1. April, 16, 2010

2. As an independent study / branch of knowledge Historically As a discourse / issues on knowledge Arose since 17 C / 18 C Since Greek antiquity On the source or tool of knowledge Some examples issues: On the certitude in human knowledge On the measure (mizan) of knowledge

3. Parmenides (early 50 C. BC) Heraclites (500 BC) Emphasized on mere rationality Emphasized on Sensorial perception Plato (428BC - 347 BC ) Aristotle (382 B.C. - 322 B.C) We could not have knowledge from sensible world Both Rationality and Sensory perception are valuable Concerning the instrument of knowledge After this ages, the western philosophers stand separately and APPOSITIONALLY in one of both sides, Some epistemological issues Since Greek antiquity Such as EPICUREAN (the followers of Epicurus [3441-247 BC]) : Only sense is valuable, there is no value for rationality as the tool of knowledge RATIONALISM EMPIRICISM On the source or tool of knowledge

4. Some epistemological issues Since Greek antiquity On the problem of certitude in human knowledge Is it possible that we have any knowledge at the level of certitude? Reject any certainty in knowledge Questioning (C 5 BC) one of the most difficult subject in epistemology Problem of Sophism Relativism Human is the measure of all thing Phoron Protaghorias Human as parameter of knowledge Established skepticism

5. On the measure (mizan) of knowledge Some epistemological issues Since Greek antiquity Foundationlism This theory holds that beliefs are justified (known, etc.) based on basic or foundationally beliefs, that is beliefs that give justificatory support to other beliefs. So this basic beliefs must be self-evident (badihi, self-justifying), or not justified by other beliefs (non- badihi, not an inferential justification). In this theory, a belief is justified only if it is justified by a basic belief or beliefs, or it is justified by a chain of beliefs that is supported by a basic belief or beliefs, and on which all the others are ultimately based.basic or foundationally beliefsself-evident self-justifying Aristotle The proof can be traced back to

6. The nature and scope The presuppositions and basis The limit The general reliability of claims explanation Definition A branch of philosophy which concerned with Paul Edwards, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, of knowledge The theory of knowledge

7. Analysis of EPISTEME (Knowlegde What is knowledge ? What is to know ? Analytic philosophers division of the word TO KNOW in Three examples / spheres of meaning I know driving, swimming, etc. I know Jakarta, the book, etc Knowing how to means has skill to do something Is Jakarta a knowledge? No it is object of knowledge Knowledge as Skill Knowledge by acquaintances Propositional Knowledge Knowing on ones knowledge Analytic philosopher use of the word to know 3 USAGES & not epistemic meaning of knowing action I know that statement A is true Knowledge of proposition

8. CONFUSION = mixing both the word to know in use as it in epistemological meaning Obscurity in differentiating both : The word TO KNOW The philosophical meaning The Usage

9. EPISTEMOLOGY : in Western Analytic Philosophy (20 C) Before 20 C Domain of Epistemology Concept Tashawwur Proposition Tashdiq After 20 C Domain of Epistemology Proposition Tashdiq After 20 C : Analytic philosophers focus themselves merely to Propositional Knowledge

10. Knowledge of Proposition The merely focus of Analytic philosophy Domain of Epistemology Proposition Tashdiq Concept Tashawwur WHY ? The aim of epistemology: Coming to the fact Grasping the reality Recognizing true & false e.g. : pene.g. : the pen is blue by correspondence Their answer

11. Knowledge of Proposition The merely focus of Analytic philosophy Concept : Pen, book, chair, etc Proposition : The pen has blue color; that book is thick, that is a wooden chair, etc. Pen It is pen The knowledge of the man corresponds to the reality The idea in the mans mind doesnt correspond to anything The pen is blue Can the concept of pen be the subject of correspondence to reality? e.g. since he just point the concept without connote to any object in reality to which correspondence function can be applied

12. There is no pen in itself. Pen in its own essence is a creation of mind Pen Concept of The reality of Does the concept of pen correspond to reality ? Is it possible there is pen in itself/ in its own essence without any attribute? Solidity + the color of blue + long size + curve surface + etc Mind create the unification of all accumulative various attributes as : Pen Hence, ESSENCE is not real The collection of attributes Analytic philosophers standpoint Knowledge of Proposition The merely focus of Analytic philosophy

13. Islamic PhilosophyAnalytic Philosophy It has reality in the real world Is not minds creation It is independent to the existence of non-existence of the knowing subject Thing in its essence has no reality but in mind It Is minds creation it depends to the existence of non- existence of the knowing subject Hence, there is thing in itself A knowledge on something in order to correspond to reality, it must : PROPOSITION Includes all attributes e.g: The pen is blue, solid, long size…etc PROPOSITION Concept Thing in itself (Essence) Subject + predicate (attribute of subject) So knowledge can be in the form of: Epistemology Hence, there is no thing in itself, but r eal thing always has attributes

14. notes Epistemology in Analytic philosophy Epistemology Knowledge by Present Knowledge by Correspondence Concept Proposition Conceptual epistemology Propositional epistemology New modern epistemology of Analytic philosophy All western philosophers from Plato until modern Comprehensive epistemology Islamic epistemology

15. A PEN (in external reality) Solidity A real thing always with attributes, such as : Light blue color Certain size Certain shape There is no pure PEN (thing) In reality Concept (alone) cannot report reality Analytic philosophers standpoint the essence of penpure PEN essential concept of pen without any attributes == since

