Blog 4: Essay

 Abby Summerlin

Professor Amy Glaser 

Philosophy 205 - 006

2nd October, 2022 

The Three Beliefs of Epistemology 

  In Ultimate Questions Chapter 3, we go over the different stances on finding true knowledge and whether one can know it or not. We have Skepticism, which believes one cannot know anything; Empiricism, which believes that knowledge is based solely on how one perceives things; and Rationalism, which believes knowledge is based on reason over actions. Each has arguments that have been argued over many years, and each has its own unique set of qualities I plan to explore in this essay. 

  Skepticism is the belief that you can't truly know anything. This is famously argued by Descartes's Dream Argument, which in summary, is the argument that since we can't prove that we aren't dreaming currently, then we can't filter between what's real and what dream. This would mean we couldn't know anything at all. While Descartes later disproved his own theory with his Cogito, "I think therefore I exist," this argument is still a very famously used stance in the world of Skepticism.

   Next, Empiricism is the belief that knowledge is based on experiences. Since I see my plant, my plant, therefore, must exist. There are a few different subcultures of Empiricism, such as Naïve Realism, Indirect Realism, and Idealism. Naïve Realism is simply the concept that if you see something, then you simply see that object; the concept is that everything is as it seems. Indirect Realism is that everyone may see something different or our minds are making objects up, the opposite of Naïve Realism as not everything is as it seems. Idealism is separate as it views the world as a separate entity and views everything as something solely in your mind. Empiricism is the concept that objects and examination are how to view epistemology.

   Finally, Rationalism is the complete opposite of Empiricism as it believes that knowledge is based on reason and experiences don't matter. Many Rationalists will use mathematical truth as an example of Rationalism since instead of experiences teaching us the depths of math; it's our own brains teaching us the understanding of mathematics. Rationalism is thoughts and knowledge that come naturally to us, without having to touch or feel something in order to prove it, which is why numbers are so commonly used in Rationalism theory as it is impossible to touch or feel a number, yet we have knowledge of the significance of the said number.

   Overall, I believe myself to be an Empiricist as I think knowledge is based on experiences that can be found using most of the five scenes. While I'm not a hundred percent sure what subculture of  Empiricism I would fall under, I find Naïve Realism the most appealing and honest to my beliefs as of now. I believe that if I see an apple, then that is, in fact, what is there, and that is what exists. If it can't be touched or seen, then there is no proof that it could be true or not; therefore, it has no significance to true knowledge. However, I do find it interesting how others view epistemology. 

  I think the concept of knowledge is so broad that it can be complicated to determine how to study it so honestly. Knowledge must be believed, but it is not the sole evidence, and it must be true. While this allows for some guidelines, it still leaves the door open for multiple interpretations. This is why the three beliefs I've mentioned formed to define how to have true knowledge, but what if someone is in between? Does that mean they can't find true knowledge because they can't determine if they are Rationalist or Empiricists? There should be a fourth belief that allows knowledge to be split between two theories at a time. What if someone believes in Rationalism for certain circumstances and Empiricism in others? To better understand and find true knowledge, one must be able to see something while also using reason to determine the truth. You can't see the number three, but you can see three boxes on the table; therefore, if another set of boxes sat beside them and it was only two, you could visibly see that three boxes are more than two. This follows the same reason that we know the number three is bigger than two. This allows Empiricism and Rationalism to overlap, which could be considered finding true knowledge.

    Many would argue that since Empiricism and Rationalism are two sides of the spectrum, they can't overlap, but since Empiricism focuses on our five scenes specifically, and Rationalism focuses on our reasoning, therefore, they must overlap because reasoning is needed to understand our five scenes. Without reasoning, we wouldn't be able to understand the coffee cup sitting in front of us even if we can see it because seeing is only valid if reasoning allows it to be so. Reasoning allows the scenes to function appropriately, which would mean Empiricism and Rationalism are two sides of the same coin.

   While my theory may have many holes, and I'm no Philosopher, I find the three beliefs of epistemology fascinating. How can one find true knowledge, and once we find it, how do we know it's true? It's a simple question yet more complicated than many things we study in other subjects. Overall, the study of epistemology and Chapter 3 of Ultimate Chapter is a great class read that many that are interested in Philosophy should read.

Work Cited 

Ultimate Questions: Thinking About Philosophy, 3rd Edition, by Nils Ch. Rauhut. Prentice Hall, 2011. Braiding Sweetgrass, by Robin Kimmerer. Milkweed Editions, 2015.