the heavy overview of epistemology

1

The Heavy Overview of

Epistemology

Unpacking the definition of

knowledge as “properly justified

true belief”

2

Intro: What

Epistemology

asks…

What‟s knowledge?

How can we get it?

What should we

believe is true?

3

“How will you know that

American claims about

Saddam Hussein are true?”

A proof is a proof…

and when you have

good proof, it‟s

because it has

been proven

Intro: sometimes people have a hard time saying how

they know something is true…

4

“As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the one‟s we don‟t know we don‟t know… it‟s the latter category that tend to be the difficult

ones.”-- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (Globe, September 16,

2005)

Intro, sometimes people have a hard time telling

apart what they know and what they don‟t know

5

Knowledge is

Properly Justified

True Belief

1. We have many

beliefs about the

way things are

2. Some of those

beliefs are true

3. For some of those

true beliefs, we can

offer good reason

why they are true

Intro, the definition of

“knowledge” we’ll use in this course:

6

This slide show shows

1) why belief (faith) must come before

knowledge, and some resulting dangers

2) what “truth” can mean

3) how “properly justified” has been

understood in the West

intro

7

1. beliefs

1.1Beliefs come before

knowledge

1. In the development

of every person

2. In situations calling

for precursive faith

3. In the form of basic

beliefs

8

1.1 Belief is Prior to Knowledge:

(1) developmentallyAs children, before we can reason, we believe

When we are first able to think for ourselves, we find ourselves floating down the river of life on a raft of beliefs we acquired as children

9

When I was a child…

“When I was a child, I

used to talk like a

child, and think like

a child, and argue

like a child, but now

I am a man, all

childish ways are

put behind me.”

-- 1 Cor. 13:11

developmentally

10


(2) practically (pragmatically)

there are situations

where, unless we

first believe, we

cannot know

William James

called this belief that

runs ahead of the

evidence,

“precursive faith”

11

1.1.2 practically Precursive Faith is

Justified When…Something

momentous is at

stake, and

The situation is

forced (putting off a

decision = deciding

NO), and

The belief is a live

possibility

12

practically Precursive faith and

getting to know a person

If we wait to trust a

person until he or

she has given us

sufficient evidence

of trustworthiness,

we‟re unlikely to get

to know anyone,

much less have

friends

13


(3) logically – basic beliefsbelief is prior to

knowledge, as

taking a shot is prior

to sinking a basket

“I believe, that I

might understand”

– Anselm

Believe what?

14

1.1.3 logically Basic Beliefs

Some beliefs are necessaryfor any knowledge to be at all possible

They are the starting pointsof thought, not conclusions one can reason to

they‟re the basic belief-forming beliefs, the operating system your mind needs in order to run all the other software

15

logically Basic Beliefs – any argument for them,

presupposes them; we simply can‟t argue without such beliefs as…

Reason is, in

principle, reliable

There is a world

external to my

senses

Other minds exist

Memory is ordinarily

reliable

16

logically Basic Beliefs defended:

they‟re protected by the Principle of Belief Conservation:

For any proposition, P: If

1. Taking a certain cognitive stance toward P(for example, believing it, rejecting it, or withholding judgment) would require rejecting or doubting a vast number of your current beliefs, and

17

logically Principle of Belief Conservation (cont‟d)

2. You have no independent positive reason to

reject or doubt all those other beliefs, and

3. You have no compelling reason to take up

that cognitive stance toward P,

Then it is more rational for you not to take that

cognitive stance toward P (yeah, this is a variation

on Ockham’s Razor)

18

logically Application:

How do you know you‟re not a brain in a vat?

