1. Meaning of Epistemology
• comes from two Greek words epistome and logos,
• meaning knowledge and science respectively
• it means that branch of philosophy which investigates on knowledge.
• Bernard Lonergan defines it as that branch of knowledge which investigates the origin ,
structure and validity of knowledge
• Validity: (the quality of being based on truth or reason, or of being able to be accepted:
• This research seems to give some validity to the theory that the drug might cause cancer
• the fact of having legal force, or being legally acceptable:
• State officials, however, questioned the validity of the report.: forensic report
• structure: a system arranged, or organized in this way: college buildings, college curriculum
• comprehensive sense ( including everything that is necessary:)it can be defined as the
philosophical treatise about the nature , possibility and origin of true and certain knowledge.
2. Meaning of epistemology
• In India philosophy of knowledge is also called as Jnana Sutra
( short aphoristic statements). Aphorism: memorable expression of a general
truth or principle
• “if the shoe fits, wear it.” In this case, shoe is a metaphor for all sorts of things
– jobs, partners, opportunities, or anything else that might “fit” in a general
sense.
• in the West it is often designated as Critica, Criteriolgy, Gnoseolgy.
• Criteriolgy: a standard by which you judge, decide about, or deal with
something:
• The Health Service should not be judged by financial criteria alone.
• Gnoseology : the philosophic theory of knowledge : inquiry into the basis,
nature, validity, and limits of knowledge
3. Meaning of Epistemology
• When are we to say that we know something? What is the criterion by which we
can be certain of anything? How does knowledge take place? Is it pure product of
our mind? Does it come from outside our mind into our mind? Are there different
types of knowledge? How reliable is our knowledge? These are some of the
problems that we will discuss in this course on Epistemology.
• Critica: discerning, capable of judging,"
• Each one refer to one or more aspects of the whole problematic of knowledge.
• Epistemology proves to be the most radically self-critical science. It is also called as
the foundational science.
• science concerns 'the very act of knowing', that is, in Epistemology we reflect and
study the How and the Why of our Knowledge.
• In Epistemology we study our reflective process which takes place within our
mind.
4. Meaning of epistemology
• It is a science which concerns 'the very act of knowing‘
• In Epistemology we study our reflective process which takes place within our
mind.
• It is also called as the foundational science. Bze Epistemology proves to be
the most radically self-critical science.
5. THE HISTORY OF
EPISTEMOLOGY
• in India up to the age of the Upanishads (that is, about 7 c.B.C.) so also in the
west up to 5 c. B.C., man did not seem to bother to find out whether what he
thought was really true. One took as granted
• In the west it is from the Plato the idea of epistemological question began.
• He began to ask the questions : what is knowledge, how much of what we
ordinarily think we know is really true? Do the senses give reliable
knowledge? What is the relations between knowledge and truth?
• concerning the validity of our knowledge, from the west the sophists and the
sceptics who taught that we cannot know anything to be really true. - that
our mind is always in doubt - that we can not be certain of anything.
• in the west only three sources of knowledge.
6. Clarifying terms
• Scepticism: is generally a questioning attitude
or doubt towards one or more recognized instances
of knowledge which are asserted to be
mere belief or dogma.
• Sophists : the name sophistai, which originally meant one who
possesses wisdom — but in reality undertook to show that
all true certitude is unattainable, and that culture and preparation
for the business of public life are to be acquired, not by profound
thinking, but by discussion and debate.
7. History of epistemology
• In Indian philosophy, knowledge in the strict sense or correct
cognition (understanding, reasoning), is called prama, a source of
valid knowledge is called pramana.
• There are one to ten sources of knowledge,
• we have had Epistemology since the ancient times
• Sankhya, in Indian Vedic times, in the Upanishads and in Geetha,
means 'the right knowledge', 'one having the right knowledge'.
• Buddhist school of Svatantra-vijnanavada undertakes a thorough
investigation of sense perception, of the validity of knowledge and
of the means of cognition.
8. • COGNITION: the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge
and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.
• the nyaya school, maintains that knowledge is only a manifestation
of objects. They lay great importance on the four pramanas.
9. Object of epistemology
• The object of epistemology is every knowledge that is claimed by the
human mind
• what we come to know through intuition, mystical phenomenon,
and experience.
• Intuition: immediate apprehension of the mind, or by senses, or
immediate insight - video
• Mystical: a contemplative union, spiritual apprehension
• Apprehension ; understanding, an idea or a concept
• Phenomenon ; that which is remarkable, a fact or occurance that is
perceived
10. Purpose of studying epistemology
• To help everyone to sharpen their critical faculty.
• To know how to proceed to be certain of anything.
• To know when to doubt, when to suspend one’s judgment and when to seek
further information.
• To respect or to know to respect other’s opinion.
• To have the tools needed to pass from a state of doubt and opinion to
conviction and commitment.
•
11. Chapter one : Knowledge and judgment
• 1.1 Nature of knowledge
•
• What is knowledge?
• What does it meant to know?
12. 1.1.1 Knowledge
•Knowledge is the content of one’s knowing. There are
two important characteristics.
•Truth – the knowledge to be knowledge, it has to be
true. So true knowledge is that where what is asserted
or denied corresponds to what is really is.
•Reasonableness – it has to be reasonable. It is based on
sufficient or adequate reasons.
13. 1.1.2 To Know
• To know is to be aware that such and such is or is not the case.
• To be aware – implies awareness of some objects. It also implies a
duality of the knower and the known.
• Such and such – refers to the object. (Whatever comes under the
human pursuit even the non-existence provided it is a concept).
• Is or is not the case – Is or is not indicates a judgment. One can be said
to know only when he makes a judgment on something. So it is an
essential object.
• Judgment is not explicit but only be implicit or internal. Is or is not is in
the present tense. Can be referred to the past and future. Eg. i) we will
die (future), ii) we have evolved from monkeys.
• How do we get aware of the facts? – I am aware that it is the case that
we have evolved from monkeys. I am aware that it is the case that I
would die.
14. 1.2 Concepts and Propositions
• To know’ implies making a judgment. This judgment implies either implicit or
explicit. Normally we make an implicit judgment: I use words in the form of a
proposition.
• It is the verbal expression of an internal judgment. In proposition, there is
something affirmed or denied (Object).
• Eg. 1: Raj is handsome – Raj is subject and handsome is object.
• Eg. 2: God exists – God is subject and exists is object. Here the subject is
affirmed.
•
15. Analysis of Concepts
• Definition: “A term denoting a class of beings is called a concept.”
• Every concept is a mental representation of an object. It is also a universal
idea. (universal = applicable for everything). Do these concepts exist in
reality?
• Independent of the mind in reality alone?) or can we affirm or deny things
about those that do not exist?
• Philosophers have spent more time discussing the problem of universals,
than Alexander in conquering the whole world.” – Author of Middle Ages.
16. • Concepts have been discussed by different sciences.
• Epistemology: it studies the epistemic value of concepts. (What value
this concepts have in relation to knowledge).
• Psychology: How does man form concepts? (Man forms it in the mind
– how it is formed in the mind?)
• Metaphysics: Do concepts exist external to man’s mind? (Apart from
human mind)
•
17. Concepts in Epistemology
• Epistemology concludes that man is capable of having Precepts and
Concepts.
• Precepts: The content of your perception is called precepts.
• Concept: The image of the universal idea of the individual object. tree
• (Precept = material content of the object). Tree as a matter
• (Concept = mental image of the object). Tree as an idea.
•
18. • How does man form concepts?
• Perceive the essential properties of an object.
• Abstraction of the common properties
• What is abstracted is applied to many of the same kind.
• Then you have formed the concept. (Normally, essential
characteristics should be applicable to all the individual beings of
the same group, but we cannot absolutise any one of the essential
characteristics).
19. (3) Concepts have an epistemic value: They help us to
know the reality confronting us. Without concepts,
language is not possible. Eg., Man is not to be kicked. (If
you do not have concepts, every time you have to
describe each of these concepts). No progress in natural
science could be possible, without concepts.
20. SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
• What are the sources of knowledge? How do we come to know? -
Different schools of thoughts, acknowledge different ways of knowing?
- The ways of knowing stretches from one to ten? (1-10) eg., Carvakas =
one way, i.e., perception
• The controversy is that some accept certain valid means of knowing
and some other school does not accept it.
• There is a third group which would say that one is implied in the other
– no need of fighting over the methods or means.
