[Agarwal et. al., Vol.5 (Iss.

11): November, 2017] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1068217

Social

KNOWING “KNOWLEDGE” AND “TO KNOW”: AN OVERVIEW OF

CONCEPTS

Abhishek Agarwal *1
*1
Department of Psychology, Christ University, Bengaluru, India

Abstract
Knowledge is a topic, widely discussed both in philosophy and in everyday life of a common
man who is not aware of its principles and existing connotations. This paper attempts to explain
“knowledge”, significance of “Knowing” by incorporating diverse interdisciplinary,
multicultural perspectives on understanding of “Knowledge” and its concepts that we experience
“knowingly or unknowingly”. It involves a discussion on wisdom-knowledge interaction, their
differences and interdependence; reality and its manifestations in various aspects that talks about
the nature of reality in general as a concept; and a brief essay on unexplained mystery of
“Sampurna gyana” (meaning complete knowledge) and “Sarwagya” (person who knows
everything) trying to understand it’s possibility in a world of infinite possibilities.

Keywords: Knowledge; Epistemology; Philosophy.

Cite This Article: Abhishek Agarwal. (2017). “KNOWING “KNOWLEDGE” AND “TO
KNOW”: AN OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTS.” International Journal of Research -
Granthaalayah, 5(11), 86-94. [Link]

1. Introduction

1.1. An Introduction To Knowledge

All of us hear and use the word "knowledge", but do we actually "know" what "knowledge" is?
Can you define "knowledge"? Are you thinking of a "statement" or a "sentence" to describe
"knowledge"? However, did you know that According to Hintikka (1962), "a statement is the act
of uttering, writing, or otherwise expressing a declarative sentence; a sentence is the form of
words which is uttered or written when a statement is made". So, if you are trying to explain
"knowledge" with your "knowledge" of words or the ability to express, isn't it a paradox or some
sort of circular argument? Is it not similar to describe the whole concept of mathematics with a
few numbers or digits? Have you asked yourself that is it the fact of you "knowing" a proposition
is "knowledge" or the proposition itself is the "knowledge", or is it that "fact" of you "knowing"
it, is the knowledge? Here arises a complex loop with varied answers where all seem to be
correct. But then what is knowledge actually?

Http://[Link] ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [86]

[Agarwal et. al., Vol.5 (Iss.11): November, 2017] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1068217
In the book "Epistemology or Theory of Knowledge" (P. Coffey) knowledge is said to be "sui
generis" meaning it cannot be defined properly/sufficiently/adequately/convincingly by anything
other than itself. "Knowledge" after decades of researches and debates in the same [since the
time of Plato (423/428 BC-438/437 BC) till present day including contribution of, Michel de
Montaigne (1533-1592), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), B. Pascal (1623-1662), D. Hume (1711-
1776), I. Kant (1724-1804), F. W. Nietzsche (1844-1900), E. Gettier (1927) etc. and the
postulates, teachings of the great spiritual leaders and philosophers such as Buddha, Confucius
(etc. ) were of immense importance to explain the same] has been explained as "justified true
belief". Knowledge is the "awareness" and "understanding" of particular aspects of "reality", the
approach is that knowledge requires three necessary and sufficient conditions, so that knowledge
can then be defined as "justified true belief":

Truth: since false propositions cannot be known - for something to count as knowledge, it must
actually be true. As famously Aristotle (but rather confusingly) expressed it: "To say of
something which is that it is not, or to say something which is not that it is, is false. However, to
say something which is that it is, or of something which is not that it is not, is true. "
Belief: because one cannot know something that one doesn't even believe in, the statement "I
know x, but I don't believe that x is true" is contradictory.

Justification: as opposed to believing in something purely as a matter of luck.