If I take the cognitive

stance of belief

toward the

proposition, “I am a

brain in a vat”, then I

would have to doubt

a lot of my current

beliefs, and…

19

logically Principle of Belief Conservation, cont‟d

…I have no

independent positive

reason to doubt all

those other beliefs,

and…

I have no compelling

reason to believe “I

am a brain in a vat”;

Therefore…

20

logically Principle of Belief Conservation, cont‟d

It is more rational for

me not to believe, “I am

a brain in a vat”

Our beliefs are a raft;

the raft may need

repairs, but it can

never be rational to

destroy the whole raft

at once while out at

sea

21

1.1 Summation Belief is prior to knowledge

Developmentally (Psychologically)

Precursively (Pragmatically)

Logically (Basically)

1.2 Belief Blocks or Allows Knowledge

- Prejudice and Gullibility Blocks

- Humility Allows

22

1.2 Being prior to knowledge, beliefs

can either facilitate or impedethe acquisition of knowledge.

1.2.1 Check out Mendelson Joe – he was interviewed by the Globe and

Mail, January 22, 1999

Prejudice blocks the possibility of knowledge

23

What Joe believes…about God

“There is no more evidence there is a

God than there is a tooth fairy. God is

invented by man to divide, dominate

and control others, especially women.

Man has the need to explain and

rationalize things. In my view, there are

no answers. Life‟s a mystery.”

1.2.1 Prejudice blocks the possibility of knowledge

24

What Joe believes…about faith in God

“People have faith in a Supreme Being

because people don‟t want to take

responsibility for their lives. When it comes

to absolving oneself, the God gangs want you

to confess your sins and, as soon as you do,

you‟re absolved. This keeps the world from

taking responsibility for its actions. People

have “faith” because they don‟t have faith in

themselves.”


25

What Joe believes… about morality

“Good is relative. Good is when we live

in harmony with each other and with

nature. Good is not a religious concept,

good is only action. Altruism is the

ultimate goodness”

[Selflessness or Love]


26

What Joe believes… about people

“Most people are, to quote the Pope,

part of a flock. Sheep. People are

weak and neutral.”


27

If there were a God, would Joe‟s beliefs

permit him to know Him?

“Jesus tells of father Abraham‟s words to the rich man in hell, that if the rich man‟s brothers still on earth „do not listen to Moses and the prophets neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead‟ (Luke 16:31).

This fits in well with Jesus‟ refusal to do religious stunts or signs for those who demanded them (Mt 12:39-40).

He refused because he knew that such deeds, no matter how wondrous, would be fruitless against the false mindsets of the observers….


28

…The signs, however, could not help. Our preexisting

ideas and assumptions are precisely what determine

what we can see, hear, or otherwise observe”-- Dallas Willard, Hearing God, 1984

Some beliefs prevent the formation of

knowledge: extremes of prejudice,

suspiciousness, skepticism, paranoia


29

don’t believe everything!

Still, though we don‟t want to adopt beliefs that block the possibility of knowledge, neither do we want to adopt beliefs that fail to discriminate between what is true and what is not true

1.2.2 Gullibility or blind belief blocks the possibility of knowledge

30

don’t believe everything!

Top 10 scams extend to mutual funds, annuities By Humberto Cruz

Salt Lake Tribune, 14 February, 2004

“… the most serious and prevalent scams in 2003, which they estimate cost investors billions of dollars a year.”


31

don’t believe everything! Con artist sentenced to 14 years

FBI was outwitted as well as investors

Saturday, February 14, 2004 BY MARK MUELLER

New Jersey Star-Ledger

“Rejecting a defense lawyer's pleas for mercy, a

federal judge yesterday sentenced a mob-

connected swindler to 14 years in prison for

masterminding a sham business empire that bilked

investors out of $80 million while he served as an

FBI informant.”


32

don’t believe everything! Breatharians jailed after woman dies in

initiation St. Catharines Standard, 27/11/99

“A couple who follow the “breatharian” cult – which

claims that people can live on fresh air alone – were

jailed in Australia on Friday for the manslaughter of a

mother of nine, who died during a spiritual initiation at

their home.

