Epistemology

Knowledge or 'episteme' is one of the objects of philosophical thinking. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that dwells in the discussion of knowledge issues, such as: its source, its limits and its measures.

Some of us negated knowledge, such as Gorgias, one of the leading figures of Sophist. He claimed the absence of something that can be known and communicated. He said, "There is nothing. If something exists, it could not be known. If something known, it could not be communicated."

Such statements based among the relativity of sensing and arbitrariness of convention. The results of sensory perception are very relative. In different distances or different point of views, things can be perceived in different senses. Then, the nature of things is not known certainly. Immanuel Kant, said that thing as such (das ding an sich/noumena) cannot be known. What is known is merely the appearance of thing (phenomena), which could be perceived and communicated in variety. Maximally, there is convention to mention it. But the convention was essentially arbitrary, as stated by Ferdinand de Saussure. Therefore, the essence of something is unknown.

The mentioned conclusion is true. But it is too premature to assume that knowledge is impossible. When skeptics negated knowledge, at least they know that they do not know, as stated by Greek philosopher, Socrates, "I know that I do not know". Ergo, there is knowledge, which should be sought, not ignored.

The obligation to find knowledge is related to the position of the human as being that does not merely exist (être en soir). Human, as Aristotle said, is a rational animal (homo rationale). Human is being for itself (être pour soir), says Jean-Paul Sartre. Even more, human is being for others (être pour l'autre), since " khairu an- nâs anfa’uhum li an-nâs (the best human is the most beneficial human for others), as stated by Muhammad. So, human should seek knowledge. Since, a person will not be able to benefit others without the knowledge. "Fâqid ash-syai 'La yu'thî (people who do not have nothing cannot give anything), said Arabic proverb.

The necessary thing to be searched is knowledge, i.e. the certainty that stated statement is really true and factual. The necessary thing to be shunned is ignorance, i.e. to know nothing, or to know things incorrectly. The problem is where we get true knowledge? How to get it? What is its limit? What is its parameter?

Sources and Methods of Knowledge

John Locke, the English philosopher, states that knowledge comes from the senses. In the beginning, human is like a blank white paper: tabula rasa. The sensory perception fills this emptiness. Reason, then, links those sensory perceptions, to generate knowledge.

Knowledge, in empirical perspective, is achieved by utilizing five senses. Reason only served stringing things accomplished by senses. Sense’s decision is the determinant of truth, according to empiricists.

At the point of determining the truth, the authority of senses is questionable. Sometimes, senses result inconsistent decisions. At a certain distance, eyes are seeing water on the road. But in place where water seems exist, there is no water. In such cases, sense faces a mirage, and does not state the truth. Therefore, empiricists’ opinion is disputable.

The rationalist, such as French philosopher, Descartes doubted the results of sensory perception. He doubted everything, until realized that the only thing that he did not doubt is a doubt. He doubt because he think. As far as self is thinking, self will aware its own existence. At the moment, Descartes said “cogito ergo sum”. I think, therefore I am.

Thoughts according to the rationalists are the source of knowledge. There are potential ideas inside every human. Senses are only particular factor to stimulate ideas actualization. Without senses, reason can actualize its potential ideas. Reason also can determine the rightness and the wrongness of knowledge.

Rationalists’ opinion is true. Reason which is thinking a thought can generate a thought, as mentioned by Al-Farabi, “al-‘aqlu al-âqilu al-ma’qûlu”. But statement that reason is the only source of true knowledge is questioned statement. Because, empiricist’s opinion also true that senses provide information for self ignorance.

Both senses and reason are equally as knowledge source. According to Immanuel Kant, reason can produces a priori knowledge (without sensory experience), and senses can produces a posteriori knowledge (with the sensory experience). Both could be analyzed or synthesized. Analyzing rational thinking is analytical a priori. Analyzing sensory experience is analytical a posteriori. Synthesizing rational thinking is synthesis a priori. Synthesizing sensory experience is synthesis a posteriori.  In Kantian perspective,   both senses and reason have great contribution in generating knowledge.

But a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge tends to make a distance between subject and object. The distance is widened by the symbols which represent objects to be understood by subject. Moreover the diversity of subject’s viewpoints makes a wider distance. Therefore, sensory knowledge and rational knowledge are relative, partial and mediated. Henry Bergson called it as discursive knowledge or knowledge about things.

This French philosopher proposed another model of knowledge which assumed as absolute, comprehensive and immediate. This assumed knowledge is gained by immediate experience of things; by internalizing object into subject. Bergson called it as intuitive knowledge, or knowledge of things.

Unfortunately, Bergson unawares that experience without symbolization is not communicated experience. It is very subjective experience. So, its ‘achieved knowledge' is relative too. In contrast, discursive knowledge is more objective and communicable. Therefore, it is unfair to place discursive knowledge and intuitive knowledge on hierarchical position.

Instead of stating that intuitive knowledge is superior to discursive knowledge, I tend to equalize them. Sensory knowledge, rational knowledge and intuitive knowledge has the same degree in fulfilling the human to knowledge. Each has its own characteristics. As long as they provide necessary knowledge for human being, they are in equal position. I use same perspective to see parameters of knowledge.

Parameters of Knowledge

Rationalists measure the validity of knowledge from the point of coherence. The definition of coherence is the regularity of the relationship between ideas logically, without any contradiction. The truth of a statement is measured from the point of its consistency. As long as a statement has logical consistency without any contradiction, it is valued as a truth.

At some points, coherence can determine the truth. But to be glued only on the logical consistence is not strong enough to determine the truth.  Other parameters are needed to measure the validity of knowledge. One of needed parameter of knowledge is correspondence. If coherence is only focusing on the relationship between ideas, correspondence is paying attention to the suitability of ideas with the real facts.

Suitability of ideas and facts is important. Since, not all logical idea is factual. Ontologically, some essence does not exist. The reality in space and time can make sure the truth of rational ideas. Thus, correspondence can strengthen the truth of coherence.

The truth of knowledge will be stronger if its coherence and correspondence was supported by its empirical, intuitive, and pragmatic. Knowledge is empirical if its truth could be traced by sensory experience. It is intuitive if could be directly experienced personally. And it is pragmatic if it is useful in particular situations. If knowledge contains all of those parameters, it will be more robust to be the truth.

Conclusion

Now it is clear what are the sources, the methods and the measures of knowledge. Minimally, human knowledge is derived from senses, reason, and intuition. Human will gain knowledge if using those knowledge tools which exist in himself. Human also could get knowledge from authority outside himself. But knowledge from outside self should be reviewed by knowledge sources from inside self.

In order to get coherent knowledge, human need to use his reason to think logically. He also needs to find the fact of his knowledge to achieve correspondent knowledge. Achieved knowledge will be stronger if experienced empirically and intuitively, and assured its useful for self and others. By synthesizing all of those sources, methods and parameters of knowledge, human being will obtain powerful knowledge to be declared as the truth.  (Zainul Maarif, Jakarta, April 1, 2013)