Replies

For any type of knowledge to exist, there must also exist some correlation to a systemic manner in which propositions or an understanding of phenomena which can be grouped under the heading of that particular "type" of knowledge, can be submitted to "testing" or "proof" of their validity, otherwise it is not "knowledge" because it is not something that can be understood. Knowledge is therefore something distinct from perception in and of itself (I did not say "experience" here), or feeling, or a purely mental construct, or emotion, because knowledge implies comprehension.

So how many types of knowledge are there? The question is essentially subjective, because you cannot separate the perspective of the observer from the answer that is given -- yes, I'm a closet Existentialist coming out on this thread. You could perhaps say there were only two; a priori (knowledge before the fact or of the mind) and a posteriori (knowledge after the fact or of the world). But separating knowledge into these two types, which is mirrored in using the terms intuition (deduction) and experience (induction), implies that one has taken a perspective that knowledge must be defined in terms of whether it relates to the material world or not. Alternatively, you could take Immanuel Kant's approach that you could separate all knowledge into synthetic (new) knowledge in which some experience or idea was synthesized by the rational faculty of the mind and analytical (tautolgoical) knowledge in which it comes from the mind itself. In this perspective you define knowledge by whether it represents the outcome of a process in which the human mind has altered that which was previously known. And as a third example, you could use Sören Kierkegaard's simple distinction of knowledge as the outcome of an approximation process, which groups both deduction and induction together -- and in Kierkegaard's ultimate opinion was not really knowledge at all since truth could never be approximated -- or the outcome of an appropriation process, in which that which is "known" is the result of an act of free will, to "seize" or "appropriate" knowledge in a willful act. But in this perspective you are judging that which is known by whether the human will was exercised in the act of understanding. So; whatever distinctions you make between various types of knowledge, keep in mind that those distinctions are only relevant to your perspective on what is involved in delineating knowledge.

Now; anyone who has paid attention to what I just wrote will note that I have still not yet answered the question, "how many types of knowledge" are there? I agree with Descartes, there are three and from most important to least important they are as follows:

1. Intuition
-- I know that 1 plus 1 equals two because I intuitively grasp the essential relationships between the numbers "1" and "2."

2. Deduction (including scientific demonstration)
-- I know that Q is true because P implies Q and P is a given premise.

or

-- I know that all bodies attract because the thousands of observations I have made of the phenomenon discount the likelihood of any other conclusion.

3. Sensory Experience -- I know that the glass fell from the table because I saw it fall.

Obviously, some of you will ask, "what is StJacques' subjective perspective" in identifying the way StJacques lists the types of knowledge?" Your answer is in my first paragraph, knowledge requires submission of propositions or observations of phenomena to a systemic manner of testing of their "proof" or "validity."

I also believe there is that which is beyond knowledge, by which I refer to faith, because faith is an act of the will and the will, not reason, is primary in human existence.

Your #52 is a great post, StJacques. I enjoyed it very much -- thank you!

Thank you so very much for your list of "types" of "knowledge" and your valuation of them! And especially thank you for the summary of philosophy on the subject of "knowledge". Very informative, StJacques!

I also believe there is that which is beyond knowledge, by which I refer to faith, because faith is an act of the will and the will, not reason, is primary in human existence.

Excellent StJacques. Perhaps we shouldn't discard Descartes all so quickly. I'll send a note to Antonio R. Damasio.

But separating knowledge into these two types, which is mirrored in using the terms intuition (deduction) and experience (induction), implies that one has taken a perspective that knowledge must be defined in terms of whether it relates to the material world or not

From the first breath you take you literally live in the world of "experience." You know no other. You cannot conceive of what it would be like to live in a world of "no experience" or prior to "experience."

This is the whole flaw in this whole argument, whether it is Kantian "Synthetics" and "Analytics" or not. There is no way anyone can have any idea what life would be like without "experience." A person garners more experience before he or she develops enough consciousness and conceptual ability to understand what that experience is than can be measured or understood. All thoughts and concepts are inherently rooted in and dependent upon "experience." All theories about what lies outside "experience" are just that, unsupported theories. And, by definition, they are incapable of definition.

faith is an act of the will and the will, not reason, is "faith" has a meaning that is separate from "reason" means that the A is A relationship between the meaning of the word faith in contrast to the word reason means that "reason" is primary to faith for either word to have any "objective" meaning. And if they have no "objective" meaning, then they mean nothing.