Zone1 Four Ways of “Knowing” (From a Christian standpoint)

[buttercup]

Do you ever think about how we know what we know? I’m no expert on philosophy, but one branch of philosophy that is very interesting to me is epistemology, i.e., the study of knowledge - its origin, nature, different types of knowledge, etc.

There are many different ways to acquire knowledge. But instead of posting an exhaustive list, I think all of the ways can be grouped into four broad categories, or “avenues.” These avenues can also be viewed as levels. They often work together, but there is always a primary way in which knowledge first comes to us.

The framework I’m starting from is the idea that human beings are tripartite: body, soul, and spirit. Each part has different functions. This view that man is tripartite was taught by Watchman Nee, who was a 20th century theologian, evangelist and writer, from China. I believe it is scriptural. If you want to see the different functions, here are a couple images:

The last one on this list will probably be controversial…at least to non-believers. But I don’t want this thread to turn into a theism-vs-atheism debate, that’s not what this is about.

With all that said, here are the four basic ways, or levels, to acquire knowledge:

1. Through our body: our senses. This is the most basic way of knowing: seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting. This is empirical knowledge.
   
   
2. Through our soul: our mind and intellect. We can acquire knowledge through reason or logic. This is rational knowledge.
   
   The soul also includes our emotions, so I believe we can know things through emotional intelligence or empathetic understanding.
   
   
3. Through our spirit: intuition and conscience. This is where it starts to get interesting, in my view. Intuition is a faculty of our spirit. This is knowledge that comes as a sudden insight, as opposed to step-by-step reasoning. This level also includes moral awareness, which comes from our conscience. Our conscience is spiritual, not intellectual. This is spiritual knowledge.
   
   
4. Through God: divine revelation. Finally, the highest way of knowing is when God makes something known to us. This is obviously the most controversial one on this list. But in Christian belief, God can and does reveal truth to us. (1 Cor. 2:10, John 14:26, John 10:27, 2 Timothy 3:16, Romans 8:14-16, Psalm 32:8, etc.) This is revealed knowledge.

I know that not everyone will agree, of course. Even among Christians, there might be some different views on this. But that's OK...I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this topic, whether you agree or disagree. Thanks!

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Not too different from Thomas of Aquina's epistemology.

https://philarchive.org/archive/ANAEAE-2

Generally described as the ‘Christian Aristotle’, Aquinas models a good deal of his philosophy on the philosophic system of this luminary giant. Aquinas wields a convincing realist support for human knowledge, as reason is open to reality, and reality to reason.11 He stresses the experimental foundation of human knowledge, in conceding that the objects of sense experience furnish us with viable knowledge. Aquinas makes mincemeat of the theory of innate knowledge, as put forward by Plato. Man is not endowed with innate ideas at the time of his birth. The human mind, from birth, is basically in potentiality to knowledge, though, gifted with the capability of abstracting and forming ideas.12 At birth, the human mind is a tabula rasa, that is, “a clear tablet in which nothing is written”.13 He, in consequence, criticizes the position of Augustine, who maintains that our “intellectual knowledge cannot be conveyed by the senses”. Aquinas, nevertheless, does not align fully on the plane of Greek empiricism, found in the writings of Democritus, often described under the terms of Hard or Radical Empiricism. These hold that all our knowledge was derived from the mere impression brought about by sensible things, impressions which they allege to be caused by a discharge of images.14 Aquinas, on the other hand, goes off a tangent, as his mentor, Aristotle, gravitating between the two extremes of Empiricism and Rationalism. This is so because though he acknowledges sense experience as the starting point of all human knowing, he does not limit human knowledge simply to sense experience. Hence, Aquinas states pointedly, Aristotle chose the middle wise. For with Plato, he agreed that intellect and sense are different, But he held that the sense has not its proper operation without the cooperation of the body; so that to feel is not an act of the soul alone, but of the composite...Aristotle agreed with Democritus...that the operations of the sensible part are caused by the impressions of the sensible on the sense, not by a discharge...15

 

[buttercup]

Not too different from Thomas of Aquina's epistemology.

https://philarchive.org/archive/ANAEAE-2

Generally described as the ‘Christian Aristotle’, Aquinas models a good deal of his philosophy on the philosophic system of this luminary giant. Aquinas wields a convincing realist support for human knowledge, as reason is open to reality, and reality to reason.11 He stresses the experimental foundation of human knowledge, in conceding that the objects of sense experience furnish us with viable knowledge. Aquinas makes mincemeat of the theory of innate knowledge, as put forward by Plato. Man is not endowed with innate ideas at the time of his birth. The human mind, from birth, is basically in potentiality to knowledge, though, gifted with the capability of abstracting and forming ideas.12 At birth, the human mind is a tabula rasa, that is, “a clear tablet in which nothing is written”.13 He, in consequence, criticizes the position of Augustine, who maintains that our “intellectual knowledge cannot be conveyed by the senses”. Aquinas, nevertheless, does not align fully on the plane of Greek empiricism, found in the writings of Democritus, often described under the terms of Hard or Radical Empiricism. These hold that all our knowledge was derived from the mere impression brought about by sensible things, impressions which they allege to be caused by a discharge of images.14 Aquinas, on the other hand, goes off a tangent, as his mentor, Aristotle, gravitating between the two extremes of Empiricism and Rationalism. This is so because though he acknowledges sense experience as the starting point of all human knowing, he does not limit human knowledge simply to sense experience. Hence, Aquinas states pointedly, Aristotle chose the middle wise. For with Plato, he agreed that intellect and sense are different, But he held that the sense has not its proper operation without the cooperation of the body; so that to feel is not an act of the soul alone, but of the composite...Aristotle agreed with Democritus...that the operations of the sensible part are caused by the impressions of the sensible on the sense, not by a discharge...15

Yeah. I haven't looked into his ideas on this topic, but I am aware that his epistemology is similar, overall. I'll read that PDF, and maybe look at some videos on him too. Thanks for that