Lancaster 1

An Inquiry on the Sources of Knowledge

Mac Lancaster

Philosophy-110-8744

Jacki McGreevy

December 16, 2018

Lancaster 2
 Lancaster 3

Epistemology is a quintessential branch of philosophy. As discussed in the book,

epistemology is the study of knowledge, which includes questioning the structure, reliability, and

extents of knowledge. All the questioning that comes with epistemology boils down to one key

inquiry: where does knowledge come from and how do humans know whether or not it is

reliable? Two of the main views on the source of knowledge are rationalism and empiricism.

Rationalism holds that reason is the one source of knowledge, while empiricism holds that sense

experience is the source. There have been philosophers throughout history who have agreed with

these theories; rationalists such as Plato and Rene Descartes, and empiricists such as John Locke

and George Berkeley. There have also been philosophers who continue questioning and doubting

such as David Hume. This ceaseless questioning and eventual doubting of the sources of

knowledge leads to another view which is called skepticism. This paper will discuss opposing

theories concerning the source of knowledge including rationalist views, empiricist views, and

skeptical views.

As stated in the Empiricism and Descartes handout, rationalism is the view that reason

without sensory experience, is how people arrive at knowledge (3). Rationalist belief contends

that knowledge can only be explained as absolute definite truths that are derived from our own

mental processes. An example that is used in the book is the process by which scientists get their

information. Scientists have theories that come from within and they conduct experiments on the

outside world to test the validity of their innately reasoned ideas (2). In the eyes of rationalists,

this proves that reasoning is how knowledge is acquired (2). Rationalists refer to knowledge that

does not come from sense experiences as a priori, knowledge prior to experience (3).

As stated in the book, Plato explains a priori as knowledge humans are born with (2). Plato

believed that concepts such as math exist in the mind at birth, but are hidden and revealed later
 Lancaster 4

throughout a person’s life, which is how humans know the things they know (2). In Plato’s

Meno, he uses a slave boy as an example of someone with innate knowledge. The boy has never

been taught geometry, yet Socrates helps him ‘remember’ it from somewhere in his mind using

imperfect squares drawn on the ground (2). The section in Meno ends with Socrates saying,

“And if the truth about reality is always in our soul, the soul must be immortal” (2). This quote is

huge as it tells much about Plato’s belief concerning the human soul. Plato said there is no way

for humans to have acquired knowledge through sense perception as we do not have enough

experience in the world to reach a full understanding, and the objects of the world are too

imperfect compared to our knowledge of what is perfect (2). This can only mean that knowledge

has been acquired before birth. Plato believed that before birth the human soul lives in a perfect

universe where observations of perfect forms of things take place (2). This rests his case that

when humans are born into this world that happens to be imperfect, the perfect memories are

hidden away within the soul (2). Plato’s theory of perfect forms and a perfect universe is

certainly radical and has been rejected by many philosophers, but some merit has still been found

in his overall theory of rationalism.

Rene Descartes was another rationalist who questioned thought and knowledge based around

thought (3). Descartes’ biggest ponderance was “what it would mean to know about reality.” His

theory on truth was that in order for a belief to be true, it has to have the ability to be traced back

to another belief that is indubitable, meaning all claims and beliefs based on the indubitable one

would be true (3). In order to find these indubitable truths, Descartes believed one would have to

suspend and doubt all belief of everything that was once believed to be true (2). Doubting all

belief was, in Descartes’ opinion, the only way to see if any belief had validity (3). This doubting

led him to one certain truth which is that “I think, therefore I am” (2). This ties into his theories
 Lancaster 5

about deceiving points of knowledge. Descartes realized that even if everything else was

deceiving a man, he could not doubt the that he was thinking he was being deceived (2). He

believed that sense experiences could be deceiving and that our senses should be doubted. The

one thing he pointed out that could not be doubted is the fact that we are thinking at all, “I think,

therefore I am” (2). This rests Descartes’ case that the presence of the mind is indubitable, it is

the one thing all humans experience and understand to exist and be true.

Empiricism is an entirely different view on the source of knowledge that asserts that

knowledge can come only through sense experiences (2). This is different from rationalism

because rationalism depends on natural ability, while empiricism depends on environmental

ability, experience, and observation. As the Epistemology and Descartes handout states, all this

can be boiled down into the term: a posteriori, “any knowledge that relies on… sense

experience” (3). A posteriori is to empiricism as a priori is to rationalism, and there has been

debate on which is true for ages.