Lani Morris was attempting a 21-day conversion to

breatharianism – which forbids all food, and prevents

participants from drinking liquids for the first seven

days.”


33

“Just Believe”? No.

Beliefs are

unavoidable and

necessary for

anyone who wants

to know the truth

But some beliefs are

bad, wrong,

dangerous, blind,

mistaken, or untrue!


34

Beliefs need to be tested

“Test everything. Hold on to the good.” -- 1 Thess.5:21

“At present, we are men looking at puzzling reflections in a mirror. The time will come when we shall see reality whole and face to face! At present, all I know is a little fraction of the truth, but the time will come when I shall know it as fully as God now knows me!

-- 1 Cor. 13:12

Believers

need to be

humble

1.2.3 Humility Allows the Acquisition of Knowledge

35

Humility is an epistemological virtue

If we are humbly

aware of how

little we actually

know, then we

can really begin

to learn

Love the truth

even more than

you love being

right -- Socrates

1.2.3 Humility Allows the Acquisition of Knowledge

36

2. Truthremember: knowledge is properly justified true belief

1. Could truth be

relative?

2. Truth is a map of

reality, and so …

3. Truth is Objective

4. Truth is Consistent

37

2.1 Is “truth” whatever‟s true for you?

This is the model of relativism

If it were true, no communication would be possible (neither of us would know what the other actually means)

Truth? What is

truth?

38

2.1 Is truth relative?

Many things people used to believe

was true, we now believe are not

true – for example, that evil spirits

cause epilepsy or that the earth is

flat. Therefore, different cultures

have different „truths‟.

39

2.1 Relativism is untrue

If it is true that there is no ONE TRUTH FOR

ALL, then the claim that there is no one truth

for all is not true for all. Relativism

contradicts itself.

That people have been wrong

about the truth in the past, does not

prove that there is no truth. For

example, whether people knew it or

not, the earth has always been the

third planet from the sun, and it has

never been flat.

40

2.2 Truth as Correspondence

Truth in thought is to believe of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. -- Aristotle

Truth is a map of reality. Knowledge is our possession of the map.

41

2.3 truth is

Objective

Any belief about

reality will be

either true or not

true

If the belief is

true, it is true for

everyone

A belief that is

untrue cannot be

“knowledge”

42

2.3 If truth is objective, then some beliefs can be wrong.

A belief is either true or

false, regardless of what

anyone thinks about it.

Believing that 2 + 2 = 5

does not make it so.

“It is natural for the mind to believe,

and for the will to love; so that, for want

of true objects, they must attach

themselves to false.”

-- Pascal

43

2.4 Truth is Consistent

No true belief can be contradicted by

any other true belief

Contradiction between beliefs is

ALWAYS a sign that at least one of

them is not true

44

2.5 but Consistency by itself is not

sufficient to guarantee truth

I.e., consistency is a necessary condition, but not a

sufficient condition of truth

Example: in both of these sets, the beliefs are

internally consistent, but both sets cannot be true

A

B C

D

Not-A

Not-B Not-C

Not -D

45

To sum up: Truth

1. not relative

2. map of reality – correspondence

3. objective – same for everyone; some beliefs can be wrong

4. consistent – contradiction always signals error, but

consistency by itself does not guarantee truth

46

3. Now that we‟ve touched on “belief” and “truth”,

what‟s “properly justified”? Remember: knowledge is properly justified true belief

1. Skeptic: “nothing”

2. Pre-mod: “authority”

3. Rationalist: “reason”

4. Empiricist: “senses”

5. Idealist: “ideas”

6. Post-mod: “will”

47

3.1 Skepticism argues

Neither our reason nor our

senses are completely

reliable

Beliefs about what is true

have changed - relativism

Different people have

different beliefs about what

is true - subjectivism

Therefore, all we have is

opinion, not knowledge

48

3.1. arguments against skepticism…

1. If all is doubtful, then “all is doubtful” is doubtful -- so skepticism is self-refuting

2. Skepticism implies that we must have either total certainty or total uncertainty –false dilemma

3. Where does the skeptic get his car fixed? Expertiseexists!

More…

49

4. Unless the skeptic believes he knows the meaning of his words, he cannot express his theory – communication refutes skepticism

5. If skepticism were true, then nobody could ever lie: the liar believes, “X is the case”, but says, “not-X is the case”.

