In the lecture today, discussing Hegel, we came to a point wherein we say that 'knowledge' if it is to be called 'knowledge' has to have the endorsement of the 'recognized' group. If not, or atleast till then, it is not knowledge.
What is it then?
As per the professor, speaking for Hegel, (know not if the whole of Hegel or just the section where we reached today,) it is not knowledge.
Coming back to the library, picking up my next reading text, here's what I found staring in my face. Richard Rorty's quote to end the penultimate chapter of his book Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (p.356):
What is it then?
As per the professor, speaking for Hegel, (know not if the whole of Hegel or just the section where we reached today,) it is not knowledge.
Coming back to the library, picking up my next reading text, here's what I found staring in my face. Richard Rorty's quote to end the penultimate chapter of his book Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (p.356):
The word knowledge would not seem worth fighting over were it not for the Kantian tradition that to be a philosopher is to have a "theory of knowledge," and the Platonic tradition that action not based on knowledge of the truth of propositions is "irrational."
No comments:
Post a Comment