The knowledge yielding conditions manifest both externally (as in knowledge of objects,
subjects, environment, semantics etc.) and internally (as in spiritual knowledge, knowing
emotions, thoughts, etc.) (By "Externalism" and "internalism") i.e. in the facts existing outside
the mental ability of an individual that justifies/possesses the evidence of a proposition and also
that are within the psychological states of those who gain knowledge, validations of reliable
cognitive processes. For example, after returning from a fair you tell your mother that you saw
an old friend at a stall; this is you "knowledge" of the fact that your old friend was at the fair.
The external manifestations were your cues from the surroundings, the aspects of fair,
appearance of your old friend, and the exposure for him/her to be seen; and the internal
conditions were, your ability to identify your friend as in by paying attention(psychological) your
memory that was triggered by the sight to label him as "old friend" and the emotional aspects
towards the event (possibly flash bulb memory) that made you focus and crave for more pieces
of evidence for surety which were self-triggering and spontaneous. Now consider a case, you are
walking towards your home and you are unsure that your watch is working properly and you take
a look at the big public watch (say the Big Ben) and it shows the same time (say 6:00 pm), and
you "know" your watch is working properly because it is justified (by the fact that the big watch
shows the same time), it is true, and you definitely believe it too right! So you have the
knowledge of the time, but what you don't know is that the big watch hasn't been working for
some time, so is your knowledge actually knowledge? Can it be true and false at the same time?
Such a case is called a "Gettier problem".

Knowledge is itself complete, but what a person "knows" depends upon "justification". This, in
turn, is dependent upon our ability to accept and agree to things around. The process of
"knowing" is not an entity or a label in our brain/mind but it is meaning and description, a
detailed compilation of conscious –unconscious information, of what relation does a

Http://[Link] ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [87]

[Agarwal et. al., Vol.5 (Iss.11): November, 2017] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1068217
fact/event/object has with things in our contact so as to justify it. (Similar was described by
Hilary Putnam.) For example: "water" when heard will create few or more
images/meanings/attributes in our minds and magically all of them are the parts of our
"knowledge" of water.

"WATER" To a child may be- something to drink, may trigger a memory of swimming etc. To a
peasant or farmer may be- a necessity for agriculture, nature of water suitable for cultivation of a
particular crop etc. To a scientist may be- 2 molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen,
have a boiling point of 373 Kelvin, having properties like anomalous expansion, universal
coolant etc. The latter categories, however, most probably have the similar ideas about water as
the prior ones depending upon their experiences and interests. Hence, what we know is a result
of our experience.

No matter how adequately we try to define knowledge and its relativity but there might still
remain something yet to be said, maybe because the domain of knowledge is vast and it is
important to recognize that the human mind has its limits, that there are many questions which it
may raise indeed but cannot adequately answer or understand their solutions, while at the same
time it can discover and hold firmly to all the truths that are requisite for the realization of the
supreme purpose of man's existence in the universe.

2. Knowledge and Wisdom

Wisdom or sapience is the ability to think and act using knowledge, common sense, and insight.
This implies a possession of knowledge or the seeking of knowledge to apply to the given
circumstance/ proposition.

Wisdom and Knowledge are two different, what you may call “entities” or “term”. Knowledge
is existential and also that will be gained, the “prior” and the “post” to Wisdom. Wisdom is the
process that judges an event by the available books/ records of experiences and “be-ings” to
acquire new and strengthen the existing ones. For example, when we solve a mathematic sum we
use our knowledge of the subject to analyze the sum and solve it to know the possible answer.
Therefore it is comprehensible that the process of solving the sum is what is called “Wisdom”.
By this example we can allow the differences to be explored:

Constancy: Knowledge is a constant existence, it speaks; where-as Wisdom is fluid and

subjective. From the above example we can explain; for doing a sum of trigonometry or calculus,
the formulae are same, same in all books and same for everyone which is the knowledge of
subject, and we need an answer to the sum, which is to be known, the way different people go
about the sum is different, the way they use the available knowledge is different, i.e. the thought
is different since wisdom is subjective.

Nature: Knowledge is vast yet selective but also interdisciplinary where-as wisdom is intangible
and comprehensive. For example, the formulae of trigonometry can’t be used to solve a
multiplication problem but how-ever used in architecture, where-as wisdom, is the tendency on
the part of an individual to habitually take the same approach (typical/peculiar) to an event,
situation or problem.

Http://[Link] ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [88]

[Agarwal et. al., Vol.5 (Iss.11): November, 2017] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1068217
Fluidity: Knowledge is like a vast ocean, it has all aspects, concepts, determinants, partition etc.
It is self-sufficient and self-sustainable, but unlike it, wisdom is like a river, it flows through
every bank, in the forms of streams, become brooks, waterfalls has to get its strength tested by
rocks it hits, get loaded up with gravel and eventually forms a delta (i.e. diverges in various
probable refined stream) in order to reach its desired goal, the ocean.

