Advertisement

On Value of Knowledge and Understanding

  • M. Ashraf Adeel
Chapter
Part of the Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures book series (SCPT, volume 29)

Abstract

This chapter begins by introducing some Qur’ānic distinctions relevant to the value problem. It is noted that value of knowledge for the Qur’ān is rooted in its practical value. Relevance of the Qur’ānic view of taqwā as reflective and motivational epistemic conscience for a solution to the value problem is noted. The bulk of the chapter deals with discussions of the value problem between contemporary virtue epistemologists. It is argued that Zagzebsky correctly criticizes the machine-product model of knowledge assumed by process reliabilism. Brogaard’s criticism of Zagzebsky’s position regarding its Moorean conception of value is evaluated and it is argued that the Zagzebsky motive-action model for knowledge effectively addresses the value problem rather than a simple shift to a different (Korsgaardian) model of value as suggested by Brogaard. Pritchard’s criticism of Zagzebsky and other robust virtue epistemologists is evaluated. It is argued that knowledge, while valuable as shown by Zagzebsky’s model, is correctly claimed by Pritchard to be not finally valuable. Kvanvig’s and Pritchard’s positions are combined to underscore why understanding is finally valuable.

Keywords

Value problem Machine-product model Motive-action model Final value 

References

  1. Brogaard, Beritt. 2012. Can Virtue Reliabilism Explain the Value of Knowledge? In Virtue Epistemology: Contemporary Readings, ed. by John Greco and John Turri, 185–203. Boston: MIT Press. Originally published in 2006 in The Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37: 335–354.Google Scholar
  2. Cooper, John M., ed. 1997. Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  3. Craig, Edward. 1990. Knowledge and the state of nature: An essay in conceptual synthesis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Goldman, Alvin. 1979. What is Justified Belief? In Justification and Knowledge: New Studies in Epistemology, ed. George S. Pappas, 1–23. Boston: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  5. Goldman, Alvin and Bob Beddor. 2016. Reliabilist Epistemology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/reliabilism/. Accessed 26 Dec 2017.
  6. Goldman, A.I., and E.J. Olsson. 2009. Reliabilism and the Value of Knowledge. In Epistemic Value, ed. Adrian Haddock, Alan Millar, and Pritchard Duncan, 19–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greco, John. 1999. Agent Reliabilism. Philosophical Perspectives 13, Epistemology: 273–296.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2002. Virtues in Epistemology. In The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, ed. Paul K. Moser, 287–315. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 2007. Putting Skeptics in Their Place: The Nature of Skeptical Arguments and their Role in Philosophical Inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Korsgaard, Christine M. 1983. Two Distinctions in Goodness. Philosophical Review XCII (2): 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kvanvig, Jonathan. 2003. The Value of Knowledge and Pursuit of Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2009. Precis of The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. In Epistemic Value, ed. Adrian Haddock, Alan Millar, and Duncan Pritchard. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lackey, Jennifer. 2007. Why We Don’t Deserve Credit for Everything We Know. Synthese 158 (3): 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis, D. 1988. The radical hallucinations and prosthetic vision. In Perceptual knowledge, ed. J. Dancy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Pritchard, D., A. Millar, and A. Haddock. 2010. The Nature and Value of Knowledge: Three Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Quranic Arabic Corpus. Language Research Group, Leeds University, Pickthall translation accessed Jan. 10, 2018 at http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=39&verse=9. Ali translation accessed Jan. 11, 2018 at http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=19&verse=43.
  17. Rabinowicz, W., and T. Roennow-Rasmussen. 1999. A Distinction in Value: Intrinsic and for its Own Sake. Proceedings of Aristotelian Society 100 (Part 1): 33–49.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2003. Topic of Value. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66: 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ramsey, F.P. 1931. Knowledge. In Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays, ed. R.B. Braithwaite, 126–128. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  20. Riggs, W.D. 2002. Reliability and the Value of Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65: 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sosa, Ernest. 1991. Knowledge in Perspective: Selected Essays in Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zagzebsky, Linda. 1996. Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2000. From Reliabilism to Virtue Epistemology. In Knowledge, Belief and Character: Readings in Virtue Epistemology, ed. Guy Axtell. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2009. On Epistemology. Independence: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2014. Knowledge and the Motive for Truth. In Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, ed. Mathias Steup, John Turri, and Ernest Sosa. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Ashraf Adeel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyKutztown University of PennsylvaniaKutztownUSA

Personalised recommendations