PHILOSOPHY - 1
Faculty Name:
Cdr Anand Kumar
PHILOSOPHY - 1
BA LLB-2ND YEAR: SEM IV
PHILOSOPHY - 1
Module – V
Axiology/ Theory
of Morals
Module – III
Metaphysics/
Reality
Module – IV
Epistemology/
Nature of
Module – I Knowledge
Module – II
Philosophy
Methods of
Philosophy
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Introduction to Philosophy – GTW Patrick
Types of Philosophy – William Ernest Hacking
History of Philosophy – Frank Thilly
An introduction to Philosophical Analysis – John Hospers
Research materials – Pdf from open sources (which I will discuss and share)
PHILOSOPHY
Types of Justification?
knowledge
How to
categorize
What is Knowledge?
What is meant Conceptual
by analysis?
Epistemology?
MODULE – IV : INTRODUCTION
➢ Epistemology is the field within philosophy that focuses on questions about the nature
and extent of human knowledge
➢ The word epistemology is derived from the Greek words
❖ ‘episteme’ meaning “knowledge,”
❖ and logos, meaning “explanation”
❖ and translated in suffix form (-logia) as “the study of”
➢ Hence, epistemology is the study of knowledge
➢ Epistemology focuses on what knowledge is as well as what types of knowledge there are
MODULE – IV : INTRODUCTION
➢ Because knowledge is a complex concept, epistemology also includes the study of
❖ the possibility of justification,
❖ the sources and nature of justification
❖ the sources of beliefs,
❖ and the nature of truth
➢ The tools used in epistemological investigation:
❖ arguments,
❖ conceptual analysis
❖ counterexamples
❖ and research
➢ One of the main questions within epistemology pertains to the nature of the concepts of
knowledge, justification, and truth
CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS & COUNTEREXAMPLES
➢ Conceptual analysis is an important element of doing philosophy, particularly
epistemology
➢ When doing conceptual analysis, theorists actively endeavor to come up with
counterexamples to proposed definitions
➢ A counterexample is a case that illustrates that a statement, definition, or argument is
flawed
➢ For example, a theorist could contend that ‘certainty’ is a necessary component of
knowledge
➢ if a person were not completely certain of a belief, then they could not be said to know
the belief, even if the belief were true
➢ To argue against this “certainty” theory, another philosopher could offer examples of true
beliefs that aren’t quite certain but are nevertheless considered to be knowledge
PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS
I believe this
because I can Is it
see the bird and possible that I am wrong?
I trust my vision.
Yes. I could be But let’s grant that there is
hallucinating, or indeed a real bird on the
the so-called branch and its true right
I think that bird may be a now.
there’s a decoy
bird on a branch
in the 4th floor
garden. If yes, then the “certainty” thesis Can I say that I
is flawed know there is a
bird on the
branch
Certainty is not necessary
to have knowledge
ARGUMENTS
➢ As with all areas of philosophy, epistemology relies on the use of argumentation
➢ As explained in the chapter on logic and reasoning, argumentation involves offering
reasons in support of a conclusion
➢ The aforementioned counterexample method is a type of argumentation, the aim of
which is to prove that an analysis or definition is flawed
Testimonial injustice occurs when the opinions of
individuals/groups are unfairly ignored or treated as untrustworthy
If the testimony of women in criminal court cases is less likely to
be believed than that of men, then this is unfair
So, if the testimony of women in criminal court cases is less
likely to be believed than that of men, this is a case of
testimonial injustice
ARGUMENTS
➢ The above argument
➢ As with all areas of philosophy, epistemology relies onlinks
thethe
usegeneral concept of testimonial
of argumentation
➢ As explained in the chapter on logic injustice to a specific possible real-world scenario:
and reasoning, argumentation involves offering
➢ Women being treated as less believable by a jury
reasons in support of a conclusion➢ If women are considered less believable
➢ The aforementioned counterexample ➢ thenmethod is a type of argumentation, the aim of
it is problematic
which is to prove that an analysis or definition is flawed.
Testimonial injustice occurs when the opinions of
individuals/groups are unfairly ignored or treated as untrustworthy
If the testimony of women in criminal court cases is less likely to
be believed than that of men, then this is unfair
So, if the testimony of women in criminal court cases is less
likely to be believed than that of men, this is a case of
testimonial injustice
RESEARCH
➢ The previous argument does not say that women are in fact considered less believable
➢ To establish this thesis, we can offer further arguments
➢ Often, arguments utilize empirical research
➢ If a theorist can find studies that indicate that women are treated less seriously than men in
general, then they can argue that this attitude would extend to the courtroom
➢ Philosophers often search for and utilize research from other areas of study
➢ Epistemologists may use research from psychology, sociology, economics, medicine, or criminal
justice
➢ In the research, the goal is to accurately describe trends and phenomena
➢ And this is where philosophy differs from the sciences—for epistemology, the goal is not only to
describe but also to prescribe
➢ Philosophers can argue that unjustifiably discounting the opinions of groups is bad and to be
avoided
➢ Hence, epistemology is a normative discipline
BREAK
KNOWLEDGE
➢ The concept of knowledge is so central to epistemological theorizing, it is necessary to
briefly discuss knowledge before proceeding
➢ Knowledge enjoys a special status among beliefs and mental states
➢ To say that a person knows something directly implies that the person is not wrong, so
knowledge implies truth
➢ But knowledge is more than just truth
➢ Knowledge also implies effort—that the person who has knowledge did more than just
form a belief; they somehow earned it
➢ In epistemology, this is understood as justification
TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE
➢ Propositional knowledge is knowledge of propositions or statements
➢ A proposition or statement is a declarative sentence with a truth value—that is, a
➢ sentence that is either true or false
➢ If one knows a statement, that means that the statement is true.
