Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 2 - Methods of knowledge - Inference, dialectic and Plato. justification Platonic Model Divided Line -

Transcription

1 Introduction to Philosophy - 2 nd and 3 rd terms. Greenwich University, PHIL1005 Tutor: Matt Lee - lm57@gre.ac.uk Course website: Lecture 2 - Methods of knowledge - Inference, dialectic and Plato. SUMMARY OF POINTS FROM LAST WEEK 1. Episteme/Doxa distinction - knowledge is never false (only false opinion) 2. General strategy of making distinctions - finding, understanding and making differences ie; in knowledge claims there is a difference from belief claims, this difference perhaps understood by the fact that knowledge claims need belief plus an account (justification) of belief 3. Role of Formulas - JTB - formulates the role of justification as adding something to beliefs 4. Knowledge / Power relationship - cf. context of Plato's argument about knowledge is philosopher kings Also touched upon the fact that the Platonic knowledge model is not simply episteme/doxa but in fact is a spectrum Knowledge-opinion-ignorance Platonic Model I want to expand this Platonic model. First of all, the Divided Line - Plato's hierarchy of knowledge -

2 This model presents a HIERARCHY - we go from the bottom (D) to the top (A). The nearer the top the more clarity or certainty we gain, the more we possess knowledge as opposed to opinion. This divided line / knowledge hierarchy is the first element of Platonic model. The 2 nd element is the theory of forms. For each thing in the world there is something (in effect beyond the world) which is the perfect model of that thing. Each thing in the world is a particular and for all the particulars there is a universal. The problem of particulars and universals is ever present through philosophy - different philosophers take varying positions on the relationship of these two things. How does this work? Particular - this desk, a bed, the individual man or woman. Also, however, the just act, the good deed, the beautiful object, the courageous woman. (objects, events, quality) "All particulars what makes each thing a thing of that type. What is it about the bed that makes it bed-like? (think of Tracey Emin's bed -is it a bed or a beautiful object?) Or what is it about the beautiful object that makes it beautiful? (Lots of objects, many different characteristics, yet all capable of being beautiful - thus it is not the properties such as colour, shape, etc but some other property - this is what Plato is suggesting, that the beautiful thing has the property of sharing/participating in the form of beauty. The idea is then extended as a general structure of particulars. Universal - the particulars, then, are all ONE sort of thing through their participation in the FORM. In effect this is saying that all things of a particular type have a property that is universal to the objects of that type - a new 'thing' if you like, a universal. This means they apply always and forever - in other words, a form is always a form, it is unchangeable. (IMPORTANT - we will need to remember this point later). The forms are in effect the first form of philosophical universals (many other forms of universals may appear, often attacked on the basis that they are 'Platonic', ie; reminiscent of and therefore susceptible to the same problems that the idea of FORMS is susceptible to) The Form of the Good So we have hierarchy and forms as the two key elements of Platonic

3 philosophy underpinning his theory of knowledge. If hierarchy and forms then what about a hierarchy of forms - indeed Plato has a highest form - the form of the good. This will be the sort of element that is Later picked up by Plotinus ( CE, Poryphyry as pupil, published the Enneads of Plotinus) to form the neo-platonic movement in middle age Christianity where Plato is integrated into a judaeo-christian theological structure - the form of the good is the highest form and becomes something like a form of God, a divine principle. The form of the good may be susceptible to be read religiously but in fact it is more like a direct abstraction - a next step 'up' in abstraction. Becomes a Form of Forms. Analogy with the sun Form of the Good Intelligence Knowledge Forms Intelligible world Sun Eye Sight Visible Objects Physical World (forms being that which we encounter in an analogous fashion to the way we encounter visible objects, where knowledge plays the role of sight and intelligence the organ by which we gain it and the form of the good being the sun that provides enough light for the eye [intelligence] to gather its harvest [knowledge] a vision, or the visibility of the world) See the two primary splits on the divided line between knowledge and opinion. In this schema of course we can see, hopefully, that for Plato the EYE provided us with the basic model of sight as the basis of knowledge (already used in that phrase 'we can see'...'insight' - sight) The notion of truth and belief is in the place in the physical world as the understanding is in the intelligible (referring to the 'divided line'). Maybe you need to have something akin to belief to be said to understand... at least for Plato. When we say 'seeing is believing' we often intend something like confirmation of someone's opinion the seeing would provide a justification. We saw this in the discussion of JTB and Gettier problems. New Eyes Plato is aiming to alter our vision of the world, to make us see with our mind, our reason. No longer saying something about the

