Philosophy 1000
Even the baby’s knowledge of the necessity of breath, exists solely within the parameters of the world in which he exists.
I must begin by professing my utmost gratitude. You have provided one of the most challenging and gratifying courses I upon which I have ever engaged. I say this not in the sense of academia, but in personal fulfillment.
Secondly, I must unfortunately (attempt to) relate to you why I can not fulfill the third given assignment defined in the “Course Requirements”1 section of the syllabus. Be assured however, that I do this in no way as excuse or defense, for I feel none is needed. I engage in the pursuit of knowledge not for benefit of letters, but for benefit of knowledge itself. Therefore, whatever academic consequences come of my decision are inconsequential.
What follows then, does not intend to function in my own defense, simply for your understanding. I humbly present these words to you not to gain respect or privilege, but because I have assigned much respect unto you. As one who has indeed tried to facilitate my own understanding, I felt I could not possibly leave you with nothing to think about.
When I began to think of the many topics on which to write, I found infinitesimal possibilities. Any of which I most certainly would have been able to use in facilitating my completion of a “paper of not less than 2,000 words on a philosophical subject of [my] choice.”2 Yet, one question continually disrupted my progress: Why? Though I was certain that I could easily, and with much competence, complete the given assignment, I could not reconcile exactly why I should.
So, I began to logically survey the situation:3 I have enrolled in the class so that I may gain knowledge. Therefore, my participation in each activity should be with the intent (or expectancy) of gaining some knowledge (Let us assume at this point that is even possible!). So the question is: Would writing a research paper benefit me, or more specifically, will it allow me to become more knowledgeable? The answer is no. The research, in its own accord, perhaps would. But the writing would not.4 In short, my relating to you the fact that I have learned would not make the learning more or less so.
Secondly, let’s suppose that I have indeed researched much, gained many insights, and felt that I had genuinely progressed (That, I would humbly suggest is true!). In relaying to you all that I have learned I must necessarily (given the context) employ that-which-we-call language. Unfortunately, language does not provide us with the proper tools to relay thought and idea.5 Even as I type these words, your knowledge of them and what they represent is relative. Language is necessarily imperfect; therefore it is impossible to employ it to express perfect thought (knowledge). Knowledge can perhaps be known, but it can not be expressed though such limited means.6
If I were to complete the given assignment, I would undoubtedly be asserting knowledge; Knowledge of a certain subject, and certain evidence to support it. Further, I would be asserting that I could relay to you that knowledge. This I, in no way, assert that I can do;7 and to deliver something presented as such would be unjust.8
At this point I realize I have completed more than one quarter of the required length of the assignment presenting a rationale of exactly why I could not do so. Explanation (or lack of) does not make reason any less valid, and had I left you with blank pages my reasons would have been perhaps much more substantial; for the very attempt at explanation undermines that which I am describing. Thus, it may appear that I am simply justifying my actions to soften the scholarly blow. Please, do not allow that incorrect assumption to disrupt your mind from following my reason. Be assured, that I provide these words solely out of compassion. Lay what scholarly consequences you must upon me, but do so apart from personal understanding.
What follows then, is certainly not to be taken as evidence that I have successfully completed the given assignment.9 It is, simply evidence that I have tried. Do with it what you wish.
Sincerely,
Jason Langley
As a baby engages in breath – born knowing how to sustain itself; so too, can the knowledgeable person possess knowledge. Though the baby does not understand why it must continue its breath, the knowledge that it must do so is within him. Whether he understands that the knowledge is present is irrelevant to the fact of the knowledge’s existence.
In the pursuit of named knowledge however, one is always forced to assume first knowledge of certain other parameters: For instance, in order to assert that A is B, one would have to assume perfect knowledge of everything surrounding both A and B.
If knowledge is to be absolute, it would necessarily encompass all. Not only this world or the world of the observer, but a view from every possible angle would be necessary. Human senses are necessarily limited. Sight is limited to what can be seen. Touch, to what can be felt, and so on. Further, all of these senses are working within certain bounds. I can see what is in front of me only if proper light is supplied. I can touch what is within reach, but nothing more. What exists in this world, I can obtain sensory knowledge of; anything more, I cannot.
Named knowledge then, relies on imperfect sources. How can one assert that A is B when everything known about both A and B has, originally, been derived from knowledge gathered from the senses?