16. Analytic philosophers standpoint Concept (alone) cannot report reality The purpose of epistemology Coming to the fact, grasping reality, finding whether or not a knowledge is true (corresponds to the reality) 1 2 In epistemology, we cannot use concept alone The domain of epistemological inquiry is limited to only PROPOSITUON (predicate-included subject)

17. Analytic philosophers division of the word TO KNOW in Three examples / spheres of meaning I know driving, swimming, etc. I know Jakarta, the book, etc Knowing how to means has skill to do something Is Jakarta a knowledge? No it is object of knowledge Knowledge as Skill Knowledge by acquaintances Propositional Knowledge Knowing on ones knowledge Analytic philosophers' use of the word to know I know that statement A is true Knowledge of proposition

18. Analytic philosophers on knowledge Analytic Philosophical analysis of knowledge 1. Definition of knowledge 2. Analyze the definition 3 Finding 3 necessary attributes of knowledge TRUE BELIEF JUSTIFIED Definition : KNOWLEDGE = JUSTIFIED-TRUE-BELIEF (JTB) 3 conditions of knowledge

19. KNOWLEDGE = JUSTIFIED-TRUE-BELIEF (JTB) Analytics Definition According to Socrates But we could not precisely know what he means by the three attributes: True, belief, Justified 3 attributes : True, Belief, Justified Figure of common argument on these 3 Haspers Edmund Getie A reduction/replacement Notes: belief acceptance

20. KNOWLEDGE is JUSTIFIED-TRUE-BELIEF (JTB) Is such a definition of knowledge universal and proper (jami-mani) What is the meaning of

21. The Proposition is necessary to be TRUE 1 st Criteria of Knowledge (episteme)

22. The Proposition is necessary to be TRUE 1 st Criteria of episteme Non-knowledge Proposition This kind of propositions does not deal with the matter of true / false Since this is not a knowledge I hope Plato is alive In my opinion ……… So we can EVEN TO say : I hope 1 + 1 = 5 Hence is not necessary to be true It is probably that…. …

23. Incorrect use of proposition The Proposition is necessary to be TRUE 1 st Criteria of episteme Proposition of a KNOWLEDGE Since : 1.The word know indicates the proposition is a knowledge, and 2. knowledge necessary to be true, hence : the speaker presuppose that the proposition is true Conclusion: Plato is alive (must be/) is true I know Plato is alive I know that… The proposition must be true, In fact, Plato had been passed away But the proposition does not correspond to the fact, SpeakerPropositionReality TRUE OBJECTIVE CONDITION of episteme We cannot suppose any doubt of this proposition

24. BELIEF 2 nd Criteria of Knowledge (episteme)

25. ` BELIEF 2nd Criteria of episteme Speaker Proposition Reality BELIEF SUBJECTIVE CONDITION of episteme true Objective condition of episteme The blind color eyes The normal eyes Its Yellow square Its a Brown square I like yellow I like yellow too Yellow for AYellow for B A cannot say he knows that it is yellow square A do not have BELIEF on it, he just have CONFIDENCE

26. JUSTIFIED 3 RD Criteria of Knowledge (episteme)

27. JUSTIFIED 3 RD Criteria of episteme Speaker Proposition Reality belief JUSTIFIED true Objective condition of episteme Subjective condition of episteme I bring you my friend, standing behind you Let me guest! Your friend is a girl, isnt she? You are right, how do you know that? 1 2 3 4 Well, I just feel confident, although it is true, but it is not justified. It is not a knowledge, I dont know, I just guest. Wow..he didnt know, but his guest is true

28. Notes in the three criteria of knowledge : True, Belief, Justified

29. No it is mine. It just similar with mine. Your pen is behind you. My pen has red color. I know that is my pen. 1 2 Ough…I am sorry 3 Correspond to reality Consider this example: Misunderstand since the case of similarity The A-man feels he knows the fact, but in fact he misunderstands The As pen He has no certaintyHe just has opinion that he has certainty On TRUE

30. Speaker … I know that is my pen. When A said : While it is not. Did he lie? If he did not lie, was he true? In this situation, consider 2 kinds of truth ! ETHICAL TRUTH LOGICAL TRUTH Speakers belief in his mind … (Proposition) External reality Relation between

31. T J B Which True ? ETHICAL TRUTH LOGICAL TRUTH If So JUSTIFIED criteria is not needed SO, knowledge as Since, the proposition of knowledge has a prior presupposition that it is automatically justified So BELIEF criteria is not needed Since, it is enough for the proposition of knowledge to have correspondence with belief in mind

32. Speaker Proposition Reality belieftrue Objective condition of episteme Subjective condition of episteme If your belief / what is in mind Speakers belief in his mind … (Proposition) External reality JUSTIFIED Can it also automatically justify external reality? To what point the justified criterion is applied? If No Skepticism If Yes How it can be that what occurs in mind justify what occurs in external reality ???

33. ANOTHER AMBIGUITIES

34. On Justified criteria When one make a proposition, he suppose : Subject Predicate & It is sufficient to accept the subject and predicate in proposition without any justification, because it is supposed as primary self-evident in proposition self-reference Analytic philosopher's dictum: All knowledge must be justified Inconsistent with The statements is supposed without any justification Means, all sentence to be a knowledge must be justified