State: Knowledge is always in a progressive state, and gradual (however in some cases it may be
instantaneous as in case of people with high intuitive power/abilities), knowledge is somewhat
related to time (as in for example: academic knowledge which may also be called referred to as
scientific knowledge which needs grade to pass through, spiritual knowledge which take few to
more lifetimes to attain etc. {With exception}), where-as wisdom is timeless, it is the judgment
that is not governed by the time but by one’s potential (including all possible abilities where
every quality is taken into consideration).

Some differences between knowledge and wisdom are:

KNOWLEDGE WISDOM
1. Understanding 1. Judgement
2. Learning something 2. Using what is learned
3. Exploring 3. Travelling
4. Ink/ color 4. Pen/paintbrush
5. “What to say” 5. “When to say”
6. Gain 6. Sustain and abstain
7. Tomato is a fruit 7. Not to put tomato in fruit salad

For better understanding consider this…. “Knowledge”, knowing how to use a gun, “wisdom”
is, understanding when to use it/ however try not shooting someone because it’s written in the
essay.

3. The Manifestation of Reality

As discussed earlier in the Gettier case, the “justified true belief” may not be that very “true”.
Then what is "reality"? Consider walking down an abandoned road, you will have multiple
thought about the silence, about where the road will lead to, what happens if something springs
up! Etc. when nothing actually may be present. You can see, the situation is like an empty canvas
and you can paint your own things, here your knowledge (consider experience here) is the color,
the brush is the resources available (the ones present involving objects, people) and the hand to
use this brush is our “perception”.

It is a common conviction of mankind that truth is distinguishable from error. It is an equally

common conviction that although men easily fall into error, and easily remain in error,
nevertheless, they can and do possess some true knowledge concerning themselves and the
universe (sometimes we are erroneous in perceiving an event and a more fearful state of being
erroneous in the interpretation of what we perceive). Example, many of us have cheated in
exams, we have often marked one of four options looking at someone else’s paper, such, is, a
condition beginning with the acknowledgement that” I might be wrong”; we stay in doubt for

Http://[Link] ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [89]

[Agarwal et. al., Vol.5 (Iss.11): November, 2017] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1068217
some time and then guess that the person sitting next to me must be knowing the correct answer,
so it is lot more satisfying in copying that guessing on our own, we perceive that the person must
have written the right answer and even interpret that answer which has a one-fourth probability
of being correct, will be right). The reality, some people believe is that what exists and the
attributes that make it different from those that do not exist or cannot exist; however “reality” is
a process, a process of coherence between true-false, present-absent, and all available opposites,
virtues of which are interdependent and they are complementary to each other. Can you explain
“darkness” without using “light”, or can you understand the importance of “light” without
“darkness”? Isn’t “darkness” mere absence of “light”, or isn’t light a state of “no darkness”! The
“pro” is known by its “con” and vice versa. Hence this “coherence” is reality; the isthmus and
the strait between real and unreal. Coherence is truth-conducive (BonJour 1985). Coherence
requires the involvement of properties of judgment sets that are logical (and, in principle,
determinable a priori). The human mind is recognized to be fallible in that it can adhere to error,
mistaking this for truth. It is also recognized to be limited in its capacity inasmuch as no one
believes that all reality falls within the experience of any individual human being, and, therefore,
there is much reality of which even the wisest human being must remain in ignorance. Finally,
no human individual will claim that he fully understands all the reality which does fall within his
experience: he will admit that there is much he is unable to interpret, unable to reach the truth or
make up his mind about, so that he must suspend his judgment in reference to it and remain in
doubt; and that there is much, perhaps, too, in regard to which, while he has a more or less strong
opinion that he has reached the truth, still he is not certain, not sure, not convinced that he has,
and so recognizes the possibility that he may be mistaken; the magic of human nature is that we
tend to even enjoy these feelings of doubt labeling them as “inevitable/unimportant/ineffective
mistakes”. (For example, consider that you have gone to a restaurant for dinner and you ordered
a very pleasing dish, in that dish, there is some ingredient that tastes different or new. In this
case, you are not being able to get a clue what that ingredient is, you won’t be able to know it,
because I don’t think chefs or cooks generally reveal those secrets honestly, and neither are you
capable of potentially getting a fix on your guess. Your opinions might equivocate, uncertain
and you might be doubtful to such an extent that you would ignore your curiosity to know and
enjoy the unknown happily.

