on the basis of this primary conception,
the mind goes on to the form a secondary conception.
The mind produces new notions from the primary
ones.
These ideas fall outside the scope of senses,
even though they are derived from them.
For example, we know that when we heat water
to 100 degrees centrigrade it begins to boil,
however even if this simple experiment were
to be repeated thousands of times we would
not perceive the causality of temperature
to boiling only the succession of events.
Therefore this theory proposes that the mind
dispossesses the notion of causality from
the two phenomena offered by sense perceptions.
The author then goes onto the make arguments
in favour of the rational theory as the primary
source of human knowledge.
According to the rationalist, the first kind
of knowledge is primary.
This is self evident and intuitive.
It includes things like the principle of causality,
principle of harmony and principle of non
contradiction.
For example, one is half of two, the whole
is greater than the part, infinite regress
is impossible, the earth is spherical, heat
is caused by motion, the angels of a triangle
are equal to two right angels.
However, what do we realise here?
When we say the earth is spherical, this requires
observation and inference however when we
say the angels of a triangle are equal to
two right angels, this is pure reasoning.
Same thing with saying, heat is caused by
motion and infinite regress is impossible.
We see that all knowledge is based on previous
knowledge which in turn depends on knowledge
preceding that.
The a priori knowledge or primary knowledge
is the irreducible remainder that does not
arise from any previous knowledge.
It is this very knowledge that is independent
of sense experience which makes metaphysics
possible.
According to the empiricists sense experience
is the primary source of all knowledge.
They do not admit the existence of any necessary
rational knowledge prior to experience.
There can be no knowledge of universal truths
prior to experience.
Their position makes metaphysics and deduction
impossible.
The empirical doctrine has to be rejected
for the following four reasons.
First, either the empirical doctrine is prior
to experience or it is not.
If it is, it refutes itself.
If it is derived from experience, the validity
of experience as a criterion of knowledge
has not yet been established.
Second, empiricism fails to affirm the existence
of matter and the external world, which cannot
be affirmed except by primary rational knowledge
Third, experience by itself is not sufficient
to assert the impossibility of anything.
All that experience can affirm is non presence
or at the most non-existence.
The notion of impossibility can be accepted
only on rational grounds, not on the basis
of experience
Fourth, the principle of causality cannot
be demonstrated by the means of the empirical
doctrine.
All that experience can affirm is succession
and contiguity, not causal necessity.
