Knowledge

Knowledge is the arrangement of facts under the realm of a particular subject. It is

the theoretical as well practical understanding of a phenomenon under
consideration. Knowledge operates at three levels i.e
Mechanical Level:- It is superficial in nature. Common masses do interact and
cultural and contextual understanding regarding thing occur at this level.

Scientific Level.:- It is academic in nature. Analysis of words and viability of Ideas

must be discussed. Development , acceptance and refutation of theories occur at
this plane.. Furthermore, logical and grammatical structure of the propositions are
assessed.
Artistic Level:- No rules and regulations are required . One is free to stipulate new
meanings based on the faculty of intuition e.g beauty of flower cannot be analyzed
rationally as well as empirically.
 Sources Of Knowledge
• Rational Knowledge
• Empirical Knowledge
• Intuitive Knowledge
• Revealed Knowledge
 Rational Knowledge
• It is based on Innate Ideas and concepts bestowed by nature/Divinity.
Rationalists believed that reality has intrinsically Logical structure
which does not require sensory experience. Mathematics is one of
the examples of rational Knowledge. Descartes was one of the
conspicuous Rationalist in Modern western thought.
• Empirical knowledge:- Empiricists believed that the only source of
knowledge comes through sensory experience and observations. John
Locke famous notion is that ‘’A child when born is TABULA RASA’’
means blank slate.
 Rationalism
• To be a rationalist means to believe that the source of all knowledge is within Human Self/Mind. Reason has the
ability to develop those Axioms which provide the basis of knowledge in any subject. Concepts are innate and
universal and we can deduce or infer conclusions like we do in the mathematics. The first principles or axioms are
the starting point in every subject which are considered to be true provided by the reason faculty which is innate.
Awareness and Understanding both are encapsulated in human mind. The experience does not bring something
new rather it explains and clarify something which is already existent in the human mind. Rationalists claim that
if we accept the notion that knowledge is outsourced then we cannot formulate universal claims. For instance,
‘Fire will and always burns’ is a universal claim. It contains logical necessity. If we say that one reaches to this
conclusion based on the experience then it lacks logical necessity as well as universality and characterized with
the element of probability because one cannot experience of the Fire burning all the things. Subsequently how
can one say based on limited experiences that fire will burn everything at every place? So, according to
Rationalists one has to admit that knowledge is innate otherwise we can never achieve those eternal truths and
realities which are not subject to change and remain constant/eternal. Gottfried Willhelm Leibniz , a continental
rationalist claimed that if Mind is excluded from all kinds of innate concepts/knowledge then we can only
assimilate large amount of facts through experience but would be unable to organize them in a way that yield
results or apply to formulate new knowledge. For example, the sum of three angles is equal to 180 degree. This is
a mathematical axiom which is innate and can be used to apply in different calculations. Same stand true for
Principles in Language, Logic, Ethics and Metaphysics.
• The Innate Knowledge thesis offers our rational nature. Our innate
knowledge is not learned through either sense experience or intuition and
deduction. It is just part of our nature. Experiences may trigger a process
by which we bring this knowledge to consciousness, but the experiences
do not provide us with the knowledge itself. It has in some way been with
us all along. According to some rationalists, we gained the knowledge in
an earlier existence. According to others, God provided us with it at
creation. Still others say it is part of our nature through natural selection.
 Empiricism
• Empiricists endorse the following claim for some subject area.