• We shall discuss the methods which are accepted by both Indian and
western philosophy. Indians have more means of knowledge.
21. Note:
• in Indian Philosophy, there is Jnana and Buddhi. These two
can be true or can be false. (True or false knowledge). But
these are not the only means of knowledge. There is
another word called Prama: it stands for that which
necessarily true and only true knowledge.
•Problem: All the three, when we translate into English, it
refers to one word, i.e., knowledge. That is the problem.
•And it is from the word Prama, Pramanas comes. Pramanas
means ways of arriving at true knowledge.
23. Perception (Pratyaksha)
• “Perception is cognition or apprehension of objects or anything
else through sense experience.”
• This is the most basic way of knowing something / anything.
Chronologically also, this is the first step of knowing anything.
• Basic thing = perceive something. Certain philosophers do not
accept pratyaksa (perception), because, they say that we have
innate ideas, independent of any sense experience (God put them
there).
• Generally, all the schools of philosophy, except extreme
rationalists, going into this theory, accept that perception is the
valid source of knowledge.
24. • Empiricists say (Thomas Acquinas, Scholastic philosophers) that we
can sense / perceive even God, religious language etc., can be in
some way perceived by senses.
• God sense = not limited to look and touching.
25. • Question: Are the senses genuine sources of knowledge? (Quite
often our senses deceive us).
• There may be a problem in using sense-experience. (Some say that
my sense cannot be wrong, and even when they are wrong – they say
that senses make mistakes).
• Some = Process of the senses was wrong, so mistake is on the senses.
• Some = man uses senses, then what will the sense do?
•
26. Principles:
• Principle – 1: Senses do not know, but it is man who knows by
means of his senses.
• eg., Night = snake,
• Morning = rope, so it is man who knows, not the senses
• Senses by themselves do not know anything. If senses only supply
information, and not involved in the process of knowledge, how do
you come to know? How errors take place? Which part gives the
problem?
• The process of judgement makes the error (mind). We make
mistakes, not because of the senses, which are unreliable, do not
blame the senses; problem is where the judgement takes place.
27. How mistakes take place
• How mistakes take place?
• (01) Hastiness in judgement (too fast) = you make a mistake. (Seeing rope as
snake, in hurry, wrong statement)
• (02) Ignorance of some physical fact (you are not familiar). (I am not
bothered about the fact, you are not careful, you were inattentive to the fact
that happens = ignorance of the possibility of the thing existing there).
28. Principle – 2: Sensation is not a passive registration of
sense data
• Difference between sense and sensation: Sensation takes place in us, we are
responsible for that.
• Sensation consists of a lot of interpretations of sense-data by the knower
• Knower actively interprets the sense data. Sensation is not passive; we are
never neutral in the process of sensation. When active knowing takes place,
we make a lot of judgments.
• Why does selective perception take place? How does this take place?
Emotions, feelings, reasoning faculties, and our upbringing.
29. Sense organs
• Both Eastern and Thomistic Psychology speak about two types of senses. (1)
External senses; (2) Internal senses.
• External Sense Organs
• 01) The Visual Sense = Sight = Eyes
• 02) The Auditory Sense = Hearing = Ears
• 03) The Tactile Sense = Touching = Skin
• 04) The Olfactory Sense = Smell = Nose
• 05) The Gustatory Sense = Taste = Tongue
•
30.
31.
32. Internal Senses
• (i) Manas = antahkarana. It is the perception of myself as seeing, hearing,
etc. self-knowing = you are aware that you are doing something. (Self
knowledge of some other senses). Eg: first profession, final profession etc.
• It does not rule out the external senses, they are also involved in internal
sense.
Internal sense of Indian Philosophy is similar to the central sense of Thomistic
Psychology.
St. Thomas in his discourses speaks that he is not only aware of his
duty but he is aware of his awareness.
33. Process of perception
• There are two stages of perception: (1) Indeterminate, (2) Determinate.
• Indeterminate Perception = Nirvikalpaka Samadi
• Determinate Perception = Savikalpaka Samadi
• While perceiving anything we undergo two steps.
• (i) Indeterminate: As the term implies, it exactly says that we are not aware
of what we perceive. It is a sort of vague perception; we do not know
exactly what it is. (eg., vague idea of something. (Indeterminate perception
happens so fast, that we are not able to be aware of it).
• (ii) Determinate: Having clear idea of something. If you are able to
perceive something clearly and say what it is, then it is determinate or
savikalpaka perception. Determinate necessarily involves a judgement. (eg.,
we can say who it is, what a thing is very clearly).
34. Types of perception
• Normal and Supranormal Perception
1) Laukika = normal perception
2) Alaukika = Supranormal Perception
• Apart from 6 ways (5 external and 1 internal) of perceiving, Indian
Philosophy also speaks of Supra-normal perception.
supranormal Perception
01. Laukika: How does the Normal perception take place? There is a
Sannikarsa (connection or contact) between the sense organs and the
object. This is laukika perception.
02. Alaukika: In Alaukika perception, there is no sannikarsa between the
sense organs and the object. Perception takes place, even without the
contact. There are three kinds of Alaukika perception
.
35. • Apprehension of the Universal (formal Concepts): the perception of the
cowness in a cow is the apprehension of the universal. Eg., treeness,
cowness.
• Illusion: “Perception of object, not proportionate to my senses.” What you
perceive is not compatible with your senses. eg., the Lord touched me.
“Taste and see that the Lord is good.” Eg., hot day (from the scenery of the
sea and the trees, etc., = without even having a contact). In films when you
watch raining scene, you also feel as if it is raining 3d effect.
• Yogic Perception: “This refers to perception of subtle things in remote places
or remote times.” It also refers to the illumination of mind attained in deep
concentration. Eg., ESP = Extra Sensory Perception.,
36. Anumana or Inference
• In Indian philosophy, different philosophers say that perception is the only means of
direct cognition (aparoksha) [perception is the only means of knowledge]. All the
other means are indirect cognitions (paroksha).
• What is inference? “Inference is a way of obtaining cognition / knowing through
reasoning.” Or it is a way of reasoning and obtaining cognition from known truths or
claimed truths. The vast amount of knowledge we have is from inference.
• Eg., A = B B = C Therefore A = C
• Here we say A = C, only basing on our earlier perception / experience, i.e., A = B, B =
C. Therefore we can say that inference is not really a means of obtaining cognition
different from and independent of perception. (Without perception, there cannot
be inference. Perception is a pre-condition for inference).
•
37. Kinds of Inference
• 01. Immediate Inference; 02. Mediate Inference (by the western logicians).
1. Immediate: Inference of one proposition from another is known as
immediate inference.
Eg., Some flowers are roses.
Therefore, Roses are flowers.
2. Mediate: Inference of one proposition from two other propositions, is
known as mediate inference. This mediate inference consists of two things:
1) Deduction, 2) Induction.
• Deduction: From universal to particular.
Eg., All trees are made of wood.
This pole is a tree.
Therefore, this pole is made of wood.
38. Continued….
• Induction: From particular to universal. There is a division in it. It is
stated to be a probable knowledge, which arrives at a general truth from
particular instances. It has two types: (i) Perfect Induction, (ii) Imperfect
Induction.
• Perfect Induction: That which takes into consideration all the instances.
• Eg., Water boils at 100o C in Yercaud.
• Water boils at 100oC at Arulambra.
• Therefore, Water boils at 100o C in every place.
39. Continued…
• Imperfect induction: It does not or may not take into consideration all the
instances (opp. to perfect induction). It consists of three things:
• (i) Incomplete Enumeration; (ii) By Analogy; (iii) By Elimination.
01) Incomplete Enumeration (invalid induction, not applicable to all
the instances). The details mentioned there is not comprehensive
enough…
Eg., Our cows call Kumar.
Our pigs call Kumar.
Therefore, all the animals call Kumar.
(It is relative = what is true in one place, may not be true in other
places).
Eg., Ravi’s pants were repaired by our tailor.
Raj’s pants were repaired by our tailor.
Therefore, all the pants were repaired by our tailor.
40. Continued..
• 02) By analogy:
• Eg., Bro. Oliver is the cause of our Joy.
• All Olivers cause Joy. (The term ‘cause of our joy’ is used in an
analogical sense).
• 03) By Elimination
• Eg., Jack a teenager is against us and does not help us.
• All teenagers are against us and do not help us.
41. Objections Against Inference
• The empiricists in Indian philosophy like Carvakas, and in Western
Philosophy, Locke, Hume, Mill …all these were against inference.
