Principles of philosophy by michael moore part 2 KR IRS 1 The acquisition, possession and justification of knowledge is known as the field of
epistemology. 2 Truth is the lynchpin of knowledge; it is what we aim at and we judge if something is truthful on whether it captures truth or not. 3 " The correspondence theory of truth states that something is true if it matches up to the facts of reality. 4 The pragmatist view of truth defines truth as that which adequately answers a question posed by human enquiry. 5 " Justification is the warrant for possessing knowledge. Knowledge through induction reaches a generalization through observations. Bayesian epistemology posits that there can be different degrees of conviction in someone's beliefs. 6 Testimonial knowledge is formed from reports of others. 7 A priori knowledge comes about directlv from the mind, by understanding the relationships of concepts and ideas, such as geometrical truths. 8 *Empiricism is the position that experience justifies our knowledge, while rationalism is the position that reason justifies our knowledge. 9 goranCe shows us that knowledge follows after ignorance and that knowledge has to be acquired in some way.( Michael Moore) ------------------------------------------------------------ KR: 1 possession and justification of knowledge is known as the field of epistemology. Epistemology in Indian Philosophy Most of the philosophical schools’ deal with mainly three important aspects, viz., epistemology, ontology or metaphysics and ethics. Here, epistemology means the theory of knowledge. Metaphysics means the science <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/science#hinduism> of reality. Ethics means the morality, i.e., the practice of moral duty. The word ‘epistemology’ is derived from ‘episteme’ which means knowledge and ‘logos’ which means theory or science. It inquires into the nature and the origin of knowledge. That is why ‘epistemology’ deals with the science or the theory of knowledge. As such, epistemology is the theory which inquires into the nature, conditions, factors, the limits and the origin of knowledge. The combination of the two branches, i.e., metaphysics and epistemology, leads to attainment of the highest knowledge. In order to make a study and to generalize the development of knowledge–the transformation from non-knowledge to knowledge—is called ‘epistemology’. *Importance of Epistemology in Indian Philosophy:* In course of the development of Indian philosophical systems, interest in epistemology increased and it began to claim a large share in the philosophical discussions of almost every school as suffering is considered as the main problem of Indian Philosophy. The root cause of human suffering is ignorance (avivekam). Therefore, from the means and processes of true knowledge man can get a painless and enjoyable life. Thus, philosophy and epistemology can be said to be inter-related. Epistemology is the theory of knowing and the fundamental basis and the ground work of metaphysics. It precedes metaphysics. Epistemology becomes closely linked up with metaphysics or ontology and both of them again get merged with ethics. Knowledge and moral perfection are regarded as necessary to each other in almost all systems of Indian thought.(moore is right as fare as the definition) Indian epistemology mainly deals with four topics, viz., the nature of *pramāṇa* <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/pramana#hindu-philosophy>, the nature of *pramā* <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/prama#hindu-philosophy>, the nature of *pramātā*, and the nature of *prameya* <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/prameya#hindu-philosophy>. 1. The *pramāṇa*: the chief instrument or means of knowing or the source of valid knowledge. 2. The *pramā* or *pramiti* <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/pramiti#hindu-philosophy>: the valid knowledge of the object. 3. The *pramātā*: the knower, the cogniser of valid knowledge. 4. The *prameya*: the knowable, the object to be known. 5. ADI SHANKARA EXPLAINED THESE VIVIDLY. Indian epistemology has come to be involved with these four basic factors with the help of which different schools of Indian philosophy try to determine the methods of arriving at the conclusions. In Indian epistemology, generally the two terms viz., *jñāna* <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/jnana#hinduism> and *pramā* are used in the sense of knowledge. *Jñāna* means all kinds of knowledge–true or false, while *pramā* means only valid knowledge. The word *pramā* is used only in the sense of true knowledge (*yathārthajñāna*) which is distinct from false knowledge (*ayathārthajñāna*). When reality reveals false knowledge then it is called *apramā* <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/aprama#hindu-philosophy>. On the other hand <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/hand#hinduism>, while the word *jñāna* is used to denote knowledge from the psychological standpoint which helps in cognition of an object, the word *pramā* means true knowledge in the logical sense which is able to recognize an object with its real nature and character. Knowledge in its strict sense implies a true belief that carries with it an assurance of its truth. Knowledge or cognition is defined as apprehension. The word *pramā* is derived from the root *mā* with a prefix *pra* and *tāp* which means valid knowledge.