Doxastic states (states that involve opinion, judgment) which are very much volatile in nature
will be determined by (i.e. Will supervene on) logical properties of the set of propositions that
are the objects of the judgments in question. We can say that “reality” is the result of mental
attitudes of doubt, surmise, opinion, conviction, certitude, uncertainty, certainty, summation,
satisfaction in regards to our knowledge. There are certain things that we tend to deny, disagree
or feel hesitant to accept because of our sake or lack of certain traits so the “belief” of the
“justified true belief” is distorted. Sometimes we often even tend to forget the fact that there
might even be the mere probability of the existence of things that we don’t want to believe that
they are. There exists a mockable system of the paradox of pragmatic (both in practical and
philosophical senses) nature involving a prudent fear of making errors and also principles of non-
acceptance to satisfy the needs of one’s own psyche.

As there are different speculative propositions or opinions for an event, all have a chance of
being retained as a “reality” or being discarded or rejected as the same; for an event to be
“reality” it is determined on the basis of the “justification” and the probability of occurrence.

Http://[Link] ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [90]

[Agarwal et. al., Vol.5 (Iss.11): November, 2017] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1068217
The way things are reasoned out and sometimes when debated or argued upon; decide the
qualitative extent of it being a “reality”.

So, keep reasons very reasonable for illustrating a reality. And next time, if a “reality” pleases or
hurts us; remember it’s a painting/panting of our own perception.

Reality is truth in existence, however, the capacity to know about its existence and accepting it to
be true are two different questions. Another problem arises, is that the observation of the
existence of any reality or truth, and itself raises a question as “observational science is a
necessary precursor for a hypothesis “(Newtonian philosophy). Thus there might remain a slight
doubt about a reason, but still, it’s reasonable to have doubt; to quote Rene Descartes “If you
would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that in your life, you doubt as far as possible all
things.”

4. To Know

What is it “To know”? When do you infer that you “know”? For instance you know that “the
great pyramids are in Egypt”, not just that, but you also know that pyramids are in Giza (Egypt)
but also that they are not in India or U. K. or Russia or U. S. A., and you also know that U. K. ,
India, Russia or U. S. A. are not Egypt etc. One statement inferred so many things about what
you “know” isn’t that amusing! “To know”, is a trait, rather a virtue of an individual. Just like
the virtue of heart is to beat, of an ear is to hear, of wind is to blow, and of the sun is to shine
similarly of the mind is “to know”.

“To know” is a combination of two things, “to be aware” and “to be able to discriminate”.
Awareness is not just paying attention, or concentrating, it is much more; awareness is an
organism’s perception and cognitive (understanding) reaction to a condition/situation/event.
Being aware is to be keenly “alive”, being active to certain elements or whole environment or
situation. When we are aware we not only pay attention to the object but we also interpret it, feel
it and also submit or address to its importance at that point of time. Awareness is accompanied
by reasoning, understanding, and followed by knowledge. Awareness is when we want to
observe a certain thing or event when we want it to be felt or understood or even merely feel the
desire of curiosity as “what is that?” There is a principle of development in psychology stating
“initial development is greater than the development in later stages/ages/periods of life”, this is
because, children are very curious and thus they are aware of multiple things going around and
hence their development is significantly more, where as to us, we tend to be more specific and
precise about being aware of subjects/event or even opinions and facts. Awareness is directly
affected by our interests, capacities, condition, situation, etc. example there is hardly any chance
that an auditory handicapped person (deaf) would be able to be aware of the music (completely,
not just the rhythm or bass) being played; someone very sad might overlook maybe, the whole
world; sometimes we get so happy that we tend to overlook the red light. Schemes (organized
ways of making sense of experiences; Piaget, 1926) are basic units of experiences that directly
relate to the state of awareness which give rise to mental representations (Piaget) (internal
depiction of information that mind can manipulate) which forms a system in our mind and brain
which includes all belief systems, reaction patterns, concepts, tendencies which further develop

Http://[Link] ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [91]

[Agarwal et. al., Vol.5 (Iss.11): November, 2017] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1068217
our interests, curiosity nourished by themselves with the help of reinforcement, pleasure,
appreciation, positive feelings and amusement.

