Philosophy of Being and Knowledge

Epistemology (Philosophy of Knowledge)

Knowledge

The goal of cognition is knowledge, meaning that people seek knowledge in order to acquire it. Hence, the analysis of the concept of knowledge is one of the central themes in epistemology. Knowledge is defined as a belief that must be both justified and true. Therefore, knowledge is a justified true belief. If any one of these three components is absent, then it cannot be considered knowledge. For instance, to assert that someone knows it is 12:00, they must, first, be convinced that it is 12:00; second, the assertion must be supported by evidence (a clock); and third, it must indeed be 12:00. If any of these elements is missing, then the claim cannot be classified as knowledge. For example, if someone is not certain that it is 12:00, it is merely an assumption, not knowledge; if someone is convinced it is 12:00 but has no evidence to support it, it is not knowledge; if someone looks at a clock that shows 12:00, but the clock stopped an hour ago, the person may be convinced it is 12:00 and have evidence (the clock) but the belief is false. Thus, anything that is not a justified true belief cannot be considered knowledge. The definition of knowledge as justified true belief traces back to Antiquity, where Plato was the first to define it this way.

One can only know what exists; what does not exist cannot be known. Hence, epistemology is closely linked to metaphysics, as being (the subject of metaphysics) and knowledge (the subject of epistemology) are identical. If in metaphysics the verb "to be" has two meanings: existence and essence, then in epistemology, one can distinguish between two types of knowledge: propositional knowledge and procedural knowledge. British philosopher Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976) referred to them as propositional knowledge and practical knowledge. Propositional knowledge is knowledge about existence, that is, a justified true belief that something exists. For example, "Kyiv exists." Practical knowledge is knowledge about essence, that is, a justified true belief about the properties of something. For example, "Kyiv is the capital of Ukraine."

Despite the general acceptance of the definition of knowledge as justified true belief, this definition has its problems. In 1963, American philosopher Edmund Gettier (b. 1927) formulated the main problem with the classical definition of knowledge, which became known as the Gettier problem. Gettier questioned whether it is possible for a justified true belief to not be knowledge. His answer was affirmative, which is the essence of his paradox. Numerous examples of the Gettier problem have been described in the history of philosophy, but the simplest was outlined by English philosopher Bertrand Russell long before Gettier. It goes as follows: at 12:00 at a train station, a man looks at a station clock showing 12:00. As a result, the man is convinced it is 12:00, this belief is true because it was indeed 12:00 at that moment, and his belief is justified because he has a large clock before him, i.e., a device that shows the time. Thus, all three conditions necessary for a belief to be considered knowledge are met. However, there is a nuance: the clock stopped exactly 12 hours ago, and the man who looked at it did not know this. A broken clock cannot be a source of knowledge. Therefore, not every justified true belief qualifies as knowledge.

The Gettier paradox has sparked such vigorous debate that it remains one of the central issues in epistemology. Participants in this discussion have sought ways to resolve the paradox. The most popular solution was proposed by Australian philosopher David Malet Armstrong (1926-2014), who argued that the paradox can only be resolved by introducing a fourth condition. In addition to the conditions of belief, justification, and truth, knowledge must be based on sources that provide true information. Armstrong's method did not convince all participants in the discussion, and thus the Gettier paradox remains unresolved.

From the Gettier paradox and the lively debate surrounding it, the main conclusion emerges: knowledge, like any subject of philosophical inquiry, cannot be definitively defined. "Justified true belief" is merely a necessary but not sufficient condition for a belief to be considered knowledge; that is, no belief that is not a justified true belief can be knowledge, but even if a belief is a justified true belief, it does not necessarily mean it is knowledge.

In the context of analyzing knowledge, attempts have been made to classify it, addressing the question of what kinds of knowledge exist. The result is several classifications:

• Knowledge is divided into precise and empirical:

✵ Precise knowledge is characterized by its axiomatic nature, invariability, and detachment from experience. An example of precise knowledge is mathematics, as its laws are presented as axioms—truths that do not require empirical proof. For instance, to verify the truth of the Pythagorean theorem, it is unnecessary to examine an object shaped like a right-angled triangle; it is sufficient to analyze it at a theoretical level through formulas and calculations.

✵ Empirical knowledge is knowledge related to experience. For example, to be certain of the belief that water boils at 100°C, one needs experience. The extent to which experience plays a role in empirical knowledge is a topic of vigorous debate. Empiricists and positivists assert that knowledge arises from experience. Critical rationalists (such as Karl Popper and others) believe that knowledge is formed by creative intellect, while experience helps in verifying this knowledge. In both cases, there is agreement that there is a type of knowledge for which experience is essential.

• Hungarian-British philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) introduced a distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge, highlighting their differences:

✵ Implicit knowledge (or tacit knowledge) encompasses everything a person knows but cannot articulate—knowledge that is not expressed but determines how a person acts. This knowledge is transmitted not through descriptions but through learning and practice. For example, it is impossible to explain how an experienced swimmer swims; to acquire this skill, one must practice. A doctor may not always be able to explain why they prefer one diagnosis over another, even when symptoms are ambiguous; this is their implicit knowledge gained through experience but not easily articulated.

✵ Explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be articulated and explained; it is contained, for example, in textbooks.

• Knowledge is also categorized based on the duration for which it holds significance and is retained in the mind:

✵ Short-term knowledge is knowledge needed at a particular moment but not retained permanently. For example, if someone needs to contact an institution, knowing its phone number is necessary only for a few minutes while dialing it. Afterward, this knowledge is no longer needed and is erased from memory to prevent clutter.

✵ Long-term knowledge is knowledge remembered for a lifetime. For instance, knowing that Paris is the capital of France or that all material objects are subject to the law of universal gravitation is something people study and retain for their entire lives.