Introduction
In a quest to establishing and ascertaining the source of human knowledge, various scholars have put various radical questions forward. These questions advance diverse opinions as to the source of human knowledge and certainty to those sources. Such a position can only be established first by tracing the philosophical approaches adopted by various scholars starting from Rene Descartes’s zero-based epistemology, comparative approach on division of substances with George Berkeley and eventually David Hume’s radical skepticism. This paper explores these perspectives to determine objective and subjective sources of knowledge.
Knowledge sources
While answering himself as to the questions of where human knowledge originates from, Descartes started examining various fields of education, science and arithmetic among others, which he thought would satisfy him with certainty as to where knowledge originates. After advancing significant eliminations, he realized every other source of knowledge that he thought was an absolute origin was flawed. Even mathematics that seemed to be logically certain registered doubt in his mind as to the confusion that may be attributed to malevolent superior beings who may be prone to interfering with the same. In this regard, he adopted the process of systematic doubting to enable him ascertain his knowledge (Mitchell, 2014, p. 341).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Systematic Doubting
In the course of implementing this method of analysis, Descartes resorted to discard from himself all that he had previously thought to be sources of knowledge and only admit into certainty of knowledge only those sources that he had perceived with his own senses; that is, only those that he could radically justify. It is in this regard that the concept of cogito emerges where the only radical source of knowledge that Descartes could affirm was proof of his existence. This was vis-à-vis the concept of solipsism that poses that the only the mind and contents of the mind exists. It is on this pretext that he struck his doubt concerning religion in the premise that, the idea of God and the material world needed to be justified before he could adopt them as knowledge (Mitchell, 2014, p. 232). This is because his methodic doubting concept demanded reasoning of the certainty of every other thing before admitting the same to his mind.
In developing this concept, Descartes settled on the thesis that it is within man’s power to determine what is knowledge from what is not knowledge. Otherwise, men would live to follow probability rather than certainty. Be it as it may, the ascertainment of source of knowledge has therefore been attributed to the emergence of the controversies between science and religion, a conflict that Descartes confronted by comparing division of substances.
Division of Substances
A neutral position that disclaimed science’s threat to religion was established in the course of comparing the human mind, in which religion and moral beliefs are founded, and matter in which science deals. In the comparative analysis, while the mind was attributed to thinking, matter was considered not to bear any traits of thinking (Mitchell, 2014, p. 237). Hence, matter was void of rationality and only subject of nature and physical forces. In the same vein, he attributed the mind to being non-extensive while matter was extensive, in the course of establishing the extent to which the mind is limited. Further from the contrast, he compared both the mind and science to bear substance. Descartes therefore tried settling scores in a controversy he had invoked by mitigating the same through showing the extent to which science was incompatible with religion.
While developing the comparative approach behind distribution of substances, Descartes was trying to advance the independence that comes with primary and secondary qualities, adducing that primary qualities were independent from secondary qualities. This approach was greatly rebutted by George Berkeley who opined that the two were distinct (Mitchell, 2014, p. 244). He advanced a logic that different human beings perceived secondary qualities differently and therefore secondary qualities of matter were dependent on the human perceiving them, unlike Descartes who advanced the ideology that the two are separate.
Neo-science and Empiricism
With time elapsing throughout the century, the new principle of natural philosophy attributed to Isaac Newton emerged. The new concept differed from Descartes’ theses. In fact, Isaac Newton advocated for the ideology that in the quest to ascertaining knowledge, it would not be adequate to depend only on perceptions of the mind but also to consider nature in terms of observable phenomena. He advanced the thesis that the foundation of knowledge in the world was not logical reason but the study of nature. He affirmed this by developing the laws of motion arising from his observation of movement of objects among other scientific advances that he made, pursuant to encouraging the study of nature as the route to developing knowledge that can bear certainty (Mitchell, 2014, p. 241).