To lie, one must know what one believes is the case

50

6th objection to scepticism:

doubt is dependent on knowledge.

In order to doubt, I must know…

That I exist

That I am doubting; that I don‟t know something

That a proposition is either true or not true

That I would prefer my beliefs about what is the case to correspond to the facts of what is the case

51

3.2 Pre-Modernism argues

Traditional authorities (texts or persons) reveal truth to us

So that we may conserve and transmit what has been received

“if it‟s true, it isn‟t new”

Reason, senses, and private judgment must yield to authority

Note: it’s a mentality,

not a time period:

remember Socrates,

Plato, Aristotle, and

Aquinas

52

3.2 arguments against pre-mod

1. What if authorities conflict?

2. If one assumes that the source of a belief determines its truth, isn‟t that the genetic fallacy?

3. many beliefs that

once were accepted by

authorities as true, now no

longer are

4. many truths we now

possess were once not

known by traditional

authorities

53

3.3 Modern - Rationalist

E.g., Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Method of doubt to achieve goal:

foundation of certainty

First, rule out all beliefs which are

based on the senses

Secondly, remove all beliefs which could

be part of a dream

Thirdly, reject any beliefs which could be

doubtful if there were a powerful evil

spirit intent on deceiving oneself… what‟s

left?

56

3.3 Cogito ergo sum:

“I think, therefore I am.”

Can‟t be doubted: to doubt it, you have

to exist

Even if an evil spirit were deceiving you,

there has to be a “you” for the evil spirit

to deceive

57

3.3 Is that the whole

foundation for knowledge?

No: the cogito only proves that I exist,

not that

I have a body

My senses tell me about a real world

Other minds exist

58

3.3 so what else goes into the

foundation?

Thinker examines his thoughts, for any

other clear and distinct ideas, besides

the cogito

Thinker discovers the idea of a perfect

being (without defect or limit in power,

knowledge, goodness, or any other

possible perfection)

59

How does having the idea prove

the perfect being exists?Since an effect cannot be greater than its cause [try to think of a counter-example]

Therefore the cause of the idea of perfect being must itself be perfect

Since Descartes has never experienced a perfect being

Therefore we can rule out “experience” as the cause of the idea

So Descartes must have been born with the concept of a perfect being – it‟s an innate idea

And the cause of the idea must have been a perfect being

60

O.K., so what if the perfect

being exists?A perfect being would be perfect in goodness

and power

But it would not be good to allow Descartes to

be subject to the deceit of a powerful evil

spirit

Therefore, Descartes can have back all the

beliefs he had to reject during the third stage

of his doubt; plus, most of the beliefs he had

to reject in stage two (what if I‟m dreaming?)

61

Thus, Descartes‟ modern, rationalistic epistemology depends on the existence of a perfect being who guarantees the basic reliability of Descartes‟ mental processes

A lot of thinkers have ridiculed Descartes‟ argument: let‟s take a closer look at it, and the dream hypothesis, and the fallibility of the senses before we leave Descartes behind

62

3.3 A Dialogue on

Descartes‟ Perfect BeingBryan: Descartes argues that if he has an

idea of perfection, then the cause of that idea

must be at least as great as the idea. So

there has to exist a perfect cause of the idea

of perfection.

Brenda: But there is nothing perfect about

Descartes‟ idea. His idea of perfection is not

itself perfect, any more than it is infinite or all

powerful, or all knowing.