How would a mind born into a world without senses function?10
Perhaps that individual (mind) would assume that existence was indeed without light. Yet a mind equipped with the sense of sight would know that is surely not the case. However, what if we were to introduce another, yet more powerful mind into this world; one with heightened sense capability? Perhaps this mind would assert that both the first and the second individual’s ideas of existence were wrong.
While the mind with no sight could not imagine light’s very existence, the mind with sight can see clearly (and comprehend) what is in front of him. However the knowledge of light’s existence, and then further deductions about how and why it functions would rely solely on the sense of sight. So, everything known about light is further assuming that what is seen is true.
Now, the third mind could see not only both of these previous possibilities, but a third as well: One all too obvious (as was the light to the mind with sight) to a mind capable of sensory perception above the level of sight.
How then, is one to allow himself to be convinced of possessing certain knowledge?
All supposed knowledge must then necessarily be qualified: A is B, but only within the world that is sensed. All claims of knowledge or truth are, necessarily, claims of knowledge or truth within certain parameters. This should be a given. When one makes the statement A is B, he does not actually mean that he can assert that A is indeed, in every possible light, B. He means only that A, given his current sensory perceptions seems to be B.11
Any attempt to define a truth or knowledge will undoubtedly corrode its meaning. The truth that is told is assuredly impure, as any method used to convey its meaning12 would entail an attempt to constrain something that is infinite into finite terms.
A tool as malleable and uncertain as language can never be used to describe universal principles. Language uses an arbitrary system of symbols mapped onto various concepts. These symbols have no inherent meaning, only ones placed upon them by those who employ a given set of symbols. For example, the word nada to a Spanish speaking person would mean something like “nothing.” However the same sound spoken to a Croatian speaker would mean something closer to “hope.” Therefore similar sounds and sound sets are largely ambiguous, their meanings relative only to those using or sensing the particular sounds.
An ambiguity between certain words within even one language exists as well. For instance, when one speaks of soul, he may refer to spirit, essence, psyche, mind, etc., interchanging one or all of these distinct things at will.13 The interpretation of such terms would rely on previous sensory experience.
Further, the very nature of language, and the word sets contained within, structure the very way in which a mind can think. Removal of some words and additions of others will alter the very concepts available for the mind to employ.
Truth seems most likely to be found in deep meditation, when all sensory perception and linguistic thought can be suspended.
Both language and mental imagery are flawed carriers for truth, as each relies firstly on the senses. Though some degree of cognition would seemingly be possible without the implementation of language, reason or rationalizing would be limited. Thus the very act and structure of thought is thoroughly dependent on the language used, as well as the level of command and the degree of understanding of individual words.
Once again, one finds that all understanding is relative.
Notes
1 Phillips 2.
2 Ibid.
3 By use of syllogism. See Grube 164.
4 Though the production and practice of writing is not without merit in itself, it does not facilitate the hastening of philosophical knowledge in the sense it is being used here.
5 See Section IV.
6 See Section III.
7 See Section II.
8 This term is used loosely here. See Plato’s discussion in The Republic Book II (Plato 29-53.), as well as Aristotle’s in Nichomachean Ethics Book V (Aristotle 11-145.) for two views of the subject.
9 Included are various meditations, in no way meant to be of exceptional scholarly value. Rather, they are bits of random thoughts pieced together solely for my own use in attempts to create some clarity or understanding. Thus, they are not refined or accessible as one would expect from works meant to be viewed by one other than the author.
10 It is interesting to wonder whether a mind born with absolutely no sensory perception would actually be capable of any thought whatsoever.
11 Hobbes made use of similar ideas. However he seemed to be satisfied with this answer, concluding that if the senses were all that one could possibly use to facilitate knowledge, they could not be questioned. Or, rather there was no need to question whether perceptions did indeed mirror reality. See Grube 366.
12 Other than perhaps direct thought referencing or anomalous cognition, not yet thought to be available to humans.
13 Descartes makes use of such words in his Meditations, intending their use as synonymous though they are not always taken as such.
Selected Works
Aristotle. Nichomachean Ethics. Trans. Martin Ostwald. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1999.
Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy: in which the existence of God and the distinction of the soul from the body are illustrated. Trans. Donald A. Cress. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993.
Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: Fourth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Phillips, Clarence. Introduction to Philosophy: Course Syllabus. University of New Orleans, New Orleans. June, 2006.
Plato. Five Dialogues. Trans. G. M. A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1981.
Plato. Plato’s Republic. Trans. G. M. A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1974.
