Wednesday, October 8
Today commenced day one in Philosophy class. J.P. Moreland will be teaching both in the morning and evening; a marathon of philosophy lectures, indeed. I sincerely hope our brains do not become weighed down with these new arguments that are to be thrown at us.
So far, in the three hours of class time this morning, we have started discussing Epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge . Four basic questions in connection with the topic were set out for us, and we will study them further as the week progresses. The four questions were:
- What is knowledge?
- Can we know things?
- How do we know what we know?
- What are the limits of knowledge?
In regards to the first question, “what is knowledge”, there have been three different branches identified:
Knowledge by acquaintance; being directly aware of something.
Knowledge by acquaintance says that there is a difference between thinking about an object and experiencing it. The importance of the point stated in this area of knowledge is that it involves direct experience of an object, so in order to see something in your mind(a watch, for example) there has to be a previous understanding of it.
Propositional knowledge: justifiable true belief.
This division of knowledge states that it is not necessary to experience, but merely a matter of knowing that something is true. “Snow is white” is an example of propositional knowledge. In summary, we defined propositional knowledge as being true belief based on adequate grounds. It is purely knowing truth in thoughts, concepts, and ideas.
The third type of knowledge is Skill Knowledge, which states that knowledge is based on wisdom or skill. It incorporates propositional knowledge in its system of recollection. A defense the Christian worldview makes against skill knowledge is that Christianity is not dependent on skill or capability, but on faith. That is not to say that one should not practice learning new skills, but rather it should not be our central focus.
The idea of knowledge by acquaintance argues that we have many different selves, but are not a whole self. These ideas of “self” are developed by our culture. Everything is culturally relative, therefore, they abolish the concept of right and wrong. The line between normal and abnormal would be judged by the current cultural standards. One could then argue that an event never actually occurred if there was no clear division between what was and what became modified. As a result of that uncertainty, the Greeks came up with the Sorites Argument,which confronted the problem. They argued that you don’t have to know when the line was crossed to be able to recognize a clear case of the phenomenon in question.
The discussion that developed subsequent to the topic of “what is knowledge” was on awareness of objects. More specifically, awareness going beyond our five senses. The two assertions that followed that statement were: Self awareness through introspection, and awareness of normativity. Intellect is said to have the power of awareness that goes beyond the five senses. One cannot see normativity with the five senses, but can be aware of it.
It’s all rather perplexing right now…
After much confusion and copious note taking, I was mentally exhausted. I am preparing for class tonight by re-reading my Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult book(which we often call Philosophy Made Immensely More Confusing)and anticipating class this evening. Hopefully, more information on the issues mentioned above will be addressed.
I will write more in the coming week.
“Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us and eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.” 2 Corinthians 4:16-18
