PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

1 | P a g e

PHILOSOPHY

OF SOCIAL

SCIENCES

TERM PAPER AND

PRESENTATION

PRIYAM SHUKLA | SOCL 14

2

TOPIC - "Although all our cognition commences with experience, yet it does

not on that account all arise from experience."

A note on the relationship between Knowledge and Experience.

To use the "knowledge" and "experience" to elucidate the disparity between them

or not, the concept in itself is very positive and sound. Lots of great writers,

artists and scientists have talked and written about the significance of obtaining

ideas from bits of knowledge from around the world, making sense of it and

trying to figure out ways to join these dots to invigorate productive thinking and

to come up with new ideas.

Referring to Kant, he says "that there is nothing to doubt the fact that all our

knowledge begins with experience, otherwise in what other way will the

cognitive ability be and put into exercise. Objects that we see around us stimulate

our senses and it turn we come up with representations of those stimulations. We

try and understand these representations, connect them, differentiate them and

try and compare these, thus using up all the raw data of sensible impressions into

a cognition of objects, which we call experience. "

If we take time, into consideration then there is nothing that precedes experience,

when it comes to gaining knowledge.

Kant says that, "....even our experiential cognition is a composite of that which we

receive through impressions and with our own cognitive ability provides out of

itself, which addition we cannot distinguish from that fundamental material until

long practise has made us attentive to it and skilled in separating it out."

Kant, makes a division between priori knowledge and empirical knowledge, the

first one is knowledge/justification that does not involve experience whereas the

3

second one involves pragmatic evidence. There are a few things in life which we

know because we have experienced it and some others which we know which are

independent of experience. It could be knowledge gained from books, listening to

the experience of another person etc. or as we mature and various opinions, ideas

and other kinds of knowledge are fed to us, we gain the ability to make sense of

consequences of certain actions using our own knowledge. We certainly doubt

that kind of knowledge to a certain extent unless and until we have experienced it

ourselves but the thought processes in the mind are already set in motion by

then.

A toddler, for example does not realize that if he falls off from a height on the

ground he will hurt himself, unless he has experienced it because at that point of

time in his life the child is incapable of comprehending any kind of explanation or

justification told to him by adults. Here, the child is devoid of empirical evidence

and will later on gain such experience and develop his thoughts around it.

A noteworthy inquiry here is, that from where might experiences itself pick up its

assurance if every one of the guidelines in agreement to which it continues were

themselves thusly constantly observational, along these lines unexpected?

We can content ourselves, by utilizing our intellectual capacity to see an actuality

together with its sign. Tending to the aforementioned inquiry, in the event that

we step by step evacuate everything that is exact in our encounters that is the

experimental bodies such as - the colour, something we see, the

hardness/softness, something we feel- there will an area that was occupied by

that body and doing away with it is not an option. Similarly, on the off chance that

we get rid of experimental idea of each question, every one of the portions of

experience that shows us we will in any case not have the capacity to take from it

that by method for which we consider it a substance or as reliant on a substance.

Subsequently, we yield that this idea is situated in our workforce of discernment

4

from the earlier. Thus, we concede that this concept is seated in our faculty of

cognition a priori.

The beauty of expanding one's cognitions is so great that one can only be stopped

by coming across a clear contradiction. Kant doesn't argue from the pragmatist

position that all knowledge is generated by reason, or does he contend to the

empiricist position that all knowledge is generated by experience.

" Kant agrees with the empiricist position that all knowledge begins with

experience and that there cannot be any innate ideas in the mind prior to

experience, but he does not agree that this position supports the claim that

experience must be the only source of all knowledge. Instead, he explains why

reason and experience may be combined to produce valid knowledge."

Knowledge may arise from two main sources: the sensibility and the

understanding. The sensibility is the workforce of accepting impressions, while

the comprehension is the personnel of creating representations. Sensibility

produces instincts, and comprehension produces ideas. Hence, instincts and

ideas are components of all experiential, and they are components of every one of

them from the earlier and a posteriori information. Intuitions and concepts may

be a priori or a posteriori. A priori concepts are pure concepts of the

understanding, while a posteriori concepts are derived from sensory intuitions.

All that appears to be vital for comprehension is that there are two fundamental

stems of human cognizance, which can develop from a root normal to everything

except maybe obscure, to be specific sensibility and comprehension. Through the

first of which objects are given to us and through the second of which they are

thought.

So although all our cognition commences with experience, yet it does not on that

account all arise from experience, we see that there is a certain sort of knowledge

5

that is obtained on gaining from other individuals' encounters and from perusing

records of it that is from the books. Moving on to what Descartes has talked about

knowledge and experience. He asks a very important question that .. "If we know

something, are we absolutely certain of it?"