Why? Because, it was not physically verifiable.
• Objection 1: Even if we grant that the major term can be accepted
as true, inference cannot yield new knowledge. Why? Because the
conclusion is already implied in the major premise.
42. objections
• Objection – 2: For an inference to yield knowledge / cognition, both the major
and the minor premises must be true. The minor premise can be easily
recognized as true. Because it is the object of our direct perception. The
problem arises with the Major premise. How can the major term be recognized
as true? That is the Question? Because major term is not the object of our direct
cognition.
• Eg. Major Premise: Whatever begins to exist must someday cease to exist.
Minor Premise: You have begun to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, you must someday cease to exist.
• Minor premise can be easily recognized.
43. Contuinued…
• Major term: Must someday cease to exist = how can you recognize truth in it.
• Eg., Whatever smokes has fire
• It smokes.
• Therefore, it has fire.
• I problem: major term = how will you recognize.
• II problem: How can I come to say that whatever …is the case, can it be
unconditionally true (sweeping statement).
• Second Example: (there is a possibility of smoke without fire). Smoke in a lab,
no fire. Today the situation has changed. Can generalization be true? Can
sweeping statements be true?
44. • Answer 1: Unless and until one is prepared to accept the
insightful and intuitive power of human understanding,
one cannot start talking meaningfully at all. (Another way of
saying is that we have to accept induction / intuition).
•(Insight): eg., “Whole is greater than the part.”
•Eg., “A thing cannot be cold and hot at the same time.”
(principle of non-contradiction).
•Intuition: “It is by which a Truth is known, not from
previously known truth, but directly.”).
49. Answers to the Objections
• Every inference consists of both a deduction (universal to
particular) and an induction (particular to universal).
• The major premise is known by the induction, and it is this
induction, which is at the root of the objections raised
against the inference, and the genuineness of inferential
answer.
• (Generalization = induction. In the first major premise,
whatever is…. purely based on induction. Problem = people
do not agree of this induction
50. continued
• Answer 2: (objection – 2)
• Objection: Inference does not yield new knowledge. Why? Conclusion
is always existing in the Major premise. We must accept - arriving at
explicit awareness of explicit knowledge, even from what is existing
already, can be recognized as knowledge. Explicit awareness should
be considered as knowledge.
• (Arriving at explicit awareness of what is logically implied in an
already known truth is also a sure process of every act of
understanding or knowing something for certain. = to arrive at a
conclusion, you must come to the awareness of another truth at first,
that will help you to arrive at certain knowledge).
• Eg: avaaku – a + vaaku,
51. Sabda or Testimony
• Most of our knowledge comes from sabda, i.e., testimony of other
people.
• It gives not only the knowledge of the past, people, historical places,
etc., even to know yourself, you need testimony. How?
• To know the date of birth, medical check-up, later on, you want to
have a self-knowledge, Remarks, Scrutiny.
• Whether you like it or not, we believe others, and we have to believe
others. When we do not believe in others, there comes distrust.
• Even religious beliefs require testimony. Unless you accept the
authority / testimony of religious teachers, you cannot have religious
belief).
52. Kinds of Testimony
• It can be oral or written. Indian Philosophers:
• (1) Drsta = it is a testimony regarding perceptible objects.
• (2) Adrsta: It is a testimony regarding non-perceptible objects.
• Testimony and Reliability
•
• How far a testimony is reliable? What is the primary condition to
believe a testimony? For a testimony to be genuine source
of cognition, the testimony has to be proved reliable, i.e.,
TRUSTWORTHY. What makes this testimony reliable?
53. General Conditions on reliability of sabda
• Truthfulness of the Speaker: You must know that the speaker is not
trying to cheat / deceive you. You must also know that the speaker is
speaking the truth
• 2. Speaker should be Competent: (Capable of having sufficient
knowledge about which he is talking. If he speaks without having
knowledge of that particular field, then fallacy of the assumed
authority will take place. Having knowledge is not enough, but he
has to be in a position to speak that. Person should be certain about
what he is speaking).
• 3. The Credibility of the testimony of one can be enhanced or
supported by confirmation of other witnesses. (If more people
accept and witness the testimony, the testimony is likely to be true).
54. Scriptural Testimony
• . (i) Try to understand what the person or book tells you.
• (ii) Special attention is needed, especially with regard to ancient texts.
Why?
• The facts stated in ancient scriptures are not same as the scientific truths
of today. Therefore, we have to employ Hermeneutics
• We can directly understand contemporary matter. We must also realize
that religious language has its own peculiarities. We cannot understand
the religious language in the same way as we understand the ordinary
language
• Try to establish the authorship of the source. (Who said it / who wrote
the book.). It will tell you the integrity and authenticity of the truth.
55. Comparison (Upamana)
•This word is understood differently by different schools of
philosophy
•Nyaya: They say that Upamana is the relation between
the word and the object.
•(To take the classical example: a villager is told by a
forester that ‘gavaya’ is a wild animal which resembles a
domestic cow. Later the villager sees an animal as the
forester described it, and comes to know that ‘gavaya’
means this kind of animal).
56. •Mimamsakas: They say that Upamana is that which exists
between a remembered object and the actually
perceived one. (The villager sees the similarity between
the cow which he remembers and the wild animal which
he now actually perceives).
•All Schools: All of them have something in common. That
is, Upamana is dependent on perception, memory and
inference
•Def: “It is the comparison of an unperceived object as
being similar to some known objects.”
57. Usefulness of Comparision
• . It helps us in learning process : To learn something which is difficult,
through example we can understand,
• We are also able to speak of non-perceptible realities through
the similarities between perceptible and non-perceptible.
(Soul, God, heaven).
• Eg. God = “does a mother forget her baby.. even if your mother
forgets you, I won’t forget you. The relationship between the
mother and the son is compared to the relationship between
God and man. Thus we can know the nature of God).
• Eg: comparing women’s beauty with flowers
58. • Comparison is also used to speak of ultimate reality, i.e.,
God.
• (When we say this we do not mean that comparison is a
means to prove the existence of God, but to speak
meaningfully about the ultimate reality. So comparison is
not only limited to ultimate reality, but supra-sensible
realities also can be known through comparison. Eg. Angels
and devils.
• Comparison is not to prove these, but to know meaningfully
what angels and devils are = the picture of devil is nothing
but the result of comparison).
59. Postulation / Hypothesis = Arthapatti
• “Postulation is a cognition of facts, which has to be assumed or supposed to
explain two seemingly unexplainable or contradictory facts.”
• (Eg., Man ought to do good. In order to guarantee this that man
should do good, man should have freedom to do. In order to do
good, you must be free to do good. Man is free = it is a hypothesis. It
is a foundation on which the thesis is built. When we are not able to
explain a thing, we temporarily form a thesis.
• Hypothesis = it could be like this, to find out what have had
happened / to prove, we make so many hypothesis. Eg., This could
be the Cow that gives us milk. (Not yet proved, basic premise). Basing
on this try to prove that and make a thesis.
60. Difference between Hypothesis and Arthapatti
• Arhthapatti is the Indian version of Hypothesis.
• Hypothesis is a temporary decision or it is a tentative explanation, till the
truth is discovered. Therefore, it is uncertain knowledge.
• Arthapatti: Indian philosophical system says, it provides certain knowledge,
valid and true knowledge. (If a man ought to do good, then I must
postulate that he is physically free to do so. Towards this we have to
postulate another knowledge, we have to postulate that first of all he is
free to do. Arthapatti gives you the knowledge which is basic). Arthapatti is
itself accepted as an independent means of knowing. The main problem
between Hypothesis and Arthapatti is the varied understanding between
these two.
61. Conditions for a Good Hypothesis
• 1. It should be based on sound reasons; it should answer other relevant
questions and facts also. (Hypothesis can have any number of statements. It is
a cluster of reasons put together).
• Eg., He is fat.
• But he does not eat during the day. Therefore, he must be eating at night. (Till it
is proved, it is not a thesis, it remains a hypothesis).
• Eg., There are four animals.
• One is a bull. We get 30 lrs of milk. Therefore other three must be giving milk.
• Eg., Lepracy, cancer caused by devil. Cannot be cured. (a seemingly
unexplainable fact. If my hypothesis for the cause of cancer is that it is caused
by the devil and my reason for saying so is that all diseases are evil and evil can
only be caused by an evil being, my hypothesis can be shown – on medical,
philosophical and theological grounds, to be unsound).