Empiricists, such as John Locke, hold that all knowledge comes from observations and none

are innate. As the book states on page 335, Locke argued that no ideas were shared by all

humans, so there are no innate ideas, and the human mind enters this world as a ‘tabula rasa’ or

blank slate (2). Locke believed that only experience could fill the tabula rasa and he believed that

after a while, one could construct his/her own ideas once awareness is gained of our senses and

mental processes (2). His reasoning behind his belief that knowledge came from senses lay in his

theory of primary and secondary qualities, which tries to distinguish between perspectives of

objects, and objects themselves. As discussed in the book on page 336, primary qualities are the

inherent qualities that are in an object (2). Primary qualities can be measured and they give us an

idea of what the object is and does (2). Locke grounded his idea with the fact that since we
 Lancaster 6

experience, through our senses, copies of primary qualities, our senses account for our

knowledge of all things. For Locke, the experiences of experiencing copies of primary qualities

are reliable enough to show us the world in which we live, and our knowledge of it.

Empiricist, George Berkeley also believed that sensory experiences create knowledge, but he

did not agree with Locke that our copies of primary qualities are reliable and thus prove our

knowledge. As stated in the book on page 340, Berkeley’s theory had to do with subjectivity (2).

He agreed with Locke that our secondary qualities are subjective, but he took it a step further by

saying primary qualities are also subjective (2) Berkeley presented his point by saying that

qualities can only be present in the mind, so they are just ideas. Since no ideas can be the same,

but only similar, we only have ideas of primary copies and have no real clue about what they

truly are (2). As stated on page 341, there are no perfectly accurate representations of external

objects in our minds, so according to Berkeley, the only true thing that can be held in our mind is

ideas and thought (2). Berkeley presented another key point which is that primary and secondary

qualities are sensations in ourselves, which means they are subjective and differ from mind to

mind. If our world is made up of nothing but people and objectives and our perceptions of those

objects are sensations that are subjective and only in our head, then what is real and are there

really any objects outside of the mind? This kind of thinking could be defined as solipsism, the

idea that only I exist and everything else is an idea, however, Berkeley grounded himself with

God (2). Berkeley believed that God inserted sensations into minds and maintains those

sensations whether or not the beholder is aware; this thinking opened him up to a lot of

critiquing, but his ideas were still crucial to developing a deeper understanding of empiricism

and the human mind.

 Lancaster 7

Berkeley’s views quickly become pretty cynical but are not quite at the brink of skepticism.

Skepticism, as stated in the book on page 343, is defined as, “denial of the possibility that we can

have certain knowledge about much of what we all take for granted” (2). Basically, this means

skepticism is the idea that everything can be doubted, and that we may not know everything we

think we know (4). The Socratic method could be seen as one of the first forms of skepticism, as

incessant questioning inevitably leads to no real answers. Skepticism is not necessarily an answer

to where our knowledge comes from, but it is the logically next step after thinking about sources

of knowledge.

As stated in the book, David Hume had views on the sources of knowledge that were

thoroughly skeptical. Hume took Berkeley’s theory of subjectivity in the mind one step further in

his own theory of perceptions. Hume had the idea that the mind was made up of nothing but

senses and experiences which he termed: perceptions (2). Hume believed perceptions could be

broken up into two parts, he termed these parts impressions and ideas (2). Hume defined

impressions as experiences of our ideas of our own sensations we perceive; he believed, as

Berkeley did, that all we experience are impressions (2). His full skeptical views come in when

he argued his idea of causality and the meaninglessness it brings. He had the conclusion that if

we cannot point to a sense something has caused, there is no way of showing it, so it does not

exist (2). In other words, without sense impression, according to Hume, an idea is meaningless

(2).

The study of knowledge is surely one of the deepest branches of philosophy. The questions

of where knowledge comes from and whether or not we know if that knowledge is reliable will

probably never be answered, but the two main views of rationalism and empiricism help us get

closer to an answer. Rationalists such as Plato and Rene Descartes, and empiricists such as John
 Lancaster 8

Locke and George Berkeley, and even skeptics like David Hume all have furthered

understanding concerning the human mind and how humans view the world. Though there may

never be an answer, it does not mean we have to ever stop questioning or thinking deeply about

where our knowledge comes from. One thing is certain: only when we think critically can we

become more insightful knowledgeable overall.

 Lancaster 9

Bibliography

1. Lecture

2. Book

3. Epistemology and Descartes.pdf

4. Popkin, Richard H. “Skepticism.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica,

Inc., 12 June 2017, www.britannica.com/topic/skepticism.