63

Bryan: Yes, but ideas are not about

themselves. We can‟t discredit Descartes‟ idea

of perfection by saying that it is imperfect.

Brenda: Why not?

Bryan: Well, do you expect the idea of

heaviness to be heavy, or the idea of delicious

food to be delicious?

Brenda: No, that would be silly.

Bryan: Then why would you say that Descartes‟

idea of perfection has to be perfect, in order to

show that a perfect being exists?

64

Brenda: But doesn‟t there have to be a perfect

idea in Descartes‟ mind, in order for his

argument to show that there actually is a

perfect being, that is the cause of that idea?

Bryan: No. Descartes just has to be able to

say, “Look. There‟s this idea I have. It‟s an

idea of a being who has no limits, who is

perfect in every respect.

Brenda: Yes, I see that he‟s saying that.

Bryan: Now, notice that there is nothing in

Descartes‟ experience that could cause this

idea.

65

Brenda: Like a unicorn?

Bryan: No, we‟ve experienced horses and

horned creatures. Every aspect of the unicorn

has an identifiable cause in things we‟ve

experienced. But we‟ve had no experience of

perfection. Therefore, the idea of perfection

cannot have been caused by any element of

my experience.

Brenda: I think I can explain the cause of the

idea of perfection without assuming that

something perfect actually exists.

Bryan: How?

66

Brenda: Look at a line whose beginning and

end you can see. Then imagine that the line

has no beginning and no end. Thus, to arrive

at the idea of something that we‟ve never

experienced (and never could), all we have to

do is subtract something (beginnings and ends)

from what we have experienced. You‟re

probably right about the idea of unicorns: the

idea is assembled from bits and pieces of our

experience. But in the case of the idea of a

perfect being, we work by subtracting. Start

with any imperfect being, and then begin

mentally to subtract limitations, defects and

imperfections.

67

Bryan: But neither Descartes nor I, nor anyone

else who has the idea of a perfect being, is

aware of having developed the idea in the way

you describe.

Brenda: My argument doesn‟t suppose anyone

has. Its aim is to show that Descartes‟ idea of

a perfect being need not have been caused by

a perfect being.

Bryan: Do you believe that a good argument for

God‟s existence is possible?

Brenda: If it is, it won‟t come from rationalism.

Questions of real existence are empirical.

68

3.3 A Dialogue on Whether

We‟re DreamingDoubter: We can‟t know if we‟re dreaming right now, or not.

Nikki: I know I‟m not dreaming right now, because I‟ve experienced both dreaming and waking up

Doubter: How do you know that “waking up” wasn‟t part of a dream?

Nikki: You mean, while I was dreaming, I might have been dreaming that I woke up?

69

Doubter: Yes. How do you know that the one

dream (of waking) wasn‟t inside another

dream, from which you haven‟t woken up

yet?

Nikki: Ockham‟s Razor.

Doubter: Please explain.

Nikki: Suppose there are two theories to

explain my experience of “waking”. Theory

ONE says, “I was dreaming, then I woke up.”

Theory TWO says, “I was dreaming, then I

dreamt I woke up, and I still haven‟t woken up

from that second dream.”

70

Doubter: It seems that both theories

account for your experience of “waking

up”.

Nikki: But theory TWO introduces an

unnecessary entity: the second dream.

It isn‟t needed to explain what needs to

be explained – my experience of waking

up. And there‟s no facts or data to

justify the hypothesis of the second

dream.

71

Doubter: But how do you know that you aren‟t

dreaming about Ockham‟s Razor?

Nikki: Even in a dream, if reason shows an

idea to be unlikely to be true, the dreamer

must reject it in order to be reasonable.

Doubter: But reason may be mistaken.

Nikki: That possibility can never justify a

decision to be unreasonable. And so,

Ockham‟s Razor shows me that it cannot be

reasonable for me to believe that I am

dreaming right now.