62. Continuation of hypothesis
• 2. The hypothesis must give reasonable explanation for all the relevant facts.
For example, it must explain, in our case (cancer example), how is it
that it occurs mostly in advanced age, that it can attack my different
organs of the body and the blood itself, that it can but rarely occur in
young age, that it responds to certain treatment but not to others,
etc.
• 3. It must be internally consistent. There should be some flow of
thought. If some elements in the hypothesis contradict some others,
the hypothesis is not consistent
63. hypothesis
• Hypothesis should be coherent with other well-established facts. if
for example, the hypothesis says that cancer is such a disease that it
simply cannot be caused by anything, it is not coherent with
medical or philosophical well-established truths.
• Therefore,
• 1. Hypothesis is not final, it is always open-ended. (it is only
probable).
• 2. It is subject to correction and verification.
• 3. It serves as a supposition for further study.
64. 3.6 Non-perception (Anupalabdhi)
• “It is the cognition of the absence of a thing.”
• To notice that something is not there itself, is knowledge. Eg., Desk was here.
Desk is not here. Therefore, the desk is absent – is itself a knowledge.
(Knowing about things by their absence).
• Pratiyaksa and Anupalabdi are opposite to each other. P = is a direct cognition;
A = absence.
• Only Advaitins and Mimamsakas admit anupalabdhi. All the rest of the
schools of Philosophy do not accept this. It is only pratiyaksa and inference
combined. There is no non-perception
65. Chapter 4
REASON AND INTELLECT
• philosophers mean different things, when they speak of reason, intellect,
mind, insight, intuition, etc.
• Problem lies in translation. When we translate these terms the meaning of
these technical terms change.
66. 4.1 Insight
• Mind can have direct perception about things. Empiricists say that insight
is not valid. Why? We can’t experience. Therefore, it is not valid. It is an
objection.
• Response: We need to posit an insightful power of human understanding.
• Def: “Insight is a penetration with understanding into some self-evident
truth.”
• (Insight serves into one purpose, i.e., self-evident truth. It is obviously
truth. It is not simply penetration, but it is perception with understanding.
(vision+understanding = insight).
• ): “Insight is both an awareness and realization of self-evident truth.”
•
67. 4.1.1 Self-evident Truth (SET)
• “It is one which is not inferred but is seen to be true, directly and
immediately.” (Not inferred = it is not a fresh inference, but it is derived from
other inferences).
• A SET is derived or deduced from another (truth) by deduction or induction.
• A SET is SET, not because of something else, but it is because of INSIGHT
• SET is also a priori (must) ie., necessary – why? Because, in the learning
process (in the process of understanding), what comes first in time and what
comes first logically is SET.
• Eg., to know a person, what appears first to know him is self-evident truth.
He is there, so he cannot be anywhere else, it comes first both in time and in
logicality = first principles).
68. SET
• In time, how does it come first? Through perception and experience.
• Logically first, we have to make premises on the basis of self-evident truth.
Because only on basing on this truth, we can build up other truths. (We
cannot prove SET, by experience, but we can realize its validity by
experience). Eg: love can be exprerienced, not shown, same to with pain.
• SET is independent of Perception and experience. (SETs are always there,
you actualize them, when you perceive them or experience them).
• SET is one whose verifiability does not depend on sense-perception, or any
other means.
• For example, ask if a person would ever try to talk someone out of suicide.
If so, why? I suspect he’d say suicide is a waste of a valuable life. But how
can a life be wasted if it has no ultimate purpose
69. • In his book “Unshakable Faith,” Alex McFarland observes
•Lewis’s study (and others by Christian apologists and
sociologists) proved that different people groups and
cultures, though having no contact with each other,
nevertheless had similar moral codes and ethical
structures by which they lived. That’s not to say that
humans always do what is morally right; Lewis and
others assert that all cultures, intuitively know what is
right
70. 4.1.2 Examples for SET
• 1. Principle of Identity
• If A is A, then A is A. A thing is what it is. (If a proposition is true, then it is
true). A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat
• 2. Principle of non-contradiction
• “A thing cannot be and not be at the same time.”
• 3. Principle of Causality
• “Every effect necessarily has a cause.” Eg: If baby is the effect, parents become
cause
• 4. Principle of Finality
• “Every act is towards a purpose or end.” Eg: What is the purpose of Traffic
Lights
• 5. Principle of excluded middle
• “It cannot be both true and false.” A or not A.
71. 4.2 Reason
• Definition: “Reasoning is a process by which we come to know, through
perception, thinking, reflecting and inferring.”
• Quite often we have confusion with mind, intellect, reason, etc. The thing
which clashes most is intellect and mind. There is no absolute criterion for
these terms. The meanings we apply are different and what we understand is
different.
• Mind: “The power of understanding or the power to ‘see-in’ evident truths
(and to ‘see-in’ supra-sensible, supra-perceptual, truths) of coming to know is
called mind.”
• Intuition and Reasoning are considered as two aspects or functioning of the
mind.
• Descartes: “Reason refers to that power of the mind to draw by inference, one
truth from another.”
72. •In order to find out the difference between reasoning
(inferring) and insight (intuition), we have to draw a parallel
between intuition and reasoning.
•Intuition is normally defined as the immediate
apprehension by the mind without reasoning of self-evident
truths. (Direct apprehension, no mediation)
But in reasoning, there is mediation. Reasoning is a mediate
knowledge. Mediate = perception, thinking, reflecting.
73. 4.3 Intellect
• By intellect, we can understand either the all-comprehensive human
faculty or power, of understanding, of coming to know – of whose,
therefore, intuition, reasoning would different aspects or acts. Or else for
this all-comprehensive faculty we use the term mind and reserve the term
intellect to the power, or act, of intuition alone.
• Mind is a flow of thoughts. It collects, visualizes, compares and evaluates
ideas, concepts, objects of the external world, etc. Its also the seat of
emotions. Eg: emotions of love, happiness
• The intellect is a decision making faculty. It chooses the most favorable
options from the flow of thoughts and decides upon action to be taken.
• Having said that they are not two independent things. The mind can cloud
the intellect and swing decisions by emotions rather than logic. The
intellect can potentially clarify the mind and control it.
74. Chapter 5
KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH
•As we have already, all knowledge is necessarily true. By
true, we may mean, “corresponding to what the case is.”
But in the history of both East and West, we come across
various understandings of term true (or truth).
• From each we learn a lot. It is good to examine carefully
these various understandings
75. 5.2 Preliminary Remarks
• Epistemological Truth: When we speak of this, we have truth and
error. (Opposed to falsity = qualifying a judgement or a proposition).
• Moral Truth: Here truth as opposed to lie
• Ontological Truth: Truth as opposed to Non-being. (Either something
is a being or non-being).
• We can also use the term to refer to a person or thing. He is a true
patriot. This is a true whisky.
76. Popular Questions Regarding Truth
• What is the criterion or test of truth?
• What is the proof and how to prove the truth?
• If objective evidence is the criterion of truth, is it
possible?
• If possible what amount of clarity is sufficient and
necessary? So we need to clarify the notion of
evidence.
77. Evidence
• Def: “Evidence is a principle or a standard or criterion by which we judge
whether a statement is true or false.”
• “Evidence can be defined as clarity serving to indicate the truth of the judgement.”
• (Every proposition is a judgement, so in order to see whether it is true, we have to go
through this process).
• In simple terms, evidence is called as PROOF.
• Eg., Bro. Prabhu is in the cow-shed.
• Evidence: What is the proof of this statement? (i) I have seen him going there. (I am
certain because I have seen him). (ii) I have been told by a reliable person. In spite of
all these, evidence at times may not correspond with what is true (not very certain).
• Eg. Fr. Rector is in the office
• Two types of evidence: (i) I saw him in the office. I am certain. (ii) Some reliable person
told me so. He could be mistaken. Therefore, I do not have clarity.
78. 5.3 Theories of Truth
• 5.3.1 The Correspondence Theory
• It says that truth is “the adequation of the mind to the subject,” or “Truth is
the correspondence between what I affirm or deny and what really is the
case.”
• Many of the Indian philosophical schools agree with this statement or
definition. But some do not.
• They raise the following objection:
• How can I know that what I can affirm or deny, really corresponds to what
the case is?
79. • When I try to know, I become the knower, the object becomes the known.