The quest for knowledge remains a perplexing problem. Humankind keeps on

trying to comprehend itself and its general surroundings, and, in reality, how it is

he/she can even be sure of the things he supposes he knows. How do we know

what we know? On the other hand in what manner can an epistemology be

created that gives a system to be perceived and understood? Descartes'

recreation of a knowing process was based upon a numerical approach and gave

a physiological solution for his issue. Still, Descartes epistemology sits simple and

there is by all accounts various issues. It appears that the principal defect to

Descartes realism is that it emerges out of an ontological information, or

familiarity with being. The main genuine truth he finds in acknowledging he is a

'thing that believes' is an ontological truth. That is, he cannot affirm another

person's presence since he considers, or in light of the fact that they think. His

truth then is close to home or subjective truth. Yet, at any rate, it is truth for him.

This, then, prompts the second issue for his logic: it has all the earmarks of being

an existential reality. Truth is comprehensible in light of the fact that he, in the

experience of his cognizance, has found it. This individual and subjective reality

does not prompt the goal reality, or all inclusive reality that he guarantees. His

case for self acknowledgment, or maybe, self disclosure, demonstrates little to

some other unsure being. To say "I think, in this way, I am', is not testable or

comprehensible by any other person. It is an existential reality. It is as if

Descartes has built up for himself the 'knowing sense of self'. To return to the

discussion of Descartes quest for knowledge and basic truths, it was said that his

rational process seemed perplexing as he moved from the subjective to the

6

universal to the objective. His rationalism doesn’t seem rational. Perhaps another simpler way of rational construction would be:

1. I can know

2. There is something to know

3. I can use subjective understanding to bridge the gap.

Knowledge for the rationalist is thus what can be deduced from principles that

cannot be otherwise; they are indubitable. Examples of such principles include:

"Bachelors are unmarried males," "A thing cannot be and not be at the same time

in the same way," "Triangles have three sides," and "A whole is always greater

than any one of its parts." These statements are known with certainty to be true

because the very meaning of the terms involved (e.g., bachelors, triangles, things,

wholes) requires that we think of them in certain ways (without relying on sense

experience). We thus know about some things prior to any sense experience we

have or could have. Such knowledge is called a priori. Any knowledge that relies

on (that is, comes after or is posterior to) sense experience is called a posteriori.

In order to identify an ultimate principle of truth on which all other knowledge

can be based, Descartes adds to a strategy that suspends our trust in what we

have been taught, what our faculties let us know, what we "believe" is self-

evident - to put it plainly, with respect to all that we know. Keeping in mind the

end goal to figure out if there is anything we can know with assurance, he says

that we first need to question all that we know.

Certitude is in this way grounded in the information of the self, which is itself

coherent just if there is a God who ensures that we are not tricked about what we

know of the world plainly and particularly (i.e., numerically). By speak to reason

alone, we can know: this is the primary message of logic.

7

Learning from books or experience, have a typical source that is life. On the off

chance that experience is the thing that individuals gain from around the world,

by seeing something, feeling it and appreciating its tendency, books are just the

record of it. At a point when a man encounters something they gain from it and

they go on and pass the information to others. Everyone's truth is painted with

their own perceptions. The information picked up from others while dependably

have an instability in it in light of the fact that until and unless one encounters it,

one does not fully become convinced of it. Books are a critical wellspring of

learning. They keep records of other individuals' encounters and can develop the

results of maybe the same occasions the essayist has been through and one

where the listener might or has encountered or may, in the future. Books will

furnish us with ideas and hypotheses for the way things capacity in life however

does not give the chance to practice or experience them.

Learning picked up from books and information picked up from a fact,

compliment each other. There is a sure connection. You can learn and pick up

information about wars and fight and claim to be exceptionally adapted however

when one must be there on the front line and conceptualize your brain and plan

out methodologies it's a great deal a superior approach to get information by

experience.

Thus, my concluding statement on the basis of the writings of the two authors,

Descartes and Kant are, that even though knowledge arises from experience,

there are a lot many sources through which knowledge can be gained. Intuition,

doubt, doubting the already known matter, records of other people's experiences,

by modes of proper education, comprehending the right and wrong on the basis

of individuals' understanding of what the right and wrong.

8

References :

1. Descartes, R., & Cottingham, J. (1986). Meditations on first philosophy: With selections from the Objections and

Replies. Retrieved April 3, 2016.

2. Kant, I., Guyer, P., & Wood, A. W. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge University Press.

3. Reynolds, C., Dr. (n.d.). The Quest for Knowledge: A Study of Descartes. Retrieved April 3, 2016, from

http://www.global-logic.net/descarte.html