By “discrimination” here we don’t refer to “racism” “sexism” or any other similar “……ism”
(prejudice); to “discriminate” here means to the ability with which we can distinguish between
right-wrong, real-unreal, etc. In simple terms to discriminate is to understand an
object/event/proposal significantly distinguishing from others (on dichotomy or a scale of
variation). We can include the concept of “hierarchical-classification” (Piaget) which is the
ability to organize objects into classes and subclasses on the basis of differences and similarity”;
we may also consider that this system along with moral and ethical systems in us govern major
decisions we take in our lives; the example of classifying ladyfinger as a vegetable and banana as
fruit despite both having seeds, would be very easy; consider this that you see a blind man on
the road trying to cross the road; some might directly help him out of their good nature and
instantaneous decision making, but some might think the following things-1. Is he really blind?
2. Would helping him cross the road would actually help, how will he go rest of the way? 3. He
might be a trickster or a con. 4. Isn’t there anyone in his house to help him? 4. How did he get
blind? 5. He is blind; there would be problems, why did he leave his house in the first place? Etc.
irrespective of being good or bad "thought" we think this and merely the ability to distinguish all
these questions and yet understanding that they all are deeply connected is the ability to
discriminate, and if one even ponders around his thoughts classifying them as good or bad is yet
another level of discrimination, and yet another level of discrimination is labeling them as
helpful, thoughtful, cautious under good; ignorant, over-cautious, pessimistic under bad. These
were just a few thoughts and yet we have so much knowledge just by doing this. This is an
endless process as we generate about 60000 thoughts a day, to this we can add the interpretation,
methods, reasons for our actions and their consequences.

Every aspect of our life involves “knowing” but often ignores the facts that it is already based on
something that we “know”. There is nothing as “no knowledge” of anything (except for severely
mentally disabled and to lower animals; as they are constricted by their unfortunate limitations).
Next time someone tells us that “you don’t know anything!” we can proudly say-“I might not
know as much as you do but I know that there is nothing as (not) knowing anything”, “I am just
not aware of it yet”.

5. The “Complete” Knowledge, “Sarwagya”: A Myth, Mystery or a Miracle

Sometimes we wish to know everything and all the other times we ask ourselves that can one
know everything. Is “Sarwagya” “complete knowledge of everything” anyhow possible? Let me
narrate a short story by some writer which I came across somewhere.

Once there was a seeker, a man thirsty for knowledge, to know everything that was existent and
that was non-existential. He set out on a journey and searched for answers of his own heart,
mind, perception, and destiny. Being grown up in a quite spiritual environment he set out to seek
and find answers from the divine creator not being ignorant to the rational principles of science.
He thought it was important for him to find the reason for which the Lord had made human
beings special and what was so special about humans, what was the reason of his life. It had been
50 years now; he got answers, many of them which included mastery over fields of sciences,

Http://[Link] ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [92]

[Agarwal et. al., Vol.5 (Iss.11): November, 2017] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1068217
astronomy, medicines, yoga, etc. but none satisfied him. Thinking of his unquenched thirst, one
evening he was sitting on a beach, resting after his tiring walk. With his weary eyes as he gazed
upon the drowning sun at dusk, he saw an astonishing sight of a boy. The boy was dipping his
hands into the ocean bringing out water and was pouring it into a pot. The earthen vessel had
already been filled up to the brim but still for hours he continued his activities. The old seeker
got irritated and restlessly went to the boy. He asked the boy the purpose of his action, to which
the boy from whose water holding hands the liquid was still dripping, smiled at him and
answered I am trying to fill the ocean in this pot. The man enraged said “but that’s foolish, it’s in
vain, you can’t put all that water in just one pot, not even in several. The boy got up and said
“exactly” and went away. ”

