Introspection, or Epistemology?

By James Zheng

To give a standard explanation of Epistemology, it is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. To make this statement more general, it is primarily just about how mankind gains knowledge, or perceives everything. It could be the knowledge of knowing how to read and write, or it could be the knowledge of knowing how to walk and run. So, the simple discussion within Epistemology is just a pursuit towards one question: how do we know?

First, what does Immanuel Kant, a German pioneer of philosophy, say about knowing in his Critique of Practical Reason? All knowledge is based on judgment (judgment is a process of knowing). Sometimes, it does not matter whether a single representation or concept is true or not, such as “this is a flower.” Only when two representations or concepts are connected to form a judgment, such as “this flower is red,” there may be a problem on what constitutes knowledge. Judgment can be divided into two categories: one is analytical judgment, and the other is comprehensive judgment. The so-called “analytical judgment” explains what has already been contained in the subject, such as a “triangle has three angles.” Obviously, this kind of judgment has universal necessity, but because the object is only the interpretation of the subject and does not add to the content of knowledge, it is not strictly knowledge. The so-called “comprehensive judgment” refers to such judgment where the object is not included in the subject but is added to the subject through experience, such as “objects have weight.” Obviously, this kind of judgment can expand the content of the world’s knowledge and help the world understand the world, so only comprehensive judgment is the real knowledge. It does not have to be scientific knowledge. 

I do like his sophisticated theory, but I would like to make things easier. Here is a starting point and a basic question: what is knowledge? Let’s consider three sentences:

1) I know my bike is under the building, but my bike is not there.

2) He never believed that she liked him, but he knew that she liked him.

3) He knew he would win the lottery because he thought he was lucky.

All these three sentences make people feel that something is wrong. It makes people feel that the first half of the sentence and the second half of the sentence can not be true or established at the same time. In all three cases, there seems to be no real knowledge. The three sentences that are more intuitive are as follows:

1) I thought my bike was downstairs, but my bike wasn’t there.

2) He didn’t believe it and never knew that she liked him.

3) He thought he would win the lottery because he thought he was lucky.

Or three sentences like this:

1) Now I know my bike is downstairs because I saw it when I went downstairs.

2) He knew she liked him, and he believed that all the time. She does like him.

3) After seeing the winning result, he knew that he had won the lottery.

The above examples contain the most crucial factor of what constructs knowledge and three similar types of analysis of knowledge. They are called justified true beliefs. 

Therefore, how is this simple but incomprehensive post going to relate to “introspection?” If you consider that our process of obtaining knowledge is a type of introspection, it makes sense. Still, the three examples show us the transformation of information in our minds. At the first attempt, we would like to know the knowledge though our intuition, but by receiving some other vague information that may affect the final result, we go to a further stage, which refers to examination. And through introspection, we may question “how do I know” and “how do you know” which is also introspection. That is what makes me think that introspection is linked with Epistemology.  

Sources:

Introspection Editor: Luke Langlois