KNOWLEDGE

Within the diversity of epistemological problems that can be raised, we will address the one related to
origin of our knowledge, we will also address the topic of truth and will focus on the
science as a mode of critical knowledge.
Phenomenological description of knowledge: KNOWING is a psychic and intentional phenomenon.
It is a phenomenon because it can be recognized by others.
It is psychic because it happens within us.
It is intentional because it involves an interest on the part of the one who knows.
Knowledge is always knowledge of something; it occurs about something.
Hartmann, a German philosopher, in "Metaphysics of Knowledge" describes the phenomenon of knowledge:
In all knowledge, there are face to face a knower and a known, a subject and an object.
of knowledge. The relationship between the two is knowledge itself.
The subject, who knows, and the object, that which is known: they are two essential elements of knowledge.
These two terms always stand face to face, they can never constitute one.
The function of the subject consists of apprehending the object; that of the object lies in the possibility of being.
apprehended by the subject and in being apprehended by this one.
In the cognitive process, a third element emerges that is the result of the subject-object interaction: the
image, which is a mediating element between subject and object. This is created by the subject, but by
influence of the object.
Indicate the Truth or Falsehood of the following statements
The image is the result of the interaction between subject and object.
The knowing subject and the known object form a whole in the act of knowing.
Knowledge is unreflexive.
Knowledge implies interest from the one who knows.
HOW DOES KNOWLEDGE ORIGINATE?: The answers of Empiricism and Rationalism
Do they come from the outside world and we perceive them through the senses or are we already born with them?
certain knowledge and we increase it through sensory knowledge?
Empiricists will respond that knowledge is obtained through the senses, that is, it is based on
in the 'EXPERIENCE': in this case, refers to the knowledge we gain thanks to our
senses; that is to say, what we can perceive: see, smell, touch, taste, hear; or thanks to our
internal sensation: a headache, tingling in the feet, etc.
It also includes emotions (joy, hate, desire, etc.).
Empiricism had a great rise in the British Isles (England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland) in
the 17th and 18th centuries. Its representatives include F. Bacon (1561-1626), J. Locke (1632-1704), G.
Berkeley (1685-1753) and D. Hume (1711-1776).
Rationalism: in opposition to the empiricist stance that claims knowledge originates from the
experience, for rationalists, authentic knowledge is that which is based on reason.
Rationalism has its roots in antiquity, especially in Parmenides and Plato, but the
Descartes' thinking (1596-1650) is the most representative of Rationalism.
The problem of knowledge intensifies in modernity and takes a new course, the conception
The medieval world centered on God is entering a crisis, starting with the new events: the
discovery and conquest of America, the rise of capitalism; the Protestant Reformation; the
work begins to be rewarded; the bourgeoisie emerges as a new social class centered on the
trade; among others. The medieval conception was theocentric, the source of knowledge was located in
a creator God, that is, it was outside of man. The method of knowledge was the criterion of
authority: what was affirmed by certain authorities (the Bible, the Church, Aristotle) was considered
absolute truth, therefore, indisputable. This hindered scientific advancement because it did not allow the
possibility of questioning reality, among other things.
The modern conception is anthropocentric, humans are valued as subjects of
knowledge and experimentation starts to be trusted as a source of knowledge.
Galileo, in 1638, provides the first example of the use of the experimental method. In this way, he
it weakens the union that science and philosophy had for so many centuries.
In this new "age of Reason," the thought of Descartes emerges.
René Descartes: He considered the possibility of finding a new, more suitable method than that of
authority criterion. His method was: doubt.
In his work 'The Discourse on the Method,' he presents four rules that must be followed in any investigation:
(...) The first rule says that an idea is true when it is evident, and it is evident when it is
"clear and distinct", an idea is clear when it manifests directly to the mind and is distinct when it
the idea only includes essential elements. These concepts oppose 'dark and confusing'.
The second rule proposes the analysis of issues (division into elements or simple natures), and
then, the third rule consists of reconstruction through a synthesis in the composition of
knowledge of things. To conclude with the enumeration rule that reviews the entire process for
avoid mistakes.
Descartes' goal is to reach a fundamental, indubitable truth upon which to build.
knowledge, knowing. It is not found in the data that comes from the senses, nor in the
mathematics, including states:
perhaps there is an evil genius who deceives me even in things that seem as clear as 2x2=4.
Descartes is a philosopher who has doubted all the knowledge of the time: he cannot trust even
in the senses nor in reason. But when it reaches the extreme of doubting everything, certainty appears: if I am
Capable of doubting, there is one thing I can guarantee: if I doubt, I exist.
With its fundamental truth 'I think therefore I am', it places the thinking subject, the individual, in a role.
preponderant is the fundamental sign of modernity. Descartes is also the founder of
modern rationalism, which claims to have found the fundamental truth (I think therefore I am) by
through an intellectual intuition, and from it by rational means discover other truths.
reason is thus the source and foundation of human knowledge.
For rationalism, the thinking subject possesses 'innate ideas', since they do not come from the senses and
they are in us from the moment we are born, like the idea of God. God is ultimately the final foundation.
of knowledge, since it is He who has placed in us those innate ideas and the reason so that
let's build a true understanding of the world we live in.