The human mind has its capacities and it may not be able to comprehend every answer it asks
for, but yes there are acts similar to the boy’s that we do to keep nourishing our lives, the soul
does with the water of knowledge. There are different levels of our knowledge, every level
having its own peculiarity, its own importance, and its own manifestation but all inter-related.
Let’s observe an example:

1) Apple is a fruit
2) Apple grows on trees
3) Apple trees grow in cold regions
4) Apple has a good quantity of water
5) Apple is an ingredient of fruit salad
6) Apple keeps us healthy
7) Apple is/ is not tasty
8) I like/ don’t like to eat apple
9) An apple a day keeps the doctor away
10) Apple is the forbidden fruit (eaten by Eve for which the human race was cursed for the
change of season where spring being cut down to one-fourth.)

These are 10 assertions (that might have been irritating to read) which are made, and you must be
wondering why are these mentioned here, the reason is to emphasize on “seriation” (Piaget).
This process of seriation is our ability to classify and arrange things in ascending or descending
order. Similarly as in case of everything; our interests, priorities and yes knowledge of course. If
you have noticed that the 10 assertion/statements made, they are true, they all are true, aren’t
they! They are all believed by most of the people (mostly, and I can vouch for that) and also they
are more or less justified (speculative for the tenth one). Hence they all can fall under the
category of knowledge. They have everything in common then but still is there any difference
that you make out? Do they differ in some way? If yes, let me tell you that it the level of
knowledge/truth that makes them different. 1 to 4 display levels of scientific knowledge, the
knowledge of properties of an apple. 5, 6 help us to know the qualities, nature of Apple as for
how can we use it or why should we eat it. 7, 8 are the statements that give the idea of personal
knowledge i.e. our own interests for apple, reasons for liking or not liking apple etc. 9, 10 are
some lines related to the belief system. Is it not that the sentences, however, all are small but are
gradually increasing in complexity of interpretation. Similarly, knowledge has levels, of which
every level manifests in everybody’s life.

Http://[Link] ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [93]

[Agarwal et. al., Vol.5 (Iss.11): November, 2017] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629(P)
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1068217
The knowledge will be presented in the form of testimonies, statements which may provide the
necessity of further contemplation and speculation. One justified true belief will lead to further
justifications and hence what further? Are the philosophy and concept based on concepts of
enlightenment, revelation, salvation, and speculation or there are logics and rationality governing
the so called knowledge; however both play their roles both being acceptable to eyes of science,
philosophy, and spirituality.

Here your “Vivek” (intelligence) comes to play. Although it is a topic of epistemology and
combined interdisciplinary effort of philosophy, psychology, neuroscience and maybe
anthropology all together but isn’t asking for the same too much to ask for! All we can do is,
wait for the great learned or the growing bright minds to discover a related concept for us and
find us the probability of becoming one however effortful it may be.
I wonder how it would feel to “know” it all.

6. Conclusion

On a concluding note, it is important to mention that knowledge, as described all over the paper,
is a very vast topic of unfathomable dimensions, direction, and disciplines. Such topic needs a
great discussion and debate in order to evolve with a comprehensible and satisfying, objective
overview of the concept acceptable to all humankind in coherence with what exists and that
which is to come. Hence, I would like to conclude with a call for all opinions and views along
with their interactions that would contribute to the concept, better understanding of "knowledge"
and relevance of "knowing" for the human race that serves not only the ignited minds of
philosophers who always strive for explanation but also to attract the seekers of “gyana” the
people want to know more about it.

“To know, or not to know, that is the question.”

References

[1] BonJour, Laurence. (1985). the structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press
[2] Coffey, P. (1917). Epistemology; Or the Theory of Knowledge: An Introduction to General
Metaphysics. London: Longman.
[3] Hintikka, J., (1962). Knowledge and Belief. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
[4] Piaget J., (1926). The language and Thought of the Child. New York: HarcourtBrace and
Company.
[5] Putnam, H., (1975). The meaning of 'meaning'. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of
Science 7:131-193
[6] Santrock, J.W. (2008). A Topical Approach to Life Span Development (pp.221–223). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill

*Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [Link]@ [Link]

Http://[Link] ©International Journal of Research - GRANTHAALAYAH [94]