• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 947 0

place on each one: in Norway, in Myanmar, and at an unnamed university in central Arkansas. The truth of “Eskimo fish travel farther than the Tibetan parachuting fish” changes depending upon which of the three versions of earth we are considering. This sort of “possible worlds” consideration is just as useful to pinpoint necessary truths: could the Thing-A-Ma-Jigger simultaneously be yellow all over and purple all over in any possible scenario? No—because the meanings of “simultaneously,” “all over,” “purple,” and “yellow” doesn’t change with the move from world to world. Similarly, the aforementioned triangles will have three sides in every world, and in each bachelors will still be unmarried. Statements like those concerning the Thing-A-Ma-Jigger’s color, the number of sides to a triangle, and the marital status of bachelors are called “analytic truths”—statements that are true simply in virtue of their meaning. By contrast, statements that are not are called “synthetic truths.”13

For rationalist epistemology, a very practical problem is that the knowledge attained is not always particularly interesting: “triangles have three sides,” “fish are animals,” “something which is all yellow cannot at the same time also be all purple,” “bachelors are unmarried men,” etc., can only get you so far. While the rationalist may know these analytic truths, they are at a loss when we consider access to knowledge of synthetic truths—propositions that we must empirically test. Claims like “universal health care will raise the average quality of life,” “Dr. Seuss draws funny-looking animals,” and “hot dogs are made largely of waste swept from the slaughterhouse floor” seem to require an empirical investigation to establish their truth (or lack thereof), and this is not a tool in the rationalist’s toolbox. And so, the rationalist would be unable to know any of these things.

Rationalism, like idealism and empiricism, is an attempt to escape from the clutches of skepticism. Each seems to be a coherent but less than satisfactory attempt to ground our knowledge in some set of foundational beliefs. While wrestling with these issues remains a large part of contemporary epistemology, a small but growing number of philosophers—particularly feminist epistemologists in recent years—have found themselves critiquing the presuppositions of epistemology’s status quo.

Knowledge in a Different Voice

This pool might be bigger

Than you or I know! (Pool)

The epistemologies above dominate the Western philosophical tradition. While each has its own strengths and weaknesses, there has also been a countertradition arguing that the assumptions underlying these theories of knowledge are seriously flawed. To borrow from philosopher Robin May Schott (1954– ),

Feminist epistemologies are typically critical of the presuppositions of mainstream theories: (1) That the subject of knowledge is an individual who is essentially identical to and substitutable with other individuals; (2) That the object of knowledge is a natural object known by propositional knowledge, expressed in the form S-knows-that-p; (3) That objective knowledge is impartial and value free.14

Consider each of these criticisms in turn.

(1) [Mainstream epistemologies presume] that the subject of knowledge is an individual who is essentially identical to and substitutable with other individuals.

As we have discussed epistemology thus far, the person doing the knowing seems to lack any identity beyond that he holds a true belief that is justified in the correct way (whatever that happens to be). This “generic person,” though, lacks something important that each of us has and that participates in our having knowledge. He lacks actual experience of the world with its range of differing qualities; we vary in our psychology, in our physical bodies, and in our cultural norms and practices. These differences matter. Put simply, “knowers” are inescapably embodied, social creatures. This “situatedness” is not to say that the world is different for each viewer, but rather that each of us sees