13. Problem of the philosophers part 1: epistemological flaw

 13. Problem of the philosophers part 1: epistemological flaw

Ignoring and doubting the rational procedure when establishing sound knowledge.

Philosophers like to establish the basis of knowledge that they can be sure of – a branch of philosophy known as epistemology. This would provide the building blocks of establishing certainty of God’s existence, so if you doubt the method of knowledge or tools that you use to establish God’s existence then that would mean you could doubt God himself (the conclusion based on your method of knowledge).

There are many views on this topic that the philosophers had over the ages from Plato’s claims that our experience of the world is no more than shadows and that the true reality lies beyond these shadows, to Descarte’s doubt of everything except his own existence. From the  empiricists, to the idealists, to the skeptics – all with different views of knowledge. Even in the Islamic world many philosophers who started to dabble with the translated works of the ancient philosophers started to also get affected with these ideas and fall into circles of confusion because of a lack of a clear basis of thinking of these matters.

 One of the reasons for these many views is the use of hypothetical “thought experiments” which leaves the discussion open to any imaginable scenario. The problem with these discussions and the methods of thought experiments is that they are not necessarily based on reality. So as an example there is Descarte’s ‘clever demon’ scenario where he imagines a demon  has convinced him of the reality around him which does not exist but which is really a dream. Likewise in the Islamic world philosophers would use these thought experiments not grounded in reality to make a case for their point such as the famous ‘floating man’ of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) to argue for the existence of the soul.

Because these thought experiments are not based on the real world that we can sense (e.g. a demon that makes us dream, a floating man etc.) then the conclusions that are derived are open to many routes that the imagination can come out with. The author of these thought experiments will only naturally focus on the route they wish to take in order to prove their point. However even in the presuppositions that are made there will still be different interpretations or routes that you could take to interpret the discussion. For example, Descarte’s thought experiment that a demon that controls us is making us think that we are alive and that 2+3=5,  where in fact we are dreaming and that this controlling demon is making us think that we are conscious and that really 2+3= 6! He then argues that God must be true because God implanted this idea within our thinking. However it  could be argued (and has been)  according to his same parameters that it was the same demon that made us believe in this untrue idea of God!

The biggest problem is that there is no grounding for the assumptions that are taken in these thought experiments. If what  is taken as an assumption has no truth to it then what is built upon it will also have no truth. However the assumptions in these thought experiments are not  grounded in reality. So for instance the assumption of Descarte’s thought experiment above (where he assumes that we are really dreaming and a demon controlling us is making us think we are alive)  does not agree with what   we know and sense between the difference of our conscious state and our sleep dream state. So if you were dreaming right now why aren’t  you being chased by lions and flying away from them (as you might do in a dream)? Why isn’t your long dead relative making an appearance and sitting next to you? Why are  those things that happen to us in our dreams not happening to us now?

As mentioned earlier, the framework of knowledge is important otherwise anything can be claimed! Not one of these philosophers could deny to live within their sensed realities- that has to be the basis upon which we build our knowledge- otherwise why do we refer to it when it comes to everyday living? You would not survive very long in this world if you denied the reality of the world. If you decided to exit a room through the wall instead of the door you would find your bones broken! Actually, one philosopher by the name of Pyrrho’s philosophical lack of trust in his senses led him to ignore cliffs, oncoming wagons and dangerous dogs, and  his friends had to follow him around to protect him from these various everyday hazards. (Note: Pyrrho’s philosophical stance that ‘no knowledge is definite and therefore to be trusted’ is argued to be self-contradictory, for this life premise to him was definite and trusted knowledge!)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

5. So where did life come from?

  Where did I come from? Is there a creator? When we study the reality around us (i.e. anything we sense within the universe) we will come to know that nothing has the quality or characteristic of being able to create either itself or other things. What is meant by ‘create’ is to bring into existence from nothing, rather than just a manipulation of form from already existing things. For example, making a can from metal extracted from the ore that already exists in rocks is not considered as creating a can in our strict sense here- but rather making a can. So even when a child is born- it was not that he came from nothing, but he grew from his parent’s cells and then that fertilised cell kept on absorbing nutrients from its mother and then from the environment until it grew to its size. We cannot observe anything within our universe creating itself or other objects from nothing even the smallest speck of sand or sub-atomic particle has never been observed to appear from nothing ou...
Read more

16. Modern day philosophers: Mathematicians trying to unravel infinity

Image
  15. Modern day philosophers: Mathematicians trying to unravel infinity   Unsurprisingly, this is also the same sort of confusion that arises amongst the modern day philosophers of mathematics when trying to unravel the nature of Infinity. When mathematicians try to make a formula to represent the idea of the unlimited or the concept of ‘infinity’ then it starts to go against our common sense understanding of reality. This is because it is mathematically and scientifically impossible to measure anything infinite in our limited lifespans as any measurement we make that seems very large (and infinite)  could actually mean that the data is just very large (larger than our lifespans) rather than infinite. So for example if a scientist wanted to send a probe/light ray to the end of the universe in order to time its return (and therefore its distance that it has traveled) but does not get a response in his lifetime- could the successive scientist (as the first one has passed a...
Read more

10. A miracle for all peoples and time

  How can a non-Arabic speaker know the miracle exists as it is in a different language? A person does not need to be an Arab (i.e. one who speaks and comprehends Arabic), for though the miracle of the Qur'an is related to the Arabic language, the proof is based upon a rational evaluation of this miracle. Therefore there is no blind imitation (taqleed) in the belief, and neither is it a transmitted (naqli) evidence. Rather it is a rational (aqli) evidence. Also as mentioned already, even the lay person Arabic speaker may not be able to appreciate the miracle in the same way the learned person in the Arabic language would. To briefly explain: the principle of the proof that the Quran is from God alone is an evaluation that takes place at the point of origin of the Quran. This is so, since it is at the point of its origin that the question is raised, 'what/who is the source and origin of the Quran?' It makes no rational sense to evaluate it 1400 years later at year 2020, in l...
Read more