Philosophy seeks to grasp, to make sense of, the reality we all experience. We recognize that there is great unity in reality but that there is all great diversity. How is it that unity and diversity coexist? To try to answer these questions, Philosophers develop theories. Epistemology is those theories concerning knowledge. Epistemology tries to provide answers to the questions about how and when one can say he or she “knows.” Epistemic theories can roughly be seen as one of two categories, theories about justification and theories of formation. Theories of Justification attempt to validate claims of knowledge. They situate knowledge within reality. They serve to separate knowledge from opinion. Theories of formation attempt to resolve the relationship of the components that make up knowledge. These theories are complex, but if we were to back away far enough, as if we are in plane flying over a landscape and looking down from 30,000 feet, we would see three large areas, which for my purposes, we will call Reason, Experience and finally Faith. Epistemology is interested in understanding the relationship of these realms, as all three make claims to contribute to Knowledge and advance particular theories of Justification. Finally, theories of Justification and Formation are tightly bound, so in some sense they stand or fall together.
It is very difficult to sum up the debate about knowledge between philosophers in the Modern era, from the period of time we call Enlightenment, roughly the start of the eighteenth century, through today, what we call Postmodern. But this is exactly what Richard Rorty (1999) does so eloquently in an essay entitled Relativism: Finding and Making. Rorty1 bemoans the fact that he, like other philosophers such as Heideggar, James, and even the celebrated educational philosopher John Dewey, have been labeled “relativists” (xvi, xix) When in short, all he and the others have done is point out that the major source of tension in the history of Western civilization, all the imperialism, the tyranny and the privileged power, forced homogeny, just about all of it, can be traced back to the pesky epistemic theory of Foundationalism.
Foundationalism is the theory that says that in order for a claim of knowledge to be justified, it must be tied to something that is ultimately undeniable. It needs to be backed up by something concrete. One can hear an appeal to this theory in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” What Jefferson is saying is that his claim is associated with something authoritative, something that is fundamental, something basic. Historically, Nature had been deemed the source of this Foundation. You could claim justification by appealing to Nature. One’s Experiences and one’s Reason were understood to work together to discern Nature’s light. However, during the Enlightenment, a major change took place. Philosophers recognized that most claims of knowledge are not undeniable, rather they were inferential. Let me explain. I claim it is a nice Fall day. I claim this because I can detect the temperature from my senses and I have experiences that I can draw on that tell me when it’s like this, it’s in between Summer and Winter. Also, it is sunny out, so it must be day. But, in reality, my senses and my experiences are not so reliable. They can be deceived. I could be kidnapped, drugged, dropped off in some Hollywood studio. When I awake, I sense the temperature, I see the sun, but all of it a sham. This is the premise of the Movie, The Truman Show. Truman is living an inferential life. This idea is terrifying. But Foundationalism say that if I work hard enough at peeling back the inferences, eventually I’ll hit something that is bedrock. And this is exactly what Truman attempts. He pursues particular inferences that don’t match up, and eventually, the whole facade crumbles, and the Truth is revealed and he is Free. Free from his Hollywood studio, that is. This really is an old story. It goes all the way back to Plato. Though the cast was very different.
Foundationalism, however, is not devoid of issues. Because knowledge is considered to be ultimately grounded in something that is self-evident, it is theoretically equally accessible to each and every person, to all of humanity. But of course, that is not the reality we experience. In case you haven’t noticed, humans are often not in agreement. There are multiple and competing claims of truth. Indeed, even two individuals with very similar experiences, having been born in the same time period, undergoing similar life events, disagree on a great many matters. Therefore, something has to explain why it is that some people “get” the self-evident stuff, while others do not. What is it? The answer to this question, advanced by Plato and thus changing the course of Western history, is, of course, Reason. Some people are simply more reasonable than others. And so, it only follows that if society were to simply submit to the knowledge claims of its most celebrated Rationalists, the Philosopher King, then the disagreements would disappear. Everyone in society would be Free to be happy. It really is that simple. Now, getting the irrational people to go along with it, that’s a different issue. There are some who have a dose of Reason, and the King will be able to appeal to it, but there will be others who are, shall we say, “lacking in Reason,” and will ramble on about how their Experiences inform them that this is not a good idea. We may have to deal more harshly with them. We may even have to deceive them, but it will be for the common good. When the Philosopher, who via his Reason has direct access to Truth with a Capital T, is in charge, members of society will be steered away from pursuing untrustworthy experiences, one’s that don’t match up with reality, like poetry. Imaginative experiences that would wreck civilization. Instead, the citizenry will be content in their fixed positions in society. They will experience True Freedom.
Hence we see that Foundationalism reflects a major commitment, a faith, in the trustworthiness of Reason. This is not to say that Experience is not important, it is just not nearly are reliable and as worthy of our trust as Reason. Foundationalism and its partner, the Correspondence Theory of Truth, have been epistemic constants in Western Civilization since Plato.(Heck) As the historian Alfred Whitehead noted, “A safe generalization is that all of Western philosophy has been a footnote to Plato.” And, in footnote fashion, many consider faith-based knowledge, especially Monotheisms like Christianity, as versions of Plato’s theories.
