Michelle Ty Ph103 MWF 11:30-12:30 Pag-ibahin at pag-ugnayin ang kaalaman at paniniwala.

Both knowledge and belief deal with truths. Both are concepts that the mind is able to grasp. The difference, however, lies on its basis. We know a statement is knowledge if it is not an opinion but rather a proven theory. It is based on facts and on evidences. For example, 1+1 is equal to 2. There is no longer any debate that 2 is the correct answer given the equation. We also know that a triangle has three equal sides. Another example is that fire can burn us, and this is something we learn from our experience. Knowledge is based on truth that is quantified or qualified by our experiences. We know that everything that goes up must come down and this is because of the Law of Gravity. There is never an instance that it is false, but rather it is a) always absolute because it has been proven, and b) it is universal because it applies to everything. When it comes to knowledge, we are always certain. Belief on the other hand is truth but without evidence, or something we know to be true even though it is not proven. The best example to explain belief is through the relationships we have. How do we know, for example, if we have a relationship with this person, if this person is really our friend? In class, numerous answers were given such as a) there must be mutualitya give and take, b) there must be a similar experience together that becomes the basis or foundation of the relationship, c) there must be boundaries set, d) which is defined by a possible contract. All these, however, are merely signs. They are not proof. An even better example is the phenomenon of liking someone. How do you know if someone likes you or you like someone? Is it such when a person is always with you? Is it such when youre the only one he or she treats in such a special or caring way? Is it such when the person fetches and brings you to your class? Is it such when all you can think about is him or her? Is it such when you communicate with each other every minute and every second of the day? Or is it such when you finally and he or she finally admits to he or she likes you? Even then, how do you know what he or she is saying is the truth? The point is that we can never really tell whether a belief is true or not, because we cannot prove it. There is no standard that can prove its true. But why do we believe its the truth? We believe its the truth because we trust the other person. At the same time, however, there is also doubt. The lack of evidence makes us continually question the trueness of a statement. Something is not truly a belief if there is no doubt. In essence, I see it as belief and doubt being two sides of the same coin. In belief there is always uncertainty. In relation to knowledge, belief has no evidences therefore it can never be absolute. If we are able to prove belief, then we no longer need to believe. Because it is never absolute, there is a part of our belief that is never complete. In belief, there is always unbelief. Does the question then becomes which is more useful in life, and is there really a correct answer for such a question? How much space are we willing to give to belief and knowledge? Is it 50/50? Or is one more important than the other? If we value knowledge more, then we marginalize ourselves. We always look for evidence, for certainty. There no longer is room for growth and improvement. If

Page 1 of 2

we value belief more, we become less critical and become more risk-takers. This is a question with an answer that differs from person to person. Ano ang diyalektiko? Magbigay ng mga halimbawa. Dialectic is a specific kind of logic that involves different views or statements to establish the truth. This is different from Aristotles Principle of non-contradiction which states that no contradictory statements can be both true at the same time. Suppose that 1 is equal to 1. 1 therefore is not equal to 1. When I say I am here, it also means that I am not there. If I say that 1 is equal to -1 or I say that I am also there then these are false statements. In the Principle of non-contradiction, the second statement must be consistent with the first statement. Because the second statement follows from the first, it becomes predictable. There is no change involved. There becomes causality between the two statements. This is the kind of logic we use in our day-to-day experiences. If I say I want to be a lawyer, then I will go to law school. If I want to have friends, then I will not frown at people. There is already a determined course of action. We ask, however, how possible is it always to become consistent? Is it always true that if I study I will always get good grades? Or if I want to be happy, what is it that I need to do? Does the next statement always hold? Hegel who said that while the Principle of non-contradiction makes sense it is limited. It doesnt make space for change. Perhaps there is another kind of logic which he calls dialect. In its very essence, dialectic then goes against the principle of non-contradiction. The first principle of dialectic states that a thing becomes truly itself if it has a relationship with its opposite. This is the principle of becoming. A thing is no longer limited to just being, but it also is becoming. Hegels dialectic has a formula which involves 3 moments: a) Thesis, b)AntiThesis, and c) Synthesis. The thesis refers to anything, for example like 1 or I. The anti-thesis, on the other hand, is a negation or the opposite of the thesis such that 1 is able to know -1, and I is able to know the other. The synthesis is the relationship between 1 and -1 or I and the other which prompts change. In the principle of becoming, a thing on its own is not its real self. We become our self in the act of negating ourselves. We have to go out of our selves in order to truly become ourselves. It is in the process of companionship, when we join organizations, reach out to other people, that we are able to know and truly become ourselves. If determinism is the concept involved with the principle of noncontradiction, then dynamism is the concept involved with dialectic. One example of dialectic is belief. As I mentioned in the earlier question, for a true belief to be true it has a relationship with doubt and unbelief, with its contradiction. Another example is a Philosophy teacher discussing things with a Biology teacher. Because they both come from fields that do things different, there is contradiction. One possible result of their discussion is change due to a collision of horizons. In the collisions of horizons, if there is a struggle we see the weakness of the self. Because we see the weakness, we now have the opportunity to improve. In terms of Philosophy and Biology meeting, they are able to see their own limitation. Because of this, they can change.

Page 2 of 2