(Insert Instructor)
(Insert Course)
(Insert Date)
Internalism is one of the approaches of explaining different concepts in Philosophy especially in Epistemology. Epistemology is one of the branches of Philosophy that deals with knowledge, its nature and scope. These concepts are human motivation, knowledge, justification, meaning and truth. In this paper, the argument will be inclined to internalism as a way of explaining epistemic justification (Alston). In the discussion, “What is Justified Belief” Goldman notes that,
“Many epistemologists have been interested in justification because of its presumed close relationship to knowledge.” (Goldman 89) Internalism here refers to an explanation on a given concept, where an individual revisits one’s internal concepts and their mind. Justification in this case refers to,
“ The one that distinguishes knowledge from true belief what is not knowledge.” (Chisholm 285) as Chisholm conceptualizes the phenomenon.
The assumption in internalism is that a person by referring to one’s conscious state can formulate epistemic principles that will enable him or her to justify one’s belief. Chisholm simplifies it as follows,
“The epistemic principles that he formulates are principles that one may come upon and apply merely by sitting in one's armchair, so to speak, and without calling for any outside assistance.” (Chisholm 286) Therefore, the consideration here is one’s own state of mind. In this case, we cannot examine somebody’s state of mind directly but we infer from what one portrays through his or her actions. We observe how one responds to issues that confront him or her, thus another individual can tell that person’s belief(s).
In internalism, there exists no logical link between justification and the truth. A belief may be internally true as conceptualized by an individual but critically is false. Chisholm qualifies the same by saying,
“According to this traditional conception of "internal" epistemic justification, there is no logical connection between epistemic justification and truth.” (Chisholm 286) One may believe in something that he or she can justify through one’s principles but may be false when examined from a broad perspective. For instance, one may believe when in a moving vehicle the stationary objects also move when actually it is an illusion. This situation becomes conspicuous when we assess our beliefs or other persons’ beliefs from a scientific or societal point of view.
We note that internalism qualifies externalism, which links the epistemic justification with the truth. In reference to the reliability and causal theories, the approach of internalism is highly appreciated by externalism. In the case of reliability theory, a given situation is termed reliable, when an individual assesses it internally through the principles adopted in one’s mind (Chisholm 287-291). Where it is until that situation has repeatedly given the same results under similar conditions that a person considers it reliable. In casual theory, one must observe the cause and effect scenario to justify the truth pointed out (Chisholm 291-293). The reference here is an individual’s state of mind to draw the conclusion as regards x causes y where experimental framework either in a laboratory or in natural setting one infers this. Therefore, in both cases a person observes the respective processes more than once to come up with a belief that is justified as true. The person’s state of mind is very critical in arriving at the conclusion either in reliable theory or in causal theory.
Internalism points out that a person may hold a belief about something which one can justify satisfactorily but may lack knowledge on that matter. This explains a situation where an individual believes in something, which may be a given concept but knows very little or nothing at all concerning the same.Goldman seems to concur with this as he argues,
“In short, there must be some justification- conferring processes or properties. But this does not imply that there must be an argument, or reason, or anything else, 'possessed' at the time of belief by the believer.” (Goldman 90-91) In reference to our previous example of one in a moving vehicle it is until one conceptualizes the illusion otherwise one will continue to believe so. Maybe that is why the situation of a belief turning out to be false is likely to be true. This is because one relies much on his or her state of mind as regards the epistemic principles one holds on a given concept and not how much the individual knows about the subject at hand.
In internalism, there is also the argument that when one has a justified belief at times the individual may be aware of the justifier of the belief. We can note that these justifiers can be other beliefs, experiences or facts behind the person’s belief. In addition, one may become aware of the justifier through reflection .Zalta points out reflection as,
“Knowing by reflection is knowledge one achieves merely by thinking about the matter at hand.” Therefore, a person who believes in something has the reasons to justify why one believes so. It is these reasons, ground, or evidence that we call them the justifiers.