In contrast, Postmodern Epistemologists such as Rorty, argue that there is nothing that is self-evident. Everything must be tested to determine its merit. Is it worthy of my trust? Justification is not found in something independent of the object, rather it is found in the relationship of the object to me. It is based on my experiences with the object. Instead of the theory of Foundationalism, Postmodernists offer up the theory of Pragmatism. Did it work? Did it make me more Free? Did it make me happy? Instead of the story of humanity slowly but systematically using Reason to find Freedom via Truth, Rory argues, it is better to see a story of humanity making their way in the universe, making Freedom, through the process of trial and error. (CITE) The problem with having so much trust in Reason, they point out, is that you think you can know the future. You think you know the outcome. And so you declare some experiences completely off limits. But what about Imagination? What about Creativity? Sometimes strange and wonderful and very unexpected things occur. Outcomes are often different than anticipated. When you deny humanity new experiences, opportunities for change, you deny humanity the potential for new knowledge. Knowledge is not our perceiving nature’s light, enabling us to discern right from wrong. Rather, knowledge is humanity’s toolbox, from which we shape tools for our particular task, the task of progress. It is good if it works. If it works, it’s truthful. In response to this claim, the Foundationalists cringe at what they see as a call to fumble in the dark, to hack blindly at reality and at each other. Ultimately they accuse the Postmodern of nihilism, of believing that nothing has intrinsic value. “Not so,” the Postmodernist retort, “change, transformation” has intrinsic value. Hence we see that Postmodernity has a different epistemic commitment. Allegiances have switched. Reason is no longer deemed so trustworthy. In fact, there is a suspicion of those who make rationalistic claims. Experience is more likely to provide us with what we need.
This gulf between Enlightenment and Postmodern epistemology, between a commitment to Reason and a commitment to Experience, appears large. How exactly did we get here? According to Rorty what ultimately led to Western civilization’s break with Foundationalism were the unresolvable claims and paradoxes, made plain in Rationalism. Rationalism, the claim that Reason alone could aspire to absolute Knowledge, was at its zenith during the Enlightenment. Rorty specifically fingers Immanuel Kant and his idealism as the epitome of the absurdity of the Rationalistic claims. Which is Ironic, since Kant is where we begin the story of Worldview.
The Modern Epistemic Debate
Worldview: Bridging Enlightenment and Postmodern Epistemologies
Philosophy seeks to grasp, to make sense of, the reality we all experience. We recognize that there is great unity in reality but that there is all great diversity. How is it that unity and diversity coexist? To try to answer these questions, Philosophers develop theories. Epistemology is those theories concerning knowledge. Epistemology tries to provide answers to the questions about how and when one can say he or she “knows.” Epistemic theories can roughly be seen as one of two categories, theories about justification and theories of formation. Theories of Justification attempt to validate claims of knowledge. They situate knowledge within reality. They serve to separate knowledge from opinion. Theories of formation attempt to resolve the relationship of the components that make up knowledge. These theories are complex, but if we were to back away far enough, as if we are in plane flying over a landscape and looking down from 30,000 feet, we would see three large areas, which for my purposes, we will call Reason, Experience and finally Faith. Epistemology is interested in understanding the relationship of these realms, as all three make claims to contribute to Knowledge and advance particular theories of Justification. Finally, theories of Justification and Formation are tightly bound, so in some sense they stand or fall together.
It is very difficult to sum up the debate about knowledge between philosophers in the Modern era, from the period of time we call Enlightenment, roughly the start of the eighteenth century, through today, what we call Postmodern. But this is exactly what Richard Rorty (1999) does so eloquently in an essay entitled Relativism: Finding and Making. Rorty1 bemoans the fact that he, like other philosophers such as Heideggar, James, and even the celebrated educational philosopher John Dewey, have been labeled “relativists” (xvi, xix) When in short, all he and the others have done is point out that the major source of tension in the history of Western civilization, all the imperialism, the tyranny and the privileged power, forced homogeny, just about all of it, can be traced back to the pesky epistemic theory of Foundationalism.
Foundationalism is the theory that says that in order for a claim of knowledge to be justified, it must be tied to something that is ultimately undeniable. It needs to be backed up by something concrete. One can hear an appeal to this theory in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” What Jefferson is saying is that his claim is associated with something authoritative, something that is fundamental, something basic. Historically, Nature had been deemed the source of this Foundation. You could claim justification by appealing to Nature. One’s Experiences and one’s Reason were understood to work together to discern Nature’s light. However, during the Enlightenment, a major change took place. Philosophers recognized that most claims of knowledge are not undeniable, rather they were inferential. Let me explain. I claim it is a nice Fall day. I claim this because I can detect the temperature from my senses and I have experiences that I can draw on that tell me when it’s like this, it’s in between Summer and Winter. Also, it is sunny out, so it must be day. But, in reality, my senses and my experiences are not so reliable. They can be deceived. I could be kidnapped, drugged, dropped off in some Hollywood studio. When I awake, I sense the temperature, I see the sun, but all of it a sham. This is the premise of the Movie, The Truman Show. Truman is living an inferential life. This idea is terrifying. But Foundationalism say that if I work hard enough at peeling back the inferences, eventually I’ll hit something that is bedrock. And this is exactly what Truman attempts. He pursues particular inferences that don’t match up, and eventually, the whole facade crumbles, and the Truth is revealed and he is Free. Free from his Hollywood studio, that is. This really is an old story. It goes all the way back to Plato. Though the cast was very different.
