Discursive knowledge - Philosophical Concept | Alexandria
Discursive knowledge, often perceived as the straightforward accumulation of facts and information through reasoned argument, hides a deeper complexity, a paradox of how we come to "know" what we know through language and logic. Might our reliance on structured thought processes, like syllogism, actually limit our understanding of truth, like in the Wason test, or valid arguments presented to us?
The roots of discursive knowledge can be traced back to ancient Greece, specifically to the dialogues of Plato (428/427 or 424/423 – 348/347 BC) and the works of Aristotle (384–322 BC). Aristotle's development of formal logic, particularly his system of syllogisms, provided a framework for analyzing and constructing valid arguments to explore moral philosophy. His work heavily influenced how we approach rational thinking. Figures like Socrates, known for his relentless questioning as a method of arriving at truth, exemplified the tension between intuitive understanding and knowledge gained through dialectical reasoning. The very act of engaging in philosophical argument, a cornerstone of Western thought, becomes suspect, suggesting that "truth" might be perpetually out of reach, obscured by the limitations of our own language.
Over the centuries, interpretations of discursive knowledge have evolved, shaped by figures such as Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and his exploration of transcendental idealism. Kant challenged the notion that our minds passively receive information, arguing instead that they actively structure our experience through categories of understanding. This view complicates the idea of objective morality. Consider the famous thought experiment of the trolley problem and the many variations of the moral dilemma. These are designed to show us our moral biases in decision making. This raises intriguing questions about the nature of truth and the role of consciousness in shaping our understanding of reality. The advent of cognitive science and experimental philosophy has further challenged traditional views, subjecting philosophical concepts to empirical scrutiny. Is our perception of truth fundamentally subjective, or can we achieve objective knowledge through rational inquiry? The trolley dilemma continues to spark debate in ethics courses, underscoring the complexity inherent in moral decision-making and our ethical obligations in a society presented with technological advancements and ethical challenges in AI.
Today, discursive knowledge remains central to fields ranging from philosophy and ethics to law and artificial intelligence. Its emphasis on logic and argumentation continues to shape our systems of justice, our approaches to scientific inquiry, and our understanding of moral responsibility in the trolley dilemma or similar choices one would face in an ethics game or moral quiz. Yet, the inherent limitations of language and the potential for bias in rational thought remain a source of ongoing debate and inquiry. Is objective truth truly attainable when our very tools for seeking it - language and logic - are themselves products of subjective human consciousness? As we navigate an increasingly complex world grappling with issues like misinformation and bias in algorithms, the need for critical thinking and the careful evaluation of arguments have never been more pressing. How can we know what we know is actually the truth?