The question of knowledge? Plato, Aristotle and Kant-

A fitting place to start if we are discussing whether we can have true knowledge of anything, is Plato and Aristotle. The two crusaders for finding out what true knowledge is and where we can find true knowledge and yet, the two scholars who held drastically contradictory views on the issue of epistemology (the study of knowledge).

Plato’s understanding of knowledge-

We can take a grasp of Plato’s theory of knowledge if we explore his analogy of the cave. Plato was convinced of objective truth, he saw the immaterial World of forms (W.O.F) as the place where true knowledge can be gained and therefore placed little value on the experiences of sense-perception (experiences we have using our senses such as sight and smell). These were the assumptions behind Plato’s analogy of the cave which he gives in his great work ‘Republic’. The analogy of the cave was Plato’s way of arguing that we cannot trust our senses. The prisoners were bound in the cave, they were blind to the true world and saw the mere reflections on the wall of the cave as reality.

Plato states “previously he had been looking at mere phantoms, but now he was near the true nature of being” - ‘The Republic’

Plato’s conclusion is that true knowledge can be found through rationalism. His analogy was meant to give the impression that we are bound to our sense-perception and that we will be chained in the cave like the people in the analogy if we take the empirical world as the ultimate truth. Plato’s prisoner escapes and gains real knowledge of the world which he could never have dreamed of gaining if he remained staring at the “mere phantoms” in the cave.  He points to the solution of our sense-perceptions deceiving us- which is rationalism.

Plato said this “Whenever a person strives, by the help of dialectic, to start in pursuit of every reality by a simple process of reason, independent of all sensuous information, never flinching, until by an act of the pure intelligence, he has grasped the real nature of good”

 Aristotle’s understanding of knowledge-

Aristotle’s contribution to the field of epistemology was refreshingly simple. He argues that the empirical world (the physical world we are involved in and in which we use our senses in) is where we can gain true knowledge. Aristotle put science into practice and even developed his own scientific method. Therefore, he contradicted the thinking of Plato as sense-perception can be trusted in Aristotle’s perspective and must therefore be the basis for the gaining of new knowledge.

Aristotle didn’t accept the existence of Plato’s World of Forms, he relied on the physical world to gain his knowledge, seeing the empirical world as a reliable source for gaining new knowledge.

Now let’s skip to Immanuel Kant- he is by no means the next philosopher to comment on epistemology or knowledge, as there were many others such as Descartes who had lots to contribute- but Kant is arguably one of the most critical if we are to understand the historical battle and debate between rationalism and empiricism in philosophy and it’s captivating history.

Kant (arguably my favourite philosopher on the issue of how we can gain knowledge) argued that the greatest way to gain knowledge and reach truth was through applying both rationalism and empiricism.

He stated in ‘a critique of pure reason’ that “All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.”

This quote from Kant shows that when we gain new knowledge it inevitably begins with our sense-perception, for example, the design argument for the existence of God begins with observing the universe. He goes on to say that the next stage is understanding, for example, in the design argument the line of argument is that once we have observed we can understand that the universe seems designed and finely tuned. Kant’s third stage of gaining knew knowledge is reason, and he makes the noble statement “there is nothing higher than reason” which is brilliantly applied in his ethical theory (Kantian ethics). If we apply this to the design argument, we see the third stage of reason in action as the third premise in the design argument is that “since the world seems so well designed and finely tuned, it must have a designer”. This shows that Kant’s understanding of how we gain new knowledge is helpful and practical, he excellently binds together the benefits of rationalism and empiricism in gaining new knowledge.

Do you agree? Maybe Kant has overestimated the reliability of sense-perception or the practicality of using reason?

Johnstheology.blogspot.com