Epistemology is the region of Philosophy in which the inhabitants ask questions such as, "How do we know?"
This is a simple question, and the answer appears to be quite obvious, until we let a pack of wild philosophers chew on it for a while. Once they've torn it to pieces, we'll discover that each piece is mysterious in its own right, and the whole simple question is entirely beyond reckoning.
Epistemology trains people to ask questions that make you uncomfortable, such as, "What are your beliefs?" and "Which of your beliefs are justified?" and "Which of your justified beliefs can be classified as knowledge?"
If you let them, they'll go even deeper and start asking about the processes rather than the results: "How do we form our beliefs?" and "Under what circumstances can our beliefs be considered justified?" and "How can we decide which of our justified beliefs can be classified as knowledge?"
Perhaps the best way to defend ourselves against this endless gnawing is to say, "Stop it, will you? We believe the things we believe because we believe them. We know the things we know because we know them. And if you need to have it explained in further detail, you have a problem!"
Am I kidding? Maybe. But this could go on forever. "How do we form our beliefs about how we form our beliefs?" and "How can we decide whether or not our beliefs about justified belief are justified?" and so on.
In my opinion, epistemology is a perfect profession for people who want to make a good living in a socially respectable way, without ever doing any actual work. And I'm not one of them.
I don't mind their questions. But I won't answer them.
Why? Because this isn't the 17th century anymore. People have lives. They go places. They do things. I don't have the time or the energy for an infinite series of increasingly complex questions, and I don't think you do either.
So here's a short course in epistemology:
(1) A belief is justified if and only if we have good evidence supporting it.
Therefore,
(2) A belief is unjustified unless we have good evidence supporting it.
Please think about these principles for a moment before proceeding.
~~~
Did you pause? I didn't think you would.
~~~
If you've accepted these principles as I stated them, you're starting to get a handle on epistemology.
But if you've noticed that I gave them to you without any supporting evidence, and you're reluctant to accept them for this reason, you're starting to get an even better handle.
You may have wondered whether I deliberately gave you these principles without any evidence, to try to fool you, or to test whether you would notice that the presentation undermined the content, rather than reinforcing it.
If so, congratulations! That is exactly what I did.
Most readers usually don't notice such things. If you noticed, you may be liable to take things literally, apt to ask difficult questions, and/or abnormally suspicious of potential duplicity. In the terminology of popular culture, you might be called "paranoid."
And some people might say you were delusional. You, of course, could say the same about them. But that might not be a good idea.
Next: Two Conflicting Hypotheses
Previous: Part One: How And Why I Became Delusional
Home: Contents
~~~
Your comments are invited.
Previous: Part One: How And Why I Became Delusional
Home: Contents
~~~
Your comments are invited.