➢ And true statements about the world are usually called facts
➢ Hence, propositional knowledge is best thought of as knowledge of facts.
➢ Facts about the world are infinite
❖ It is a fact that the square root of 9 is 3
❖ It is a fact that Earth is round
TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE
➢ Procedural knowledge is best understood as know-how
➢ Procedural knowledge involves the ability to perform some task successfully
➢ While a person may know that a bicycle stays erect using centrifugal force and forward
momentum caused by peddling, and that the forces of friction and air resistance will affect
their speed
➢ This does not mean that they know how to ride a bicycle
➢ Having propositional knowledge concerning a task does not guarantee that one has
procedural knowledge of that task
TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE
➢ Knowledge by acquaintance is knowledge gained from direct experience
➢ A person knows something by acquaintance when they are directly aware of that thing
➢ This awareness comes from direct perception using one’s senses
➢ For example, I have knowledge by acquaintance of pain when I am in pain
➢ I am directly aware of the pain, so I cannot be mistaken about the existence of the pain
TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE
JUSTIFICATION
➢ First, justification makes beliefs more likely to be true
➢ When we think we are justified in believing something, we think we have reason to
believe it is true
➢ Second, justification does not always guarantee truth
➢ Justification makes beliefs more likely to be true, which implies that justified beliefs could
still be false
➢ perception can be used as a source of justification
➢ Perception includes the information received from the senses (smell, taste, touch, sight,
hearing)
➢ People often automatically form beliefs based on perception
JUSTIFICATION
BREAK
EMPIRICISM & RATIONALISM
➢ All the knowledge was derived from sense experience
➢ One version of a traditional epistemological theory called empiricism says that all
concepts are in some way derived from experience
➢ Rationalism, by contrast, says that not all concepts need be thus derived
➢ Some concepts may be "built into" our brains so that we need to have no examples of
them in our sense-experience to have the concept
➢ Perhaps the concept of God is one of these; then we can have the concept of God without
having had any sense-experiences at all
EMPIRICISM & RATIONALISM
➢ Empiricists would say that the idea of God is a complex idea, combining the idea of a
person or personhood, with that of great power and benevolence, and that we can have
such an idea whether the object exists or not
➢ Perhaps other concepts, such as that of causation, are "wired into" us and don't need any
basis in sensory experience
➢ In any case, there are other issues of greater importance to the terms "rationalism"
PRAGMATISM
➢ Pragmatism emerged at the end of the 19th century as the most original contribution of
American thought
➢ This theory was first developed by Charles pierce in 1857 in his paper, "How to make our
Ideas clear“
➢ William James revived and reformulated it in 1898 and developed it not as a method, but
primarily as the theory of truth
➢ Pragmatism mediates between Empiricism and Rationalism, Combining all its significant
aspects
➢ It unifies the realms of fact and value, making it possible to utilize both science and
philosophy coherently and creatively
➢ The term pragmatism is derived from the Greek word 'Pragma' meaning action, from which
our words ‘practice’ and 'practical' come
PRAGMATISM
➢ It stands for the experimental attitude to truth, characterized by an emphasis on activity
➢ The existence of an object is judged by its function. 'A thing is what it does’
➢ That means the workability of an idea determines its truth
➢ For example, the meaning of electricity consists in what electricity does
➢ We experience the presence of electricity not by looking at it, but by its effects
➢ Thus, any belief or idea is true only when it produces the expected result
➢ Pragmatism is a philosophical system stressing practical consequences and values as
standards by which the validity of the concepts are to be determined
➢ 'Things are what they are experienced as being or that to give a just account of anything is
to tell what that thing is experienced to be, is the essence of pragmatism
TRUTH
➢ As varieties of rational inquiry, it’s natural to think that science and philosophy are mainly
concerned with getting at the truth about things
➢ There are some interesting and some confused challenges to the idea that philosophy and
science are truth oriented
➢ But for now let’s assume that rational inquiry is truth oriented and address a couple of
questions about truth
➢ Let’s focus on just these two:
❖ What is it for a claim to be true?
❖ How do we determine that a claim is true?
TRUTH
➢ Let’s focus on just these two:
❖ What is it for a claim to be true?
❖ How do we determine that a claim is true?
➢ It’s important to keep these two questions separate
➢ The truth of a claim is quite independent of how or whether we know it to be true
➢ If you are not sure about this, consider the claim that there is intelligent life on other
planets and the claim that there is no intelligent life on other planets
➢ Let’s assume we don’t know which of these two claims is true, but surely one of them is
➢ Whichever of these claims is true, its being true doesn’t depend in any way on whether or
how we know it to be true
TRUTH
➢ There are many truths that will never be known or believed by anyone, and appreciating
this is enough to see that the truth of a claim is not relative to belief, knowledge, proof, or
any other epistemic notion
➢ But then what is it for a claim to be true?
➢ The ordinary everyday notion of truth would have it that a claim is true if the world is the
way the claim says it is
➢ And this is pretty much all we are after
➢ When we make a claim, we represent some part of the world as being a certain way
➢ If how my claim represents the world fits with the way the world is, then my claim is true
➢ Truth, then, is correspondence, or good fit, between what we assert and the way things
are
DISCUSSIONS !!!
Q & A !!!
THANK YOU ALL