Apply this here? I have taken a distance from my statement, and as a passive
observant, I have to see the correspondence, then, I become the knower and
the correspondence becomes the known. There is formed an endless cycle.
Because of this cycle, they say, we can never know the correspondence, so in
other words, truth can never be known
• Eg., what I know of a table is different from what the table is. (I do not know
the full knowledge of the table). It would go on ad infinitum. I cannot jump
out of my mind, as it were and compare what I know and what the case is.
80. 5.3.1.1 Immanuel Kant
• How can I know the real object? Kant says “we can never know the object as
it is, in itself (the noumena), (= it is unknown and unknowable) you can know
only the object as known by you (the phenomena) or as it appears to you.
When this object appears to you, it appears to you being moulded by certain
categories, certain forms of your mind.
• Consequences of this idea of Kant: When you perceive me, you are not
seeing me, but it is your interpretation of me. (What you know about me is
not me, but me as seen by you with all the prejudices, corrupted ideas).
• Some say: The phenomena cannot be completely different from the
Noumena. (What appears to you cannot be completely different from what a
thing in itself). Slight variation is possible. Phenomena is just the reflection
of Noumena
81. • Scholastic philosophers say “you do know the object in itself.” The
object as known is really a kind of sign of what the real object is.
Therefore they say, the object as known is the object itself. (not an
image).
82. 5.3.1.2 How to Know Truly?
• We cannot, in trying to know truly or truly knowing, opt for a kind of
universal skepticism. (If we accept this, nothing can be known). It will not
lead you anywhere?
• To counteract universal skepticism, what will be the solution? Intuition,
insight (grant the validity of insight or intuition). So, without reasoning
we can say, that the intuition, the mind is true.
• So we have to presuppose, that in everyway of coming to know, there is
some insight and we have already proved the object of insights.
• What we know by insights? We know SET. Besides we can know that if
we uphold the Universal skepticism all our truths will become
philosophically untenable.
83. Universal Skepticism
• Universal Skepticism seems to boldly claim certainty in the knowledge that
knowledge is impossible. The obvious contradiction here is that if they really
believe their own theory, it should force them to conclude that there is no
way to know that the theory is true, because the very nature of their theory
says that knowledge is impossible.
• This should then open the door to other arguments, since now a universal
skeptic is forced to conclude that they have no way of knowing if knowledge
is impossible, so they have no reason to put their somewhat arbitrary
skeptical beliefs above any others.
• They should believe what has the best justification, even if certainty can't be
guaranteed, as opposed to only believing that they know nothing.
84. 5.3.2 THE PRAGMATIC THEORY (True = useful)
• C. S. Pierce, he is the man who coined the term “Pragmatism,” and he
is known as the father of modern pragmatism. The word pragma (Gk)
means deed.
• Definition: “Pragmatism is that doctrine or trend of thought
according to which, the value of an assertion lies solely, in its
practical bearing upon human interest.” (utilitarianism). (If only it
works or useful, then it will be true).
• If what I say is useful, then it is true. Pragmatists are not bothered
whether the proposition that we make corresponds to reality or not.
85. • They say that it is impossible to establish that and it is useless. If the
proposition is useful to ordinary life then it is true.
• Eg. I make a statement “Barking dogs seldom bite,” and if it is useful
for me while walking in the streets, then it is true.
86. Proponents:
• 1. C.S. Pierce. He applied this theory to the field of scientific assertions. If a
proposition yields results in the field of scientific inquiry and as such is
accepted by the scientific community, then that proposition is true. If a
proposition is demonstrable and accepted by relevant people, then that
assertion is true.
• 2. John Dewey. He applied this theory to all assertions we use to the solution
of everyday problems. If our solutions are useful, then it is true. Eg., The
politicians are bad. So I do not go to a politician and get into difficulty.
• 3. William James (Psychologist). He applied this theory to meaning in life. He
said, “If a view of life which is expressed in proposition gives meaning in life
and functions satisfactorily in life, then it is true.” Eg., One should live for
others, God loves me, God will judge me after death.
87. Evaluation:
• The pragmatic theory is especially true when we pass from the level
of facts to the level of significance. Eg., God is there (level of fact),
God is a father (level of significance and this need not be same for all).
• This theory says, what is significant to me is true. But a belief no
matter how significant would lose its value if it is shown that it has no
real foundation in reality. A false conviction may be significant for
one. But that does not make it true. Eg: a mother tells her child to
instill fear by saying devil at night
• It says that if it is significant to me it is true. Thus it makes truth
relative. Relativism, which says that no objective truth can be known,
is self-contradictory. We need to distinguish between different fields
of knowledge, different functions of language and different levels of
understanding.
88. 5.3.3 Coherence Theory (pattu, sambandamu)
• Logical and orderly and consistent relation of parts.
• Truth is the coherence between a proposition and other well-established
propositions, i.e., one proposition does not contradict other well-established
propositions, it coheres with or agrees with, it should be logically implied in the
well-established propositions.
• Eg., Abortion is murder. Other propositions: Foetus is a human being; To kill
person unnecessarily is murder; Abortion is killing person unnecessarily.
(Knowing of historical incidents, personages, etc., depend of this coherent
theory.
• It is also based on another principle. Whenever we open our mouth to utter
something, we always take for granted some facts which are already proved
(granted). Eg., Take an umbrella, it might rain. The meaning depends on several
other pre-proved facts. We can take several other propositions like that).
89. Evaluation:
• 1) Judgement is expressed in a proposition. A proposition
consists of concepts and these concepts are expressed in a
particular linguistic field. The meaning of the concepts
varies with the field. Eg: pakka, Pati,
• Therefore one proposition may be true in one field and may
not be intelligible in another. Therefore, one should make
sure in which linguistic field it is, what is the meaning in it
and only then compare. If we take it out of its context
misunderstandings occur.
• 2) According to them the truth is the coherence between a
proposition and other well established proposition. But how
is their truth-established? Infinite regress!
90. •(3) Such an understanding is okay for a hypothesis (logically
consistent and coherent) but that does not make it true.
•(4) This definition can be applied in formal sciences (logic,
mathematics) because by their very nature, they do not
refer to any specific object, fact or state of affairs. But it
cannot be so considered elsewhere
• (5) Each philosophical system is self-consistent and
coherent set of propositions. Which one will you select as
true?
91. 5.3.4 Performative Theory
• They are not worried whether what is asserted corresponds to what
the case is.
• They are discussing how we use the word ‘TRUE’ in our
language/linguistic expression, and in what meaning we use it.
• Eg., Christopher is a young man.
• It is true that Christopher is a young man. What does it mean? They
are not asserting that it corresponds to facts. It is not a statement
about a statement or fact. It only adds emphasis and style.
• It is like saying ‘yes,’ ‘I agree,’ ‘you are correct,’ ‘you are right.’ We see
that ‘true’ is used in the sense of accepting, admitting,
corroborating, endorsing, conceding or confirming what is said.
Commercials in TV, Cinemas
92. Error
• Falsehood is the opposite of truth. If truth is the correspondence between what
is affirmed and what the case is, falsehood is the non-correspondence between
what is affirmed and what the case is.
• When I make a true judgement I am right. When I make a false judgement I am
in error (ERROR
• “Error is nothing but making a false judgement. What are the ways in which I
commit errors?
• We commit error
• (i) in perceiving, Eg: mirages
• (ii) in believing unreliable sources, Eg: transfer to another house.
• (iii) in drawing wrong conclusions. Eg: brother sister talking.
93. ERROR
•Error teaches two things:
•(i) If we can speak of error it is because of our capacity for
truth.
•(ii) This means that our knowledge of reality remains always
partial, imperfect and relative (up to a certain extent).
[Other sources of error = day dreaming, strong emotions,
prejudice and intoxicates, etc.].
•
94. Chapter 6
KNOWLEDGE AND CERTITUDE
• Certitude is different from truth. Why is it different? Truth would be studying
where there is correspondence.
• Certainty is not applicable universally. Because, the level of your certitude is
different as it varies from one field to another
• Eg., Religious certitude is different from scientific certitude. (Sun produces
heat is more certain than Saying that there is one God and three persons or
Heaven and Hell is a religious truth).
• So truth is the correspondence between… such and such is the case.
Certitude is telling that I am sure that such and such is the case.
95. 6.2 Notion of Certitude
• Certitude is “the conviction that such and such is or is not the case.”
Scholastics defined “Certitude as the firm assent of the mind to the truth based
on the evidence.”