4 world (passively) but saying something that, as it were, discovers or creates a new world (actively). (Discovering or creating still an open issue) Philosophy as an active creative and radical way of re-seeing begins here with Plato. Problems with Forms What problems with FORMS? 1.Everything has a form but does this make sense? What of the Form of mud (in fact at one point Socrates suggests that there may be a difficulty in the idea of a form for man, hair, mud or dirt [PARMENIDES - 130] - that difficulty = form of X is the perfect (good, excellent etc) X but what is a 'excellent' mud? Isn't the idea of a 'perfect human' going to lose the 'mistake making' human, that which 'makes us human' etc. Not as obvious as mud but confusing, not as simple as form of beauty etc 2. Noone ever encounters these forms, they are posited or discovered through philosophical argument - are they not just philosophical fictions? Forms are strange things in order to understand them need to acknowledge that they are an answer to a problem. What is that problem? Briefly - PROBLEM OF PERFECTION - every particular is a thing but only ever imperfectly. Every woman is a particular woman but none play the role of the perfect woman - this is the role of the FORM. Every just act is not perfectly just but the FORM of JUSTICE is perfectly just. PROBLEM OF CHANGE - particulars change so how do we know they are an instance of a particular type? Is the man still a boy when he's an adult? Is he still a man when he's a pensioner or when he's a prisoner? A more modern example (Descartes) - candle melted wax same substance, different form. If things change and yet knowledge is certain, how can we have a certainty (knowledge) that is temporary? The key thing to remember here is that there is something beyond all particulars which every instance of a particular type in some ways shares. The things 'share/participate/resemble/are like' (a whole series of possible cognates) the forms.

5 Forms of knowing The divided line scheme goes from images/shadows through beliefs/opinion - neither of which need justifications. Then it goes higher as we progress in the form of knowing, getting to knowledge proper when we reach the higher section with maths and dialectics. The divided line has two forms of knowing in the higher section: mathematics and dialectics. Mathematics/Geometry based upon the deductive inference / logical inference but with uncritical assumptions. Dialectics based upon rational inferences, therefore deductive, but with critical assumptions. Both are forms of knowledge. Dialectics is higher because it is critical, self-aware, rational - critical, rational knowing. The important thing here is the critical - maths is rational but not critical, assumes certain things (hypotheses, axioms etc) - ie; parallel line axiom in Geometry, in mathematics the status of the objects is unquestioned (is '2' real in any way?). Dialectics (philosophy) = critical rational thought. Logical inferences (mathematics, geometry, pure logic, computer structures) PLUS critical awareness of the underlying/hidden presuppositions. The critical element is intended to reveal a FIRST PRINCIPLE (sometimes plural - selfevident, basic, primary - unhypothetical). If it is unhypothetical then it is what? FACT - is it something that IS THE CASE. But a very special sort of fact - one that cannot be wrong/false. In other words, KNOWLEDGE. It is a RATIONAL fact. Deductive (logical inference). Maths/Geometry provides knowledge (always true) but in a sense unknowingly. Philosophy/dialectics provides knowledge knowingly. What sort of first principles? All I know is that I know nothing (critical stance) Know thyself (ethical stance - implication of critical stance) Knowledge of the world is wisdom, knowledge of your self is enlightenment Dialectics is thus rational (deductive, like maths/geometry) and critical (self-aware, self-questioning) with the aim of establishing knowledge on a firm ground of unhypothetical rational facts.

6 So Divided Line and Theory of Forms enable Plato to put forward a theory of knowledge, where we can distinquish a number of forms of knowing, with knowledge proper at the top of the hierarchy and defined as something like JTB 1. facts (and as facts therefore true) 2. which I believe in 3. and which I have a justification for