There is vast literature on the topic of epistemology in the world today. Ladyman defines it as the process of studying knowledge and the justified belief (Ladyman, 49). This begs the question, how is knowledge studied? Understanding the conditions, the sources, the structure and the limits of knowledge plays a role in understanding knowledge. In addition to understanding knowledge and what it entails, epistemology also looks at the concept of justified belief. Under this armpit, one seeks to understand issues such as the justification of justified beliefs, whether the aspect of justification is external or internal to a person’s mind, among many other issues. Combining the two concepts above to define epistemology helps solve the issue. In a broader sense, epistemology is the study of knowledge about a specific issue. A number of researchers have had their say on this concept, and most of them have differed in opinion. This paper seeks to keenly analyze this concept to understand what it truly means, and its implication and application on modern day issues. Specifically, the paper will apply the concept of epistemology to analyze whether talents are as a result of experience, or they are inborn (Ladyman, 55). In addition to this, it will be crucial to analyze the two branches of epistemology: empiricism and rationalism.
In order to conclusively understand the concept of knowledge, it is prudent to study it under various conditions. Under the aspect of belief, knowledge is said to be a mental state. This implies that knowledge is more inborn than experience. Although the environment plays a certain role in shaping one’s knowledge, the mental state plays a significant role. This means that knowledge can only exist in one’s mind, and nowhere else. Proponents of this approach argue that it is this reason that brings about the inability of unthinking things to know anything. Although knowledge exists, unthinking things will never get the ability to know about the existence of such knowledge. The belief that people hold about some issues is what knowledge consists of. Failing to hold any belief, therefore, means one lacks knowledge about something (Scheibe, 23).
Despite beliefs playing a major role in defining knowledge, not all beliefs can be said to be knowledge. Only beliefs that are true can be rightly be said to be knowledge. A person seeing a dog in the first time, for instance, and mistaking it for a cow has belief, but a wrong one. This wrong belief cannot be said to be knowledge. In contrast, seeing a donkey and recognizing it as such means that one has a belief that is true. Knowledge comprises of true beliefs. These two aspects (beliefs and truth) are essential in defining and understanding knowledge.
The third element in defining knowledge is justification. Truth and belief need to be justified in order for them to make reference to knowledge. There exist some true beliefs that do not form the basis of knowledge. The manner in which these true beliefs are arrived at is what dictates whether they are knowledge or not. This is the essence of justification, that only the true beliefs that are justified can be said to be knowledge. An example will suffice. In a classroom, a teacher may ask students a theoretical questions. Student X may guess the answer and get it correct. In this case, they cannot be said to have knowledge about the issue in question. This is because they don’t have any basis of justification. The implication of this is that true beliefs need justification in order to be said to constitute knowledge. Student Y, on the other hand, may give a correct answer because they understand, and are justified in that matter. As a branch of philosophy, therefore, knowledge is the true justified belief.
Comparing the two branches of epistemology: Empiricism vs. Rationalism, and whether talent is as a result of experience or inborn
There exist two types of philosophers on epistemology: empiricists and rationalists. Empiricists such as John Locke do not subscribe to the argument of innate knowledge. They vehemently oppose that knowledge is inbuilt. According to them, knowledge can only be gained through experience. The day to day interactions people have with other social phenomena, empiricists argue, shape the knowledge they have about a certain issue. Locke argues that knowledge can only be attained using the five senses, in addition to what the brain reasons. His argument is supported by other philosopher such as Hume and Berkeley. As a matter of fact, empiricists will argue that talent is acquired through experience (Scheibe, 45).
Rationalists such as Plato and Descartes oppose this approach when understanding knowledge. According to them, there exists a form of innate knowledge, meaning that knowledge cannot be acquired as a result of external interactions with the universe. Plato, for instance, argues that humans have innate knowledge of many things. Descartes, on the other hand, beliefs that knowledge is given by God, citing infinity and perfection. Knowledge of one’s existence, Descartes argues, is adequate prove that one has knowledge. The general perspective of rationalists is that all logical principles are innate in nature. This category of philosophers accept that talent and intelligence are in-born. They oppose the empiricist argument that talent and intelligence are shaped by the interactions of humans with the external world.
Arguments in favor of the empiricist approach
As already argued, empiricists and rationalists completely do not agree when it comes to analyzing the sources of knowledge. The two differ widely, and it is difficult to take a stand. There are certain aspects, however, that support the empiricist approach against the rationalist approach. First, there is no doubt that empiricism is simpler. Whereas rationalists insist on the role that innate knowledge plays in shaping knowledge, empiricists criticize them on grounds that such innate knowledge is inefficacious as it cannot be observed. Basically, it plays no role in understanding (Scheibe, 77). Although it might exist, if it is not made use of it will go to waste. Empiricists also attack rationalists on the concept of colors. As they put it, how can one rightly know what a certain color looks like if they don’t have sight? In this aspect, empiricists argue that understanding and knowing the blue color rightly depends on the interaction of one’s senses with the environment, not an inborn virtue!
Experience and imagination seem to favor empiricists in this argument. According to empiricists, depending on the innate argument raised by rationalists cannot help one understand the idea of perfect triangularity. It is a matter of extrapolating it from experience that human beings can make sense about certain issues.
Arguments in favor of the rationalist approach
Rationalists point out the fact that morality is purely innate, as opposed to experiential, to further their claims. They argue that if the empiricist approach is followed, it will be impossible to explain the impact that the five senses have on morality. As a matter of fact, morality is inborn. Rationalists criticize empiricism, arguing that it undermines the creativity of certain issues. Although empiricism can help combine and separate things, there is nothing more one can do about them. Rationalists on the other hand have the ability to experience things that are ready-made and internalize them for the purposes of creativity. These are some of the factors that rationalists have advanced in support of rationalism being the basis of knowledge.
Talent: Is it experience or something that one is born with?
The issue as to whether talent is as a result of experience or whether it is inborn has been analyzed by various philosophers. To date, there exists no correct position about this topic. The position one adopts depends on whether they associate themselves with empiricism or rationalism. However, there is no doubt that talent is purely inborn (Meyers, 3). It can then be, to some slight extent, be shaped by the environment and the experiences one receives in life. Like intelligence, talent is purely an issue to do with one’s genes. In the world today, there is evidence that show the connectedness of children to their parents. Children often tend to inherit certain beneficial genes from their parents, such as morality and intelligence. Today, most children who have their parents as footballers tent to follow their footsteps to become footballers too. As such, the rationalist approach is the best-suited to explain talent. Talent is purely inborn, then it can be boosted by experience.
Works Cited
Ladyman, James. "The Epistemology of Constructive Empiricism." Images of Empiricism (2007): 46-61. Print.
Meyers, Robert G. "Introduction: empiricism and rationalism." Understanding Empiricism(n.d.): 1-8. Print.
Scheibe, Erhard. "Between Rationalism and Empiricism." Between Rationalism and Empiricism (2001): 1-86. Print.