THE TRUTH AS A PROBLEM

There is a question about knowledge that is as old as philosophy itself, the question is:
Why does man want to know?
Suppose that when we ask ourselves this question, we find an answer:
The man wants to know in order to reach the truth.
Now then, man wants to reach the truth, but... what is the truth?
We are interested in the proposal made by Osvaldo Dallera in "Themes of Philosophy" when he asks:
What is truth related to?
1. With things as they are? Maybe this is what we understand as 'reality'. If so, if
the truth coincides with what is, what place does that which can be and is not have,
relationship with truth?
2. Do I think about things the way I do? In this case, the truth would not be so much in relation to the
things as they are, but with the capacity that reason has to construct it.
3. Is truth related to what is useful? (...) If truth is what is useful, useful for
who? Because we well know that what is useful for some (and therefore, true) is not for
others.
4. Is truth related to what is good? As in the previous case, the truth is here.
subordinate: for what and for whom?
5. Is the truth related to or explicit in what I say (statement) about things?
Evidently, one thing is what it is and quite another is what is said about what it is.
 philosophy is usually distinguished by that double direction: the correspondence that things have with the
judgments that are issued about them, or conversely, the correspondence of the proposition with the
things.
6. Is the truth related to time? In this case, we would have to see if the truth is historical.
and therefore variable, mutable, or independent of the moment in which it appears.
7. Is truth related to the possibility of being known? In other words: if it is not...
know: does it exist? Or for the truth to be such does it need the presence of man that it
discover and know?
8. Does truth depend on power? Can truth be created by power? The answer seems to
That old joke about the ruler who listed all the achievements that had been made.
in the provinces of their country during their term. In the middle of the auditorium someone appears who
He says that all of that is not true, that he has traveled through all those provinces and has not seen
nothing that the ruler says. The ruler advises him to travel less and read more the
diaries.
Truth, opinion, and certainty
Martha Frassinetti, through the account of Gabriela Salatino, invites us to reflect on the
difference between truth and opinion and the possibility of moving from doubt (or belief) to certainty.

María's trip to Venice

Those who believed, those who knew, those who doubted
Estebanse sat down at the bar table ready to tell his friends
Marcos, Joaquín, and Carlos, how did their trip to Europe go?
to tell them about the excursions I had taken to various countries, he commented:
Guess who I saw in Venice...
Who? they asked almost in unison.
To María—replied Esteban.
Marcos, with a look of suspicion towards his friend, asked him:
Are you sure it was her? Did you talk to her?
I didn't speak, but I saw her perfectly. She was a few meters away from me and was wearing a jacket.
that he/she always uses.
It’s impossible that it was her - Marcos insisted.
Are you doubting my word? Do you think I like to make up stories?
No- Marcos replied-, I simply say that maybe you have confused me with someone else. Could it be
Have you ever been wrong and thought you saw or heard something and it turned out to be not so?
Obviously, it happened to me at times. Who hasn't? But if I'm going to distrust to that extent
from my perception... it was her face, her clothes... But why do you think it is impossible that it was?
she?
Because on that date she had to take her last exam at the University and, knowing her
As we know her, we know she would never postpone an exam, and even less the last one, for a trip.
how well I could do later.
It seems that your reasoning is perfect. From that point of view, it is impossible that it was
María you saw in Venice,
Are they mistrusting our friend? - Joaquín asked somewhat angrily - If Esteban says that
It was María whom he saw, so I believe it must be that way. Why would he lie to us? His sight is
good and he is a lifelong trustworthy friend.
Don't be naive! - Carlos intervened - Even someone with perfect vision and good intentions
can...
Lie? Were you going to say lie? Were you about to label me a liar? - said Esteban
starting to raise her voice and about to stand up, as if she wanted to leave, - I know it was María
because I saw her, and that is more than enough for me, and it should be for all of you.
 And I know that what you are saying is impossible for the reasons I gave you before!" he replied.
Marcos in a somewhat elevated tone.
Your argument is perfect - Carlos intervened trying to calm the spirits - however, a
A correct argument can lead us to false conclusions. On the other hand, Esteban, nobody
It talked about lying, but rather about a possible involuntary mistake.
When we reason correctly, we can only reach false conclusions if we start from
false data; however, what can be questioned about the reasons I gave you for
prove that María cannot be in Venice on that date? Do you have any idea that
Did he suddenly decide to drop out of the program just as he was about to take his final exam? - He inquired.
Marcos.
There may be factors that we are not taking into account... perhaps...
While Carlos was advancing in his remarks, a female voice was heard.
Hello!
"Maria!" shouted the four.
Hey! What's wrong with you guys about me?
Please, I need you to urgently tell me if you were in Venice on November 20!
Esteban begged in a tone of desperation.
No - she did not answer.
"Ha!" Marcos replied in a sarcastic tone, "I told you it was impossible..."
But María interrupted saying:
In the second half of November, I traveled to the United States to celebrate my graduation. Ah!
I lied to you about the date because I didn't want you to come see me; I was afraid of not
approve.

Answer the following questions individually and then have a group discussion.

"I know", "I believe", "I doubt" what phrases do you think represent the attitude of each of the four?
friends?

To the characters to whom the phrase: 'I know' is attributed:

Do you think they had enough reasons to feel safe?

To the characters to whom the phrase is attributed: "I believe:"

Do you think your beliefs were well-founded?

To the characters to whom the phrase: 'I doubt' is attributed

Do you think they had reasonable doubts?

What is the difference between lying and being wrong, as the story suggests?

In light of the final outcome of the story:

Why could Esteban have made a mistake?
What did the character Marco fail at?

What conclusions can be drawn from this story?