معلومات مقرر دراسي

University  Hassiba Ben bouali Chlef

Département of social sciences JJ Option : Philosophy

 

• Text n°01

 

Direction for Reading Comprehension: The passages given here are followed by some questions that have four answer choices; read the passage carefully and pick the option whose answer best aligns with the passage.

            It has been said that knowledge, or the problem of knowledge, is the scandal of philosophy. The scandal is philosophy's apparent inability to show how, when and why we can be sure that we know something or, indeed, that we know anything. Philosopher Michael Williams writes: 'Is it possible to obtain knowledge at all? This problem is pressing because there are powerful arguments, some very ancient, for the conclusion that it is not . . . Scepticism is the skeleton in Western rationalism's closet'. While it is not clear that the scandal matters to anyone but philosophers, philosophers point out that it should matter to everyone, at least given a certain conception of knowledge. For, they explain, unless we can ground our claims to knowledge as such, which is to say, distinguish it from mere opinion, superstition, fantasy, wishful thinking, ideology, illusion or delusion, then the actions we take on the basis of presumed knowledge - boarding an airplane, swallowing a pill, finding someone guilty of a crime - will be irrational and unjustifiable.

            That is all quite serious-sounding but so also are the rattlings of the skeleton: that is, the sceptic's contention that we cannot be sure that we know anything - at least not if we think of knowledge as something like having a correct mental representation of reality, and not if we think of reality as something like things-as-they-are-in-themselves, independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions. For, the sceptic will note, since reality, under that conception of it, is outside our ken (we cannot catch a glimpse of things-in-themselves around the corner of our own eyes; we cannot form an idea of reality that floats above the processes of our conceiving it), we have no way to compare our mental representations with things-as-they-are-in-themselves and therefore no way to determine whether they are correct or incorrect. Thus the sceptic may repeat (rattling loudly), you cannot be sure you 'know' something or anything at all - at least not, he may add (rattling softly before disappearing), if that is the way you conceive 'knowledge'.

            There are a number of ways to handle this situation. The most common is to ignore it. Most people outside the academy - and, indeed, most of us inside it - are unaware of or unperturbed by the philosophical scandal of knowledge and go about our lives without too many epistemic anxieties. We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on how we acquired them (I saw it with my own eyes; I heard it on Fox News; a guy at the office told me) and how broadly and strenuously they seem to be shared or endorsed by various relevant people: experts and authorities, friends and family members, colleagues and associates. And we examine our convictions more or less closely, explain them more or less extensively, and defend them more or less vigorously, usually depending on what seems to be at stake for ourselves and/or other people and what resources are available for reassuring ourselves or making our beliefs credible to others (look, it's right here on the page; add up the figures yourself; I happen to be a heart specialist).

 

Questions

Question: 1

"... we cannot catch a glimpse of things-in-themselves around the corner of our own eyes; we cannot form an idea of reality that floats above the processes of our conceiving it . . ." Which one of the following statements best reflects the argument being made in this sentence?

1. If the reality of things is independent of our perception, logically we cannot perceive that reality.

2. If the reality of things is independent of our eyesight, logically we cannot perceive our perception.

3. Our knowledge of reality floats above our subjective perception of it.

4. Our knowledge of reality cannot be merged with our process of conceiving it.

Answer & Explanation :

Solution: Option1

This question asks to pick a choice that best reflects the argument being made in the given sentence. The author says we cannot get a glimpse of things in themselves...above the process of our conceiving it. It means that we don't know how things actually are beyond are perception. In fact, they have a reality that is not perceived by our senses. Thus 1 is the best choice. Choice 2 is wrong as it says we cannot perceive our perception. Option 3 is also incorrect, as it says our knowledge is above our perception, it is the reality that is above our perception, not our knowledge. Option 4 talks about our knowledge being merged with the process of our conceiving it, something that is not in tune with the given sentence.

Question: 2

The author of the passage is most likely to support which one of the following statements?

1. The confidence with which we maintain something to be true is usually independent of the source of the alleged truth.

2. For the sceptic, if we think of reality as independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions, we should aim to know that reality independently too.

3. The scandal of philosophy is that we might not know anything at all about reality if we think of reality as independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions.

4. The actions taken on the basis of presumed knowledge are rational and justifiable if we are confident that that knowledge is widely held.

Answer & Explanation

Solution: Option:3

This is not a difficult question. Option 1 goes out because the source of alleged truth is nowhere in the passage. Option 2 goes out because the sceptic says we don't know how the reality is and to want extent it matches with our perception, and there is no way we can ever know it. He never says that we should try to know reality independently. Option 3 is correct because the scandal of philosophy and what it means has been repeated a few times in the passage. With this the author will definitely agree. Option 4 talks about "knowledge being widely held". We have no evidence for this.

Question:3

According to the last paragraph of the passage, "We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on" something. Which one of the following most broadly captures what we depend on?

1. Remaining outside the academy; ignoring epistemic anxieties.

2. How much of a stake we have in them; what resources there are to support them.

3. How we come to hold them; how widely they are held in our social circles.

4. All of the options listed here.

Answer & Explanation

Solution: Option:3

This is not a difficult question. Option 1 goes out because the source of alleged truth is nowhere in the passage. Option 2 goes out because the sceptic says we don't know how the reality is and to want extent it matches with our perception, and there is no way we can ever know it. He never says that we should try to know reality independently. Option 3 is correct because the scandal of philosophy and what it means has been repeated a few times in the passage. With this the author will definitely agree. Option 4 talks about "knowledge being widely held". We have no evidence for this.

Pr.

M. Belalia Douma