72

3.3 On the Tricks Our Senses Play on

Us

The earth is rotating on its axis, once every 24 hours. Since the circumference of the earth is about 40,000 km, then at the equator, the surface of the earth is moving at 460 m per second (1,600 km/hr) –doesn‟t seem like it, though…

73

As well, earth rotates about the sun every year, at a speed of 30 km per second – that‟s 107,000 km/hr: why don‟t our senses suggest this?

Familiar distortions: train tracks that seem to converge at the horizon, things far away seem smaller than they are, a pencil put into a glass of water seems broken

74

Responses to Descartes:

1. If the senses were in principle unreliable, how

would anyone know that their sense were

unreliable? Doesn‟t any test of the senses use

the senses?

2. Can Descartes‟ epistemology survive the

failure of his argument for God‟s existence?

3. What‟s the connection between the thinking

part of Descartes and the physical part?

4. Is there evidence for “innate ideas” of any

kind?

75

3.4 Modern -- Empiricist

3.4.1 John Locke (1632-1704):

Beliefs are properly justified when

they are based upon data taken in

by the senses (“experience”)

At birth, our minds are tabula rasa

(blank slates)

All our true beliefs are derived

from information which has been

received by the senses, and

sorted & compared by our mind

76

3.4.2 David Hume (1711-1776):

Hume‟s fork: any proposition is either

ANALYTIC, A PRIORI, CERTAIN, TRIVIAL

[known, even before checking]

[true by definition]

SYNTHETIC, A POSTERIORI, PROBABLE

[known only after checking]

[true by experience]

NONSENSE = neither true by definition

nor based on observation

77

My mother is a parent;

A triangle has three sides;

My brothers are siblings

It is not the case that it is raining and not raining at

the same time

Four quarters are one dollar

Analytic propositions: the predicate adds no new information

to the subject: that‟s why they‟re certain

and trivial

78

Synthetic propositions are only

probable, since there‟s always the possibility of better

observation or disconfirmation

My mother is at home right now;

There‟s a triangle carved into my truck;

My brothers are playing cards

It‟s raining in St.Catharines

I have four quarters in my pocket

79

Nonsense propositions are neither

true by definition nor based on a specific perception

Humans have rights

God exists

The sun will rise in the east tomorrow

“A” caused “B”

80

the idea of “cause” IS NONSENSE?

Check your sense data: you find…

One thing happens beforeanother

One thing touches another

But, you‟ll never observe a necessary connectionbetween one event and another.

When we say, A causes

B, we‟re really only

reporting our expectation

81

THIS IS KNOWN AS THE “Problem of

Induction”

Even if A was followed by B

innumerable times in the past, that does

not justify our claim to know that it will

do so again in the future

What makes us so certain that the

future will behave like the past? If we

answer, “Because it has always done

so,” we are begging the question.

82

But Hume had a bigger problem:

According to Hume‟s epistemology, what‟s the proper category for his proposition, “All propositions are either analytic, synthetic, or nonsense”?

It‟s not analytic (true by def.)

It‟s not synthetic (nobody‟s observed “all”)

Ergo, if Hume‟s epistemology is correct, then it must be nonsense (not correct)

83

Quick Recap of the Moderns:

Descartes the rationalist found he needed God to guarantee the reliability of his reason, from which came all knowledge

Locke the empiricist thought he could trace all knowledge back to sensory impressions

Hume took empiricism to its logical conclusion, and ended up in nonsense

84

3.5 modern - Idealist

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

There is such a thing as a

SYNTHETIC A PRIORI

truth, a meaningful

statement about reality

whose truth is known

independently of

observation

85

3.5 Idealist

The empiricists were right: we never

perceive time, only sense data; we

never perceive space, only sense data

Space and time are not sense data, but

the synthetic a priori foundations of all

our perceptions

86

An a posteriori sentence like, “The cat is on the mat,” presupposes the truth of the sentence,

“Objects exist in time and space”.

that‟s neither analytic, nor a posteriori, so it must be synthetic and a priori

87

Kant asked,

“What are the

necessary conditions

for perception to be

possible?” and concluded that time and space

were not features of external reality, but

features of the structure of the mind

The mind analyzes the data it receives in

terms of space and time.