• The Empiricism Thesis: Empiricism rests on the notion that all kind of knowledge can be gained only through
experience by the means of sense perceptions. An infant when born, is Tabula Rasa- a blank slate and does not
have any kind of innate knowledge/ concepts regarding the world. Different stimuli in the immediate
environment started casting different impressions on the mind. According to John Lock, Human mind is devoid
of any kind of innate knowledge. If human mind have some innate concepts then these concepts must be held
vividly in the mind. For example, if we consider moral principles, Concept of God. Then these should be
universal and applicable to all but practically speaking the above mentioned concepts are relative to the
environment. Locke refuted the idea that there are concepts in mind which mind doesn’t know. He believed
that Sensations and Reflection are two forces which furnish the experiential knowledge/concepts. External
things have power to cast impressions on our minds. This force is being called as Quality. According to Locke,
this Quality can be bifurcated into primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are those which
represent the actual object like shape, extension, motion or rest etc… and secondary qualities are those which
could be the representation of our own perception and thinking about the object but might be not the part of
the object like color, sound, taste. The secondary qualities are more volatile in nature and subject to change.
There are two kinds of concepts i.e simple and complex concepts. Simple concepts are those being acquired by
the sense perceptions like pain and pleasure, heat and cold etc… Complex ideas/concepts are those which are
the combination of simple concepts or number of concepts are included to formulate one concept, e.g.
Universe, Beauty, Gratitude etc….. Locke further said that concepts can be related with each other in terms of
cause and effect by the two forces called sensations and reflection. These relations can be realized and
populated in diversity, time and space .
• Concluding Remarks:-
I have stated the basic claims of rationalism and empiricism so that each is relative
to a particular subject area. Rationalism and empiricism, so relativized, need not
conflict. We can be rationalists in mathematics or a particular area of mathematics
and empiricists in all or some of the physical sciences. Rationalism and empiricism
only conflict when formulated to cover the same subject. Then the debate,
Rationalism vs. Empiricism, is joined. The fact that philosophers can be both
rationalists and empiricists has implications for the classification schemes often
employed in the history of philosophy, especially the one traditionally used to
describe the Early Modern Period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
leading up to Kant. It is standard practice to group the major philosophers of this
period as either rationalists or empiricists and to suggest that those under one
heading share a common agenda in opposition to those under the other. Thus,
Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are the Continental Rationalists in opposition to
Locke, Berkeley and Hume, the British Empiricists. We should adopt such general
classification schemes with caution. The views of the individual philosophers are
more subtle and complex than the simple-minded classification suggests.
 Intuitive Knowledge
• Intuitive Knowledge has following hallmarks:-
1. Immediacy of Experience: The region of mystic experience is immediate. Like other normal experiences which are
subject to interpretation of sense-data for our knowledge of the external world, so mystic experience is subject to
interpretation for our knowledge of God. The immediacy of experience means that we know God just as we know other
objects. Is it possible to experience God ? We know the knowledge of external world through sense perceptions but if this
is the only mode of knowledge then we might not be sure about the reality of our own self. Take an analogy of social
experience in which we don’t have any sense to experience other minds but only through their responses. This same has
been mentioned in the Quran that
‘’ And Your Lord said, Call me and I respond to your Call (40:60)
One thing is for sure that our experience of other minds remains something inferential, immediate and entertain no doubt to the
reality of our social experience.
2. Unanalyzable wholeness of mystic experience: It means that thought is reduced to minimum and an
analysis of experiencing common objects in which innumerable data merge into a particular experience is not
possible. The ordinary experience in view of our practical need of adaptation takes that reality piecemeal,
selecting isolated sets of stimuli for response. The mystic state brings us into contact with the total passage of
reality in which all the diverse stimuli merge into one another and form a single unanalyzable unity in which
the ordinary distinction of subject and object does not exist.
3. Intimate association with Unique in which subject /object dichotomy Vanishes: The mystic state is a
moment of intimate association with a unique other self, transcending, encompassing, and momentarily
suppressing the private personality of the subject of experience.
• Inexplicability of Mystic Experience: Mystic experience can not be
communicated because they are more like a feeling than a thought. The
interpretations which the mystic or the Prophet puts on the content of the
religious consciousness can be conveyed to others in the form of
propositions ,but the content itself cannot be so transmitted. The
incommunicability of mystic experience is due to the fact that it is essentially a
matter of inarticulate feeling. It must be noted that mystic feeling like all other
feelings has a cognitive element also that it lends itself to the form of idea. In
fact, it is the nature of feeling to seek expression in thought. It would seem that
the two-feeling and idea are the non-temporal and temporal aspects of the
same unit of inner experience.