Such philosophical advancements by Rene Descartes, George Berkeley, and Isaac Newton among others in the quest to ascertaining knowledge founded the bedrock for British Empiricism, where scholars and individuals who advocated for it were deeply rooted into such radical thinking and reason. This came in addition to depicting multiple ideologies of their time such as radical skepticism and natural beliefs among others.
British Empiricism
This was an ideological innovation originating from John Locke, innovating Descartes attack to innate ideas while advancing the thought that there are no innate ideas and that development of knowledge is integral to science. In advancing this philosophical thought, Locke was determined to demonstrate that humans do not manifest inherent innate ideas. Furthermore, he posed a challenge that if that were the case, then children would be able to advance such innate ideas orally while still in their infancy.
Natural Rights and Revolution
It is on this premise, of disclaiming innate ideas, that Locke was opposed to the idea of the British monarch, dismissing the notion that royal monarchs were endowed with divine rights accorded to the by God, hence were not subject to challenge by anyone. This opposition bred the concept of natural rights that are inherent to everyone. Everyone, by virtue of their humanity, was entitled to the protection to be ascertained by the government that no one ought to cause harm to another while denying them their right to life, health, liberty and possession. According to Locke, the reason behind the establishment of a government was to protect the rights of the people by making laws that manifest the same and regulating dominion over such property. This therefore justified the inception of the idea of a revolution in case the government of the day fails to adhere to protecting the rights of its citizens.
Hume’s Radical Skepticism and Natural belief
Hume continued advancing the concept of reason developed by Descartes. In this ideology, he continues to dismiss natural beliefs such as miracles in addition to anything that appears supernatural (Mitchell, 2014, p. 247). He therefore continued advocating for philosophical inquiry into every natural belief of knowledge in existence before acceptance of the same, adducing that such radical inquiry is to save people from gullibility and superstitious beliefs.
Personal position and rationale
On a personal perspective, I would concur with the idea that knowledge is a derivative of experience and that which is acquired by virtue of perception by the five senses rather than which is embedded in the mind as a supernatural belief. This advances the position that validity of knowledge lies with its certainty. As long as an item of information can be radically justified, then it meets the threshold to be regarded as knowledge and not mere belief. Belief, although holding strong precedence over the actions of a person, is not based on tangible experience that could be referenced. On that note, I would advance a thesis that there are two forms of knowledge that can be ascertained: subjective knowledge and the universal knowledge of natural phenomena.
The first rationale behind my position, that knowledge is a matter of individual perception, would be in concurrence with George Berkeley’s postulation regarding division of substances, differing with Descartes’ opinion over the same. It is certainly the fact that different people would perceive different things in a different manner. For instance, a surface that one feels upon touch to be of a coarse texture would not bear the same feedback when touched by other persons. In addition, secondary qualities are perceived differently depending on one’s being. It would be radical for a colorblind individual to register their perception that a certain color is red and not green, while other people perceive it to be the contrary.
In the same vein, it would suffice to say that a violation of a natural right is subjective in nature. Such an individual may be aggrieved by those actions against them that another person would not find offensive. Therefore, considering this against Locke’s assertion of universal rights, it can be seen that there is a different standard for every individual. It is in this regard that the form of knowledge attributed to radical thinking can be classified as subjective knowledge as it depends on one’s own radical deduction.
The rationale behind universal knowledge is founded on the ideology developed by Isaac Newton in his study of nature. It would suffice to advance the opinion that certain aspects of science can be ascertained throughout the planet to the extent that everyone would concur with the same hence not a matter of subjective perception. For instance, the fact that the sun rises from the east and sets in the west is a universally accepted phenomenon. In addition, the concept that gravity is the force that pulls objects towards the center of the earth is another such fact. Such postulations do not bear the leisure of personal opinion and therefore merit being regarded as universal knowledge.
It is on that note that I would uphold the ideas behind Descartes cogito, Isaac Newton’s science, British empiricism and Hume’s skepticism in the view that knowledge is a matter of subjective perception and objective universal acceptance.
References
Mitchell, H. B. (2014). Roots of Wisdom: A Tapestry of Philosophical Traditions. New York: Nelson Education.