Considering internalism, critically it is more advantageous than disadvantageous as regards its conceptualization. As earlier mentioned we note that even externalism greatly relies on internalism for it to have substantial ground of argument. It complements and supplements externalism that relies on the cognitive aspects of an individual. Consequently, we can argue that without internalism, externalism theory is hollow as the former justifies it. Externalism draws its argument from internalism where, processes earlier stored in the mind are justifiers for the beliefs. Chisholm summaries this that,
“ We can assess the beliefs that other people have without examining their states of mind. And we can assess the beliefs that we ourselves have had at other times without examining the states of mind that we had at those other times. But these arguments, although "external" in one sense, are "internal" in another.” (Chisholm 286)
Internalism appreciates the significance of internal consciousness of a human being as regards beliefs held by an individual. In this case, the self is recognized a very important aspect in building and improving the positive self-esteem of a person. The beliefs one holds are justified by the self through his or her state of mind. This gives the individual an opportunity to qualify one’s belief by engaging one’s internal justifiers.
Internalism recognizes the importance of cognitive processes in human life especially the conceptualization of various aspects. Where they form the central part of any aspect of life that is, its soundness ensures all the processes are efficient and effective. It is the key determinant in making justification possible; otherwise, all will be a nightmare.
In the case of internalism, one may believe in something that one is not knowledgeable about. In spite of this shortfall, the person can justify one’s belief from one’s self-conscious. Therefore, the theory dwells much on the justification of the belief and not the knowledge on a given subject. It does not matter whether the belief is true or false but what matters is the justification. Is it substantial? If so internalism acknowledges it.
Internalism recognizes motivation as a crucial factor behind one’s beliefs and its respective justifiers (Dorsey). Certainly, the reasons of a given belief and the belief itself are motivationally inert. We note that before a person holds a given belief one must have had the intended results from that belief. The results justify the means, that is, to say they motivate the individual’s justification. The reasons are the possible explanations supporting our actions.
In this paper, my critics are likely to point out overemphasis on the internal mechanisms as regards the justification of one’s beliefs. Despite, the aspects of internalism referring much to the intrinsic motivation behind our beliefs we cannot rule out the external accepting the reasons of one’s belief. Therefore, the outside play a crucial role too in justifying a absolutely. The critics are likely to identify that, one observes the results externally that given actions elicit before person’s argument.
In reference to the reliability theories and casual theories, this argument may become conspicuous (Chisholm 287-293). We note that the two theories may justify my critics’ argument making their case solid. This is because from their critical analysis reliability relies on repeated actions that produce the same results in the same conditions. Similarly, in the casual theory we observe that an experimental set up will justify the means. The experiments may be in a laboratory or natural setting where in both cases a control set up supports the results. We therefore, note there is the sense of relying much on the external than internal mechanisms. Most of the actions are on the outside not internal and the end justifies the means.
Having looked at what my critics are likely to point out in this paper it is important to respond substantively to my inclination. The emphasis on the internal mechanism is because whatever we do or believe in is as a result, of the desired results elicited by our actions. However, we can agree that there is both the sense of internalism and externalism depending one’s perspective. The position here is that none of the two can stand independently without the other. For instance, truly a person relies on the observations to qualify one’s explanations as regards his or her beliefs. In spite of this, the mind processes the observations depending on the existing conceptualization. The cognitive processes become very crucial in this case as without the mind nothing substantial will take place. Everything that happens outside the individual depends on the mind for interpretation. In addition, if the mind is faulty then all will be in vain contradicting all the expectations.
In conclusion, we note that internalism or internal consciousness of human being stands out in justification of beliefs. The motivation of an individual’s actions is the existing reasons in the mind. That is, the state of mind plays a crucial role in substantiating the possible explanations behind an individual’s argument of one’s stand. Internalism seems to dwell much on justification overlooking whether the individual is knowledgeable about the subject or not. The discussion also notes external mechanisms complete internalism theory. Therefore, internalism justifies beliefs substantively.
Work Cited
Alston, William. Epistemic Justification. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989.
Chisholm, Roderick M. "The Indispensibility of Internal Justification." Sythese,Vol.74 No.3 (1988): 285-296.
Dorsey, Dale. "Hume's Internalism Reconsidered." Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy Vol 2.No.3 (2008): 1-24.
Goldman, Alvin. "What is Justified Belief?" Goldman, Alvin. Contemporary Readings in Epistemology. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs,NJ, 1993. 89-104.
Zalta, Edward N. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,Internalist vs Externalist Conceptions of Epistemic Justification. Stanford: University of Stanford, 2005.
