 |
We know that we are reason-demanding beings. The very skepticism with which one might greet the
preceding statement would be sufficient evidence of its truth, for skepticism is nothing if not at least
implicitly reason-demanding. We have experiences (something is given in to us in sense, memory,
and imagination). We inquire into those data ("What is it?") and form hypotheses about them. We
reflect on our understanding and ask if there is sufficient evidence to affirm or deny that the
understanding is true ("Is it so?"). When we believe there is sufficient evidence, we pronounce
judgment. Knowing may reasonably be defined as this compound activity of attending to data,
understanding what we attend to, and judging our understanding to be true or false. One cannot
coherently affirm that one has never had an experience, has never understood what one has
experienced, or has never verified or falsified one's understanding. (Take reading and disagreeing
with the preceding sentence, for example.) Therefore, one cannot coherently affirm that one has
never known anything.
|