Week 4 - Epistemology

This week we've completed our study of Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology. I had no previous knowledge about the details of either of these branches of Philosophy. Although I was aware of the existence of William James and John Dewey, I had never before been exposed to their thinking . I was certainly aware of Feminism, but only in the sense of political and social activism, not as a method of understanding the nature of knowledge itself.   Although epistemology in general is new to me, I found many of my own ways of thinking mirrored in the words of these philosophers (although they said it better, and in a more organized fashion).  Pragmatism and feminist epistemology seem very sensible to me because the context of knowledge is discussed as an important factor. I have long thought also that any kind of philosophy is only meaningful to the extent that it has an impact on the way we live our lives.   I, as a female of african american, caucasian and carribean ancestry, necessarily have a different view of the world than someone who does not have my background. However, those aspects of gender and race do not account for every aspect of my thinking. I think that my genetic makeup, temperament and life experience also cause me to see life through a very specific lens.   Pragmatism's notion of "truth" (warranted assertibility) as a thing that is not stagnant makes a lot of sense to me. It is more of a context oriented process, not a fixed answer or destination. As human beings at this stage of history, we have specific limitations and life experiences, which in turn have an effect on how we see reality. Certain things that are generally seen as true now, may not be seen as true in the future. However, I would stop short of stating that everything is relative and one opinion is as valid as any other. I find myself thinking that certain truths are necessarily better than others, but I leave myself open to changing my opinions should new information become available. I think that the process of gaining knowledge is one of active engagement with the world, not merely an intellectual exercise.   I have in the past done some thinking about whether or not you can judge the validity of a philosophy or religion by judging the way that a practitioner lives his/her life. From my own very subjective point of view, I have not really seen so much of a correlation.  I have admired the lives of people of widely varying philosophies. In my own family of mostly christian religious people, I have seen wonderful examples of compassion and generosity, but I've also seen the same thing in the few self-identified atheist members of my family. They each do what works for them. I like William James' statement that "all men will insist on being spoken to by the universe in some way" -  their own unique way.   I recently went to see a film called "Higher Ground" about a woman's struggle to understand the depth of her christian faith. She ends up coming to terms with the fact that she can't force herself to believe everything that her husband and other members of their tightly knit christian community have accepted as truth. It causes a very uncomfortable conflict with people she cares a great deal about. She will always be one of those individuals who cannot have any certainty about God. It's just who she is. It makes me think about William James' effort to relieve his depression (about the seeming meaninglessness of a life controlled by predetermined forces) by making a very conscious decision that he did in fact have free will. As someone who has struggled with depression, I know from personal experience that my thoughts have a strong impact on how I experience my life. However James' strategy would not work for me. I don't feel capable of making a decision that something is "true" because it would make my life better. I would need some kind of "external" verification. I have often thought that life is in a sense easier for devout christians who believe in heaven and a fatherly being watching over them,  but I could never decide that such a thing is "true" because it is more expedient to do so.