Foundationalism, however, is not devoid of issues. Because knowledge is considered to be ultimately grounded in something that is self-evident, it is theoretically equally accessible to each and every person, to all of humanity. But of course, that is not the reality we experience. In case you haven’t noticed, humans are often not in agreement. There are multiple and competing claims of truth. Indeed, even two individuals with very similar experiences, having been born in the same time period, undergoing similar life events, disagree on a great many matters. Therefore, something has to explain why it is that some people “get” the self-evident stuff, while others do not. What is it? The answer to this question, advanced by Plato and thus changing the course of Western history, is, of course, Reason. Some people are simply more reasonable than others. And so, it only follows that if society were to simply submit to the knowledge claims of its most celebrated Rationalists, the Philosopher King, then the disagreements would disappear. Everyone in society would be Free to be happy. It really is that simple. Now, getting the irrational people to go along with it, that’s a different issue. There are some who have a dose of Reason, and the King will be able to appeal to it, but there will be others who are, shall we say, “lacking in Reason,” and will ramble on about how their Experiences inform them that this is not a good idea. We may have to deal more harshly with them. We may even have to deceive them, but it will be for the common good. When the Philosopher, who via his Reason has direct access to Truth with a Capital T, is in charge, members of society will be steered away from pursuing untrustworthy experiences, one’s that don’t match up with reality, like poetry. Imaginative experiences that would wreck civilization. Instead, the citizenry will be content in their fixed positions in society. They will experience True Freedom.
Hence we see that Foundationalism reflects a major commitment, a faith, in the trustworthiness of Reason. This is not to say that Experience is not important, it is just not nearly are reliable and as worthy of our trust as Reason. Foundationalism and its partner, the Correspondence Theory of Truth, have been epistemic constants in Western Civilization since Plato.(Heck) As the historian Alfred Whitehead noted, “A safe generalization is that all of Western philosophy has been a footnote to Plato.” And, in footnote fashion, many consider faith-based knowledge, especially Monotheisms like Christianity, as versions of Plato’s theories.
In contrast, Postmodern Epistemologists such as Rorty, argue that there is nothing that is self-evident. Everything must be tested to determine its merit. Is it worthy of my trust? Justification is not found in something independent of the object, rather it is found in the relationship of the object to me. It is based on my experiences with the object. Instead of the theory of Foundationalism, Postmodernists offer up the theory of Pragmatism. Did it work? Did it make me more Free? Did it make me happy? Instead of the story of humanity slowly but systematically using Reason to find Freedom via Truth, Rory argues, it is better to see a story of humanity making their way in the universe, making Freedom, through the process of trial and error. (CITE) The problem with having so much trust in Reason, they point out, is that you think you can know the future. You think you know the outcome. And so you declare some experiences completely off limits. But what about Imagination? What about Creativity? Sometimes strange and wonderful and very unexpected things occur. Outcomes are often different than anticipated. When you deny humanity new experiences, opportunities for change, you deny humanity the potential for new knowledge. Knowledge is not our perceiving nature’s light, enabling us to discern right from wrong. Rather, knowledge is humanity’s toolbox, from which we shape tools for our particular task, the task of progress. It is good if it works. If it works, it’s truthful. In response to this claim, the Foundationalists cringe at what they see as a call to fumble in the dark, to hack blindly at reality and at each other. Ultimately they accuse the Postmodern of nihilism, of believing that nothing has intrinsic value. “Not so,” the Postmodernist retort, “change, transformation” has intrinsic value. Hence we see that Postmodernity has a different epistemic commitment. Allegiances have switched. Reason is no longer deemed so trustworthy. In fact, there is a suspicion of those who make rationalistic claims. Experience is more likely to provide us with what we need.
This gulf between Enlightenment and Postmodern epistemology, between a commitment to Reason and a commitment to Experience, appears large. How exactly did we get here? According to Rorty what ultimately led to Western civilization’s break with Foundationalism were the unresolvable claims and paradoxes, made plain in Rationalism. Rationalism, the claim that Reason alone could aspire to absolute Knowledge, was at its zenith during the Enlightenment. Rorty specifically fingers Immanuel Kant and his idealism as the epitome of the absurdity of the Rationalistic claims. Which is Ironic, since Kant is where we begin the story of Worldview.