{PRAMAANAM} All philosophers adopted different attitude in their own way to analyse valid knowledge (*pramā*) and the means of attaining it. In all knowledge, there are three constituents, viz., the knower (*pramātā* or *jñātā* <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/jnata#hinduism>), the known (*prameya* or *jñeya* <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/jneya#hinduism>) and the process of knowing (*jñānaprakriyā*). The knower and the process of knowing are inseparable. But the known is not inseparable. The known is object to the knower, i.e., the subject. The theory of valid knowledge or *pramāṇa* goes by the name of epistemology in Indian philosophy. The term *pramāṇa* signifies both the means of knowledge and means of proof. In Indian philosophical system, the first systematic treatment of the means of knowledge (*pramāṇa*) is to be found in Gautama <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/gautama#hinduism>’s *Nyāyasūtra* <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/nyayasutra#hindu-philosophy>. For a long time the old practice of the Naiyāyikas <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/naiyayika#hinduism> who were commentators on the *Nyāyasūtra*, had been treating epistemology as a part of metaphysics until the time of Bhāsarvajña (about 950 A.D.) who included only the study of the means of knowledge in his for a few years in India <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/india#hinduism>, epistemology came to be regarded as an important and indispensible part of philosophic discipline. Different systems of Indian philosophy have adopted different attitude towards the theory of knowledge. According to the Naiyāyikas knowledge is the manifestation of object. It deals with the objects of knowledge (*prameya**). Gautama, the founder of **Nyāya* <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/nyaya#hindu-philosophy>* philosophy*, refers to knowledge with that of *buddhi* <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/buddhi#hindu-philosophy> and contends that the terms *upalabdhi* <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/upalabdhi#hinduism> and *jñāna* are its synonyms. According to Annambhaṭṭa <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/annambhatta#hindu-philosophy>, *buddhi* is knowledge and is that quality which is the ground (*hetu* <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/hetu#hindu-philosophy>) of all linguistic usage (*sarvavyavahāraḥ*).In the view of Keśavamiśra, cognition is that which manifests objects. In the Sāṃkhya <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/samkhya#hindu-philosophy>-Yoga <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/yoga#hindu-philosophy> system, knowledge is a mode of *buddhi*. In their view, *Puruṣa* <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/purusha#hindu-philosophy> or self is immutable and conscious. *Puruṣa* is neither a knower, nor a doer, nor an enjoyer. It is the pure light of consciousness. Knowledge is a substantial transformation of the unconscious *buddhi* and the conscious *Puruṣa* by itself is absolutely inactive, but due to a beginning less confusion or indiscrimination (*aviveka*) which results in the intelligizing of *buddhi* and activizing of *Puruṣa*, the phenomenon of cognition arises as a hybrid. The Prābhākara <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/prabhakara#hinduism> school of Mīmāṃsā <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/mimamsa#hindu-philosophy> philosophy is an advocate of *triputisaṁvit* , according to which the knower, the known and the knowledge co-exist in every act of cognition. Prabhākara <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/prabhakara#hinduism> regards knowledge as self luminous. It manifests itself and needs nothing else for its manifestation. Knowledge reveals itself as well as the knowledge. It also simultaneously reveals its subjects and its objects. In every cognition there are three factors, viz., the cogniser (*pramātā*), the object (*prameya*) and the cognition (*pramiti*) itself. In all knowledge, the self is known directly through the instrumentality and the contact of mind. But there is not always a direct knowledge of the object. According to Prabhākara, knowledge is the nature of light or illumination. Again, Kumārila <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/kumarila#hinduism> admits the independent existence of external objects. According to him, knowledge reveals the object but cannot reveal itself. In his view, knowledge is not directly known, but is inferred from the knowness (*jñātā*) of the object produced by knowledge. According to the Vedānta <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/vedanta#hinduism> system, knowledge is the very stuff of the self. There *is no difference between the knowledge and the self.* Consciousness is the very stuff which constitutes existence. Existence is consciousness; consciousness is existence; there is absolutely no difference between the two. Self is knowledge and as such Śaṃkara <https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/shankara#hindu-philosophy> rejects the distinction between the substance and attribute. Substance and its quality are identical as fire and its heat are. In this way, there is no difference between the self and the knowledge. AND MOORE NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED INDIAN EPISTEMOLOGY AT ALL BUT DISCUSSED THEIR LATER PHILOSOPHIES LACKING THE EPISTEMOLOGY K Rajaram. IRS 23824 24824 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZooOuCnHph%3D8rogjLqQ74WVP0kNuDoWtBJ7oepUamhLurA%40mail.gmail.com.