• 6.2.1 Conviction and Evidence
• The notion of conviction adds to the notion of awareness. It is the
psychological state of mind resulting from awareness. Scholastics’
“firm assent” is not an act that is performed, but the psychological
state of mind, resulting from the assent of the mind. Here we find
three stages of mind leading up to conviction:
• (i) State of Doubt: It is a state of mind when one has reasons for and
against such and such is or is not the case. Here the person is
indecisive.
96. (ii) State of Probable Opinion: It is a state of mind when one is
inclined to think that such and such is or is not the case. Here there
is a hesitation to say definitely.
This admits a whole range of degrees from 1 to 100,
depending on the force of reasons.
(iii) State of conviction: Here he decides definitely for one or the other. He is
not afraid that there could be any reasons for doubt. In actual life, this process
is gone through spontaneously. The reasons because of which he is moved to
take a step or to find himself in such a state of mind is called evidence.
97. • Conviction and Truth: Conviction refers to a state of mind. Truth
refers to the correspondence between what is affirmed and
what the case is. Conviction is subjective whereas truth is
objective
•6.3 Kinds of Certitude (that are possible)
•There are many kinds of certitude which are possible. Why?
Because there are many kinds of evidences available. There
is no one way to be sure of something. We will find out
different kinds of certitude, basing on these two things: (i)
Fields of knowledge; (ii) Evidence available.
98. Test for 10 marks (chapter 4)
1. What is noumena and phenomena? Who propagated these ideas?
2. Define evidence. Give an example for evidence
3. What are epistemological truth, moral truth, and ontological truth
4. Define pragmatic theory. Who are the proponents of the theory
5. What are the reasons for committing error? What are the two things
that we can learn from error
99. Logical Certitude
•Here we are in the field of formal science (Logic,
mathematics), realm of pure ideas and the relationship
between them. Eg., Human being is a person. 2+2=4
•Truth is expressed in analytic propositions. Here the
evidence is obtained by the analysis of the terms and
definitions used.
•Here no other means of verification is possible. Certitude
based on such evidence can be called absolute because it
admits no exception, not even conceivable exception.
100. Ontological Certitude
• Here we are in the field of Ontology. i.e., knowledge of
beings as beings, dealing with first principles. The evidence
of the assertion is obtained from
• (i) General experience including sense experience.
• (ii) Reflection on the nature of judgement as judgement
(self-evidence of it). The certitude based on such evidence
can be called absolute. Because it is self-evident and it
cannot be denied without contradiction. (Ultimate laws of
being).
101. Physical Certitude
•Here we are in the field of knowledge of things, their
properties and ways of acting. The evidence of the truth of
laws of nature is obtained by sense perception, hypothesis,
observation, experiment and verification.
•The certitude based on such evidence is physical
•It is hypothetical not absolute. Because we can only say, “I
am sure on the possible evidence so far.”
•(Field of science = conducting experiments, from the correct
evidence available we conclude something).
102. Moral Certitude
•Moral certitude has four meanings
•i) It is in the field of ethics which gives general norms and
principles to judge what is right and wrong. In this field, the
evidence is obtained from immediate data of moral
consciousness (Good is to be done and evil to be avoided).
•(ii) In the field of knowledge of human nature (human
sciences: Psychology, Sociology, History): They study the
human behaviour constants (normally how human beings
behave in a particular situation). But we must remember
that human beings are free! So we can’t predict. Eg., An
exploited class will sooner or later revolt.
103. • (iii) In the field of ordinary day today living (not particular
to any field): When the evidence is only ‘testimony,’ we
can have moral certitude (in the third sense). Eg., About
our parents! Parthenium causes asthma. [About laws of
nature, the scientist has ‘physical certitude’ but non-
scientist has ‘moral certitude’].
•(iv) In the ordinary day-to-day living (not particular to any
field): When the evidence is ‘good reasons’ then we can
have moral certitude (in the fourth sense).
•Conclusion: This should not disturb us, rather it should
liberate us from that anxiety to look for absolute certitude
where it is not possible or to be expected.
104. • Religious Certitude
• If my religious belief is based on the testimony of others,
then I have moral certitude in the third sense. Eg., If you
eat meat on Friday you will go to hell. If my religious belief
is based on ‘good reasons’
• (if one goes through the scriptures and sees more and
more reasons for his belief) then he can have moral
certitude in the fourth sense.
•If a person has a direct experience of the ultimate referent
of religious language, that he will have absolute certainty.
105. Chapter 7
KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY
• here is a relationship between knowledge and society. Society
makes the man.
•Man inherits certain beliefs from the society. His thought and
knowledge are also affected by the society.
•Therefore, knowledge is not merely an individual affair, but a
social phenomenon
•In this lesson, we shall see the social determinants of
knowledge.
106. Sociological Issues Concerning Knowledge
• What mental productions (ideas) are socially analysed?
• When we say mental productions we refer to Moral beliefs, religious beliefs,
social norms, ideologies, philosophies, sciences and technologies.
• In these we consider only the following aspects: (i) Their selection (Why this?
Why focus on this?; (ii) The level of abstraction they have reached; how much
(iii) Their pre-suppositions; background (iv) The objectives of intellectual
activity. criteria
• Where is the existential basis of mental production located? Where does this
particular knowledge originate? Is it in the social status: social positions,
occupation, generation, or groups belonged to? Or is it in culture: values, type
of culture, world-view?
• How are the mental productions related to the existential basis? Is it causal
or accidental?
107. • We understand that mental productions are existentially
conditioned. (srimanthudu, father raised above)
• If so why not change it? Why do we stick on to it? Is it to promote
stability? Or to maintain power? Or to exploit?
108. 7.2 Philosophical Reflections
• Man comes to know with his whole being including his social being.
Knowledge is activity, patterning intellect. It is man who comes to
know with his intellect and not intellect alone.
• We cannot consider that he is in a vacuum alone but is affected by
the other beings. Even if alone, we know that his being is already
social being and conditioned.
• Therefore his interests will be of society, his presupposition,
convictions, emotive responses will be of society.
109. • Given the socialness of man’s being by which he comes to know, man’s
knowledge of objects is existentially conditioned.
• The knowledge of objects is objective knowledge, but persons, events, the
way that he perceives reality. It excludes only one thing, i.e., knowledge of
self-evident truth.
• This knowledge of objects of the human being, existentially conditioned.
• Conditioned means, it is not in the sense of determined and you cannot
change but more or less influenced. The more it is unconscious the greater
will be the influence.
• Most people do not become aware of the influence of the society on them.
• Given the existential conditioning man’s knowledge of objects remains
necessarily relative. My knowledge is relative.
110. • A relative objective knowledge presupposes an unconditionally
true theory. It is true that knowledge of objects is relative. It is
really true. It asserts that the statement is true. Are you sure that
you relative statement is relative? It is really true that knowledge is
relative.
• Awareness of man’s existential conditioning implies the possibility
of growth in human freedom, i.e., you can change your life.
Choose the good. Most often we are not aware of it.
• Relative objective knowledge explains the possibility of different
perspectives of reality.
• Existentially situated knowledge while explaining the possibility of
cultural pluralism does not necessarily mean cultural relativism.
111. • Culture – belief and value system of a society.
• Cultural pluralism – presence of many cultures,
different cultures, but Complementary. Can even be
mutually exclusive.
• Cultural relativism – there is no way of judging the
truth or the falsity of their Respective tenets of
belief.
112. Chapter 8
RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE
• What is religious language? What is the referent of
religious language? What is the meaning of religious
knowledge?
• 8.1 Religious Knowledge
• Meaning as Empirical Verifiability (Logical Positivists):
113. Analytic and synthetic distinctions
• Analytic and synthetic are distinctions between types of statements which
was first described by Immanuel Kant in his work "Critique of Pure Reason"
as part of his effort to find some sound basis for human knowledge.
• Bachelors are unmarried.
Daisies are flowers.
• In both of the above statements, the information is
the predicates (unmarried, flowers) is already contained in the subjects
(bachelors, daisies). Because of this, analytic statements are essentially
uninformative
114. • If a statement is synthetic, its truth value can only be determined by
relying on observation and experience. Its truth value cannot be
determined by relying solely upon logic or examining the meaning of the
words involved.
• All men are arrogant.
The president is dishonest.
• Unlike analytic statements, in the above examples the information in the
predicates (arrogant, dishonest) are not contained already in the subjects
(all men, the president). In addition, negating either of the above would
not result in a contradiction.
