The problem of Being and Gnoseology What kind of thinker are you? Part 2

  • 2019
Table of contents hide 1 Dogmatism in Gnoseology 2 Skepticism in the theory of knowledge 3 Variants of skepticism in Gnoseology: Subjectivism and relativism 4 Pragmatism in the theory of knowledge 5 Gnoseological criticism

In this delivery on the problem of being and gnoseology, we will deal with the possibility of knowledge.

Since Being is never univocal but wrong; It expresses itself in many ways . Therefore it is not known in itself, but through its relations with human thought and with other entities.

First, we must remember that to philosophize about any metaphysical object or experience; given as an expression of the entity, be called an angel, a demon, an astral journey, magical experiences, the ouija, astrology, etc., it is convenient to examine its nature from an philosophical perspective or posture .

You can also read: Ontology: definition, authors and examples, a basic approach to Philosophy

Dogmatism in Gnoseology

In this installment on the problem of being and gnoseology, we will deal with the possibility of knowledge ...

Dogmatism is in gnoseology, the position that indicates that the truth already exists beforehand, and that we can gain access to it without much difficulty .

A person may have this position (and it is valid for her), but this position does not imply a problem in gnoseology as such.

For example, a believer will be 100% of the existence of God, and that the church has the truth. He would also deny experiences that may exist since his fixed belief or doctrine (hence the word dogma) would prevent him from seeing beyond his nose. Or a person could blindly believe in the existence of demons without examining that belief.

For the dogmatic, the problem between the subject and the cognitive object does not exist and is deceived in the appearances of the world and believes that what is perceived by its senses is the only possible reality .

Consequently, the dogmatic ignores the values ​​of the world and its own processes as a function of a cognitive conscience.

As you can see, in this position, the person does not care much about how knowledge is born, that there is beyond death, and can live his life without much examination. Himself.

It is a being alienated by another (be they institutions, the senses or a belief that things are as they are) that lives in a cave.

Skepticism in the theory of knowledge

On the contrary, in gnoseology, the opposite of dogmatism is skepticism. If for the dogmatic the knowledge of the being was directly by the senses and the objects, the skeptic will deny that the relation of subject and object exists .

A person with this perspective would affirm that nothing exists, or if it exists it could not be known .

One of the Greek thinkers with this perspective is Pirrón de Elis and the sophist Protágoras . A skeptic will not focus much on the object of the world, but on the subjectivity itself.

He may believe that everything is a dream, and that nothing is real, that being is an illusion.

A skeptical person will doubt much of everything, but his doubt will not be like that of Descartes (who sought through it a principle or criterion of truth to found knowledge). It can be a person who has many doubts in his actions.

A skeptic could say that things cannot be known, this would be an absolute or logical skeptic .

There may be others who claim that it is likely to know some things. A person can say that " everything is relative " or that " nothing can be known " but, in saying this, they do not realize that they annul themselves, since their judgment becomes an epistemological principle.

Variants of skepticism in Gnoseology: Subjectivism and relativism

Dogmatism is in gnoseology, the position that indicates that the truth already exists beforehand, and that we can gain access to it without much difficulty.

As you have to intuit, skepticism is related to subjectivism and relativism . For these last two there are no absolute truths but partial truths, and they are valid only for the subject. Well, Protagoras said:

"Man is the measure of all things, those that are as they are, and those that are not as they are not."

In subjectivism a reductionism of the world is made to the psychic apparatus of the subject that issues a judgment. In this way you can express the deist stance and say that " all truth is subjective ."

For a relativist, the validity of knowledge does not depend on the psychic apparatus, but on the external environment.

Thus a relativist can assume an agnostic position of the phenomena, that is, God or an angel or a paranormal phenomenon may or may not exist, until proven otherwise.

Pragmatism in the theory of knowledge

One of the striking positions in gnoseology is undoubtedly pragmatism. Here it is possible to give a testable hypothesis of the existence of the soul, following Spinoza's concepts . But first let's address what it is about

Pragmatism is the philosophical position that similar to skepticism leaves aside the criterion of truth that there must be agreement between the thing and the thought. For a pragmatist it doesn't matter much if a thing is true or not, but the utility that was given to her.

An example of this is in the great masters, they started that the human being in essence is will, and through the action one arrives at a well-being and a communion with God . For example to Jesus Christ when he tells his disciples:

15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inside are raptors.

16 By their fruits you will know them . Are grapes picked from the thorns, or figs from the briers?

17 Thus, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit (Lk. 6.43-44)

In that metaphor of the great master Jesus the Christ, the fundamental maxim of pragmatism is expressed according to CS Peirce in which the idea of ​​a thing is not more I know the idea of ​​its sensitive effects .

Having seen the above, it is appropriate to bring a definition of the Soul given by Spinoza (1677) who affirms that the soul is the idea of ​​the existing body in act and then adds:

The human soul does not know the human body itself, nor does it know that it exists, but by the ideas of the conditions of which the body is affected (proposition XIX, part II, p.144) ... The soul does not know itself except in How much do you perceive the ideas of body conditions? (Proposition XXIII, Part II, p.147)

In this way, it is observed that the human soul has a practical sense, oriented to experience reality in various ways, through feelings and volitions and as they are articulated in the idea of ​​self, for a psycho-physical well-being, since repression and inhibition of feelings as well as stress affect the production of some symptoms.

Gnoseological criticism

Its name comes from the Greek " κρινω " (Krino) which means to examine, know or separate. It is a gnoseological position that seeks to reconcile the previous ones to give a more accurate or adequate knowledge. Share with dogmatism the confidence that knowledge exists, but not blindly.

At the same time, he shares with skepticism, that not everything should be taken as evident to the naked eye, and that it should be examined from reason, asking about the condition of possibility of objects and things that appear before consciousness.

A person with this position will be thoughtful, critical, and will be an excellent seeker of truth. Hessen (2006) points out that:

Criticism is that method of philosophizing that consists in investigating the sources of their own affirmations and objections and the reasons on which they rest, a method that gives the hope of reaching certainty. (p. 48)

In this way, this position invites to be someone with an intermediate attitude, and examining the judgments and knowledge invites to verify the certainty of the reasons on which any phenomenon (call angel, demon, a seer) rests.

In summary, the possibility of knowledge in gnoseology for a dogmatic, is given in advance, there would be no problem for him. On the other hand, for a skeptic (or its variants) a universal validity of knowledge would not be possible or would not even exist, and everything would be relative according to each subjectivity.

On the other hand, for a pragmatist, it makes little sense to ask about the validity of knowledge but about its usefulness, and its practical ethicity. And for a criticist it is possible to arrive at a perfectible knowledge examining its bases and the conditions that enable any given experience or phenomenon.

As you have to intuit, in a next installment we will talk about the origin of human knowledge.

Author: Kevin Samir Parra Rueda, Editor in the Great Family of hermandadblanca.org

References:

  • Hessen, J. (2006). Theory of knowledge Bogotá, Colombia: Modern graphics.
  • Peirce, C. (1878, tr. 1988). How to clarify our ideas. Charles S. Peirce. The man, a sign (Peirce's pragmatism), José Vericat (trad., Intr. And notes). Barcelona, ​​Spain: Criticism. 1988, pp. 200-223
  • Spinoza, B. (1677. tr. 1987). Ethics demonstrated according to geometric order . Madrid, Spain: Editorial Alliance. 7th reprint, 2009
  • The Bible, Reina Valera (1960). You will know them by their fruits. Matthew 7: 15-20 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mateo+7%3A15-20&version=RVR1960

Next Article