Space and time are the “irremovable goggles”

through which we perceive the world

88

“How is knowledge of the world possible?”

asked Kant. It is based on a synthetic a

priori foundation -- the categories of

understanding – including

UNITY/PLURALITY/TOTALITY

CAUSALITY

The mind is structured in such a way that it

analyzes its data in terms of a particular set of

synthetic a priori rules – sort of like a

permanent program in a computer, which

produces ideas when fed information by the

senses

89

How we form ideas, according to Kant

90

Kant agrees with the rationalists that sense data

alone could not provide knowledge

Kant agrees with the empiricists that there could be

no knowledge without sense data

But Kant claims we can only know the

way things appear AFTER our mind has

processed/interpreted incoming data =

phenomenal world

We can‟t (Kant) know ultimate reality as

it actually is = noumenal world

91

Our knowledge is limited to the phenomenal (interpreted) world; we can‟t know the noumenal

Kant assumed that every sane and healthy mind uses the same grid of space and time and the same categories of understanding: so agreement and growth in knowledge about the phenomenal world is possible – i.e., science

92

Quick recap: moderns

Before Kant After Kant

93

Rationalists, Empiricists, Idealists

Before Kant

Reason and observation show us the way the world is – we can know it if we‟re careful; knowledge is same for all sane people

Kant is the hinge on which modern epistemology turns into something else

94

After Kant

We can only know our

interpretations of the world,

never the world itself

Our beliefs don‟t correspond

to the way the world ultimately

is, but to the way our minds

are structured

Nothing & nobody can get

through my interpretive grid

Why assume that there is a

“right” way to interpret

incoming data?

One kind of

reaction to Kant‟s

idea

We only know our

interpretations, eh?

Another kind of

reaction to

Kant‟s idea

92

96

gratuitous

cow

cartoon

97

3.6 Post-modernism (a completely unbiased account)

Authority of

reason/observation

is eclipsed by the

power of the will

The proper

justification of

belief is my

decision to

believe it

98

Post-modernism

Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

An irrational force runs

through all things

It is a force of violence and lust, but it is

cunning, concealing from us its true nature.

It motivates us, and shows us what it wants us

to see.

Only classical music can tame it for a while.

99

Post-modernism

Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

We must take a leap of faith.

Faced with life‟s most important choices, we

will never know enough to be sure we‟re

making the right choice

We have to choose: when we leap into the

darkness, over the abyss, there are no

guarantees we‟ll reach the other side, or be

happy with what we find there

100

Post-modernism

Nietzsche(1844-1900)

Will to power. All claims to

know are attempts to

impose one‟s will on others

It is the nature of the strong to impose their

will, their interpretations, on the weak.

Might makes right: the belief of the strongest

will prevail

101

Post-modernism

Marx(1818-1883)

Up to now, philosophers

have only interpreted

the world in various

ways; the point is to

change it. Stop

analysing – seize power

and make the revolution

happen.Just do it.

102

Post-modernism

James(1842-1910)

Pragmatism claims that the only justification a

belief requires is that it seems to work for the

person who holds it.

The truth of a belief (or its “cash value”) is the

practical difference it makes to the life of the

person who believes it

What‟s true for one person certainly needn‟t be

true for another

Pierce (1839-1914)

103

Recap: Post-mod.My interpretation of the

world may be based

on unconscious

drives of lust and

aggression; the will to

power, to dominate

others; a blind leap of

faith, or whatever

works.

Truth claims are either subjective (“true for me”), or

suspicious (motivated by personal agenda, class,

gender, conditioning, desire).

the heavy overview of epistemology

Documents