115. Meaning as Function (Logical Empiricists)
• The purpose of language is not merely to inform but also to perform
other functions like reporting, story telling, asking questions, promising,
thanking. If a proposition has a function it can be called meaningful.
• What function does religious language have? It has a function. Religious
language is the means of expressing ones intention of acting in such and
such a way.
• Eg., I want to love others because, God loves me.
• Religious language is also means of expressing the experience of reality,
to express one’s outlook.
• Eg., God is love. Looking at this way religious language is meaningful.
116. Critical Reflections on the discussions above:
• (i) To be cognitive religious language should have a referent other than the
speaker’s emotions, state of mind, etc. All religious believers agree and insist
that there is a reality apart from one’s emotions. Believers would stop
believing if religious language has no referent apart from one’s emotions
• (ii) If religious language has an objective referent, then at least some
propositions are synthetic. If so, they are subject to rules of logic and reason.
• (iii) If religious propositions are not verifiable by empirical means, it means that
they are not descriptive of empirical reality. Eg., Evil.
• (iv) Religious language like languages in general can have more than one
function. It says of man (his emotions, convictions, etc.) as much as it says of
the referent. When I say God is love, it expresses my conviction that love is
basis of reality. It says God is love and that I should also be like him.
117. 8.2 Religious Language
•What is the referent of religious language? Is it God? God
cannot be the referent of religious language, because there
are religions that don’t believe in God.
•The mystics claim that there is a possibility of direct
perception of supra-sensible reality, of phenomenal reality in
its ultimate significance.
•That is the referent of religious language. The ultimate
‘referent’ of religious language is Absolute Reality, Ultimate
Value, Supreme Good of phenomenal reality.
118. Characteristics of Religious Language and what we
draw from it
• In religious language we use concepts and words to refer to the Absolute Reality.
These concepts and words are first and foremost applicable to the objects of
sense experience
• Eg., Father, Lord, King, Saccitananda. And even the word ‘God’ seems to be
derived from Teutonic gudham meaning ‘to one to be invoked.’ ‘Brahman’
means ‘to grow, to increase.’
• (ii) Since our knowledge and language about God originates in our empirical
experiences, we can know and speak of Him only as experienced and not as He is
in Himself.
• (iii) In the religious literature of the world we find three ways of referring to God.
119. • 1. The Way of Remotion (neti neti, negation): It consists in saying what the
referent is not rather than what it is. Eg. God is not matter, has no time, no
parts.
• This removes from God all ideas that are directly applicable to objects of
sense experience.
• This way is useful in 3 ways: It narrows down our range of reference; it
purifies our ideas based on empirical experience; it invokes in us what is
meant by the referent of religious language.
•
120. • 2. The Way of Causality: It consists in saying what the referent is. The
basic principle for this is ‘as the effect so the cause.’ Eg., Creatures are
beings, so God, the Creator, is a Being.
• But the words that are used to refer to God are used analogically. Eg.,
Being. We use signs and symbols, similies, metaphors, parables,
myths.
• 3. The Way of Eminence (transcendence): This consists in affirming of
God things that are applied to creatures in an eminent way. Eg., God
is a super-being, First Cause, Super-Consciousness, Smaller than the
smallest, Greater than the greatest
121. 8.3 Religious Stages
• Religions originated from particular experiences of persons. These experiences
are called originary experiences. These experiences give rise to ‘original belief.’
Not all people have the religious experience that we call mystical experience. A
person can be in one of these stages:
• we know that religious truths are expressed in myths. Eg., Adam and Eve. The
person in the mythical state take the myth to be true literally. He believes in it
literally. He is not aware that myth is a myth. Mythical stage
• The person in this stage becomes aware that myth is a myth. He understands
the myth for what it is. The person understands the cult and its meaning.
Mythological stage
• This is the stage of mystical experience. It is a direct (as distinct from ‘based
on other peoples’ witnesses’), progressively immediate (as distinct from
knowledge mediated through sense perception, imagination, concept,
inference and other pramanas), intuitive (as distinct from discursive), life-
transforming (spiritually and morally) consciousness of the ‘ultimate referent’
of religious language.
122. HOW HUMAN BEINGS POSIT GOD?
• Feuerbach explains by borrowing Hegelian thought. The essential nature of
man constitutes three important elements
• They are reason, will and affection. To will, to love and to think are part and
parcel of human existence
• Human being imprisoned themselves in God by defining human being.
• Human being has the ability to be conscious of his nature. He can stand off
and look at his own reality.
• He can examine and take steps either to eliminate or add certain traits that
are necessary for living.
• He can objectify himself and evaluate his acts and change accordingly.
Whatever that muses to his feeling and given meaning to his existence he
terms it as holy.
123. Human essence
• He would say that human essence consist of two things. The first is
human being as an individual.
• As an individual he is aware of his limitedness, his shortness of live,
restricted, and destined to die.
• The second is human being as a species. The transcendental nature
of human being. Human being is in the process of moving towards
infinity. Humans are not really aware of this part of his essence.
124. FEUERBACH:THE THREE PSYCHOLOGICAL MOVEMENTS
• The psychological movements of the human consciousness is essential for
human being.
• In every stage human being is moving towards the understanding of his true
nature. This process is essential to identify himself.
• There are three steps in which human being created God concept.
• In the first stage we talk about human essence as infinite. In this stage human
being is not aware of his infinite qualities.
• It is because of the attacks of unsteadiness when faced with their own essence.
They are not sure of their own essence.
• In the second stage they objectify their essence as distinct, independent and
labeled it as God. It is the transfer of his own inner nature.
• . In the third stage we find alienation of his essence. In the process of
objectifying his own inner nature, human being alienated himself from his
essence
125. • In this alienation we see degradation of human person. He understands himself
as imperfect, unholy, denying the world.
• He created an impoverished idea about this world and himself. On the other
hand human being put God in the pedestal.
• DEMYSTIFICATION OF GOD
• We must expose what religion is all about. It is the relation of man to his own
nature. Its untruth, limitations and contradictions have to be criticized by using
reason. It is only a human mirror wherein we see our own image in the mirror.
The task of the modern thinker is to come to the realization and humanization
of God.
• why religion? Religion is the expression of human dependence says
Feuerbach. Feeling of dependence is the first reason for projection of God
126. Evidence of Religious Truth
• Here we are talking of primarily religious statements that are directly touching
on the ultimate referent itself.
• Eg., God exists. Nirvana is really man’s self-realization. What evidence do we
have to affirm these?
• On the mystical level, it is directly perceived. Those who have mystical
experience do not need any evidence.
• (ii) What evidence do those who do not have mystical experience have?
• (a) Evidence from the scriptures (I believe because scripture says so). But there
is a problem here: If revelation is the result of man’s experience, is not the
written word historically conditioned like any other human writing? If so what
evidence do you have for your belief?
127. • (b) If one says there is evidence based on reason and judgement for
asserting the truth, here too there are difficulties: ‘if there are good
reasons, how come many intellectuals are unbelievers?’ The basic
question underlying belief is the existence of God. We shall see if we
can prove the existence of God.
• Can we prove the existence of God?
• Wisdom is the power or the habit of the mind to see into, consider
and concentrate the highest and deepest causes in the light of which,
it can pass a most certain judgement on all other causes and order
every other knowledge.
128. • With this man can only indicate the reasonability of their faith. So
rational argument alone is not sufficient to prove the existence of
God. Openness on the part of the individual is needed.
•
129. Religious truth and its Certitude
• The kind of evidence that we receive determine the certitude. Do religious
statements do anything more than expresses the speakers's emotion, or
attitudes, choices, preferences and way of looking at things. Each religion
has many years of history. We have to go back to the history of the founder,
in order to have a religious truth. We have to interpret also.
• The question of Interpretation
• - Whether it is in a loose statement - historically proved, psychologically or in
the strict sense - strictly religious in the religious tradition only to that
religion. A religious statement will not be considered meaningful if we take
out the universal discourse.
• - We need to determine also the way in which the ultimate referent is
referred to in the preliminary beliefs.
130. Originary belief and originary Experience
• How did religious originate?
• Experience of the phenomenal reality. Experience of many people - Hinduism
Experience of one person – Buddhism
• Originary experience - experience of one person or many persons of the
phenomenal reality.
• Original belief - which have been put into word by those who experienced.
That there is God.
• Nirvana is the realisation (buddhism).
• Basic faith of christian religion - love of God and neighbour - agape. jesus's
expression of the father.
• Hinduism - I am brahman, statements which became the basis of other
statements.
131. Religious Certitude
• (i) On the level of belief: It is not different from certitude based on witness.
But most of our knowledge is of this type.
• In this we take it for granted and do not look for evidence. What makes it
reasonable and distinguishes from mere credulity is a kind of ‘pre-reflective’
awareness of it.
• Here we can have Moral Certitude in the third sense of the term.
• ii) On the level of personal conviction: It is certitude based on good reasons.
Here the person thinks things out for himself. Here we have moral certitude in
the fourth sense of the term.
• (iii) On the level of direct perception of religious truth: Those who have the
mystical experience are in direct perception of the ultimate referent. The
mystic becomes aware of ‘what is self-evident’ for him. It is the absolute
certitude.
132. AI IN GENERAL
• AI is a technique that enables machines to mimic human
behavior.
• Artificial Intelligence is the theory and development of
computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring
human intelligence,
• such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-
making and translation between languages.
133. Definition of AI
• The science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially
intelligent computer programs”. – According to the father of Artificial
Intelligence, John McCarthy
• Artificial Intelligence is designing machines that have the ability to think. It is
the intelligence of machines.
• AI has a lot of benefits: The promising of AI
• Safety
• Better performance than humans
• It’s cheap
• It can predict what your customers will do next
• It can make sense of all the data and connection around us
134. TYPES OF AI
• Weak AI is both the most limited and the most common of the three types of
AI. It’s also known as narrow AI or artificial narrow intelligence (ANI).
• Weak AI refers to any AI tool that focuses on doing one task really well. That
is, it has a narrow scope in terms of what it can do. The idea behind weak AI
isn’t to mimic or replicate human intelligence. Rather, it’s to simulate human
behavior
• Strong AI
• The next of the types of AI is strong AI, which is also known as general AI or
artificial general intelligence (AGI). Strong AI refers to AI that exhibits human-
level intelligence. So, it can understand, think, and act the same way a human
might in any given situation.
• In theory, then, anything a human can do, a strong AI can do too.
135. Super AI
•But if strong AI already mimics human intelligence and
ability, what’s left for the last of the types of AI?
•Super AI is AI that surpasses human intelligence and ability.
It’s also known as artificial superintelligence (ASI) or
superintelligence. It’s the best at everything — maths,
science, medicine, hobbies, you name it. Even the brightest
human minds cannot come close to the abilities of super
AI.
136. Domains of Artificial Intelligence
•Neural Networks:
Neural Networks are a class of models within the general machine
learning literature. Neural networks are a specific set of algorithms that
have revolutionized machine learning and Artificial Intelligence.
137. Robotics:
• Robotics is a branch of AI, which is composed of different
branches and application of robots.
• AI Robots are artificial agents acting in a real-world
environment.
• Artificial Intelligence Robot is aimed at manipulating the
objects by perceiving, picking, moving, and destroying it.
138. Building Blocks of Robots (Actuators, Sensors, Processors and Controllers)
Actuators: Actuators move the different Parts of the robots by the specified amount and the
specified point of time, angle or the linear translation, as per the commands received from
the controllers. Along with the motion actuators also provide the requisite force to the
members.
Examples: permanent magnet D.C. motors, stepper motors, Electric Actuators, Hydraulic
Actuators, pneumatic Actuators.
139.
140. Sensors : As the name suggest can sense the surroundings and the different
objects with which it is interacting. Sensors provide feedback to the controlling
system about the motion of actuators and other members, how much they have
moved, what is the speed, acceleration and also sensors can provide information
about pressures and forces which are acting upon. Some advanced sensors such
as optical sensor, thermal sensors and vision sensors which can create more vivid
image of the surroundings and provide more detailed information to the
controlling system.
Examples :- Ultrasound, Thermal, Optical, Vision..etc.
141.
142. Processors and Controllers
To give the starting command to the actuators, receive and process the
feedback information from the sensors and then provide the corrected
signal to the actuators, Processing and Controlling system is required.
Controllers are programmed as per the function to the robot, certain
software and programmers are used for this purpose.
The feed back information received from the sensors is passed through
the signal convertors where is made usable and passed on to the
processors which in turn disseminate the modified signals.
144. Manipulators
A robot manipulator is a Robotic arm -like mechanism that is designed to manipulate or
move materials, tools, and parts without direct human contact. Most robotic manipulators
are lightweight devices that enable humans to interact with objects in an environment in
total safety. Sometimes, a material may be hazardous or radioactive, or it may just be
located in an inaccessible place. Robot manipulators resemble robotic arms and consist of
a number of segments.
145.
146. Mobile Robot
A mobile robot is a machine controlled by software that use sensors and other technology
to identify its surroundings and move around its environment. Mobile robots function
using a combination of artificial intelligence and physical robotic elements, such as
wheels, tracks and legs. They are used to assist with work processes and even accomplish
tasks that are impossible or dangerous for human workers.
Examples:- Polar robots, Aerial robots, Land or home robots, Underwater robots,
Delivery and transportation mobile robots.
147.
148. Humanoid Robots
A Humanoid may be defined as something that resembles or looks like a human and
having characteristics like opposable thumb, ability to walk in upright position, etc.
Androids are humanoid robots built to resemble a male human, and Ganoids are
humanoid robots built to resemble a human female.
Features of Humanoid Robots
The characteristics features of Humanoid Robots include:
. self-maintenance
. autonomous learning
. avoiding harmful situations to people, property, and itself
. safe interacting with human beings and the environment
149.
150. •Natural Language Processing:
Natural Language Processing (NLP) refers to the Artificial
Intelligence method of communicating with intelligent systems
using a natural language.
By utilizing NLP and its components, one can organize the
massive chunks of text data, perform numerous automated
tasks and solve a wide range of problems such as – Machine
translation, Named Entity Recognition, Sentiment Analysis,
Speech Recognition, and Topic Segmentation etc
151. Syntax
• The Syntax of a programming language is used to signify the
structure of programs without considering their meaning.
• It basically emphasizes the structure, layout of a program with their
appearance. It involves a collection of rules which validates the
sequence of symbols and instruction used in a program.
• The pragmatic and computation model figures these syntactic
components of a programming language.
• The tools evolved for the specification of the syntax of the
programming languages are regular, context-free and attribute
grammars.
152. Semantics
• Semantics term in a programming language is used to figure out
the relationship among the syntax and the model of
computation.
• It emphasizes the interpretation of a program so that the
programmer could understand it in an easy way or predict the
outcome of program execution.
• An approach known as syntax-directed semantics is used to map
syntactical constructs to the computational model with the help of
a function.
153. Difference between AI, ML, DL
• AI: Enable the artificial agent think. Eg: AI application, like self driving car.
• ML : it is the subset of AI. It provides statistical data or tools to understand
the data.
• Three things are involved, supervised: labeled data, unsupervised: unlabeled
data, semi supervised: some will be labelled and some will not be labelled.
• DL: subset of ML. Multi-neural network architecture, to mimic the brain – ML
– Video
• ANN: Artiticial neural network – input numbers
• CNN: Convolutional neural network – input Images
• RNN: Recurrent neural network – time series form
154. questions
1. What is the meaning of Epistemology? What are propositions and concepts?
What are sociological issues concerning Knowledge
2. What are the objects and purpose of epistemology? Explain Coherence
theory. What are the philosophical reflections about sociological issues of
Knowledge.
3. What is the history of epistemology? What it means to Know, Knowledge,
Knowledge and truth. Explain pragmatic theory
4. What is Knowledge and Reasonableness. What are sources of Knowledge?
Explain perception and correspondence theory
5. explain in detail about Inference, Testimony, comparison
155. questions
• 6. what are other sources of knowledge? Explain Error and its Source
• 7. what do you understand by the notion of Certitude? Enumerate three stages
of mind, Logical and ontological certitude
• 8. Explain physical certitude, moral certitude, and religious certitude. What is
the evidence of truth
• 9. what is religious Language, explain the ultimate referent of religious
language. How human beings posit God according to Feuerbach? What are the
ways of referring to the ultimate referent
• 10. what do you mean by interpretation, ordinary experience and belief, three
stage of religious awareness? Three psychological movements of Feuerbach.
• 11. Epistemology of AI: General understanding, definition of AI, Types of AI,
Domains of AI, Syntax and Semantics in AI, Differences between AI, ML, DL
