4.) Which Theory of knowledge is most probable – the subjective or objective theory? Explain your position.

Answer 1

I'm not familiar with theories of knowledge but I'd have to say that knowledge is both subjective & objective. The subjective is stronger for me. I know something when I feel it to be true. I know the sun will rise tomorrow. I've experienced. Reading about it in a book or having someone tell me would never be as convincing as having seen it myself & just feeling that it's true. I know God exists. I feel it. Yes I've read the Bible & yes I studied religion in school & was raised a Catholic but if all this were the case & I didn't "feel" it then I wouldn't believe. So perhaps knowledge is mostly subjective.

There is no absolute objective knowledge. Except perhaps in mathematics...1 plus 1 equals 2.

Of course I shouldn't be attempting to answer this question since I admittedly don't know about the subjective or objective theory of knowledge! But it's 4:56 a.m. & I'm trying to stay awake on nightshift at work so what the heck?!

:)

Answer 2

Neither one nor the other. We cannot know anything for certain, even this.

Ultimately, any description or indeed communication of any kind will be at best a metaphor. This is because of the gap between language and our experience of the world. Language is only symbolic- as is art, mathematics, mystic experience etc. This is the position of the subjectivist.

However, this itself is not enough as even our experience of the world is also metaphoric, as it is filtered and relayed to us through the brain and nerve system. Our experience stopped being a direct one as soon as we evolved a neurology. It could be argued that in terms of knowledge a jellyfish is better placed than humans to know anything about the so-called external world.

Objectively, we can make predictions by scientific methods. However, it could be argued that it is only because we imbue the scientific metaphor with belief that it does so. What the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves. The Romans found plenty of evidence to support their complex beliefs in the Pantheon of Gods. Similarly, Christians point out prophecies being fulfilled which they say proves their belief to be true. Of quantum theory is beginning to recognise the role of the observer in scientific studies.

And at the same time, it isnt rocket science to realise that the language of mathematics is very far removed from any sensible description of the world as we experience it- the bloody Greek Gods did a better job of that!

As a species (assuming you actually exist and I am not alone in a sea of consciousness) we tend to imbue these metaphors with belief. This sets the parameters within which we allow ourselves to experience.

This divide between subjective and objective I always find an odd one which does not correspond to my own experience, but then again I do have some very unusual ideas.

Nothing can be known for certain.

I would like to think that I think that at some point in the future we may stop looking for answers and start simply appreciating the richness and diversity of the metaphors or narratives that we have surrounded ourselves with.

Have you read any Robert Anton Wilson? He suggested that the word "is" if dropped from the language would allow us a much more accurate picture of the scope of our knowledge.

Answer 3

Both are equally good and equally bad.
Sometimes I feel that Objective theory is more correct.
For more details http://wwf.edula.com