Return to Index  

The Problem of Criterion

January 15 2006 at 10:49 AM
Ed - UCI Student  (no login)

-
I ran across this ancient problem while reading through my epistemology textbook the other day:

In order to find out what we know, we also have to find out how we know. But in order to find out how we know, we have to find out what we know.

So this problem boils down to two questions:

i) How do we know?
ii) What do we know?

Which one do we answer first?


    
This message has been edited by philclub on Apr 17, 2006 12:07 PM


 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

(no login)

a probable answer?

April 11 2006, 12:35 PM 

In response to your question I would have to say that we must answer the question of "how do we know?" first. Why? because if we have no concrete conception of how we get to know something (through reason + account + cognitive understanding (which could be a necessary precondition for knowledge of some subject) then how can we actually and absolutely know anything. We must be certain in the ways we attain knowledge before ever assessing that we can know anything at all. Once we develop the criterion that could allow us to know anything at all then we search for what we can know. But it must be differentiated between what we can know about the external world and what we can know about everything else (logic, math, subjectivity, metaphysics and morals. Try reading C. S. Pierce, Hilary Putnam, W. V. Quine and perhaps some positivists like Moritz Schlick, Carnap or Ayer for other answers to such questions.

 
 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - The Problem of Criterion
  Return to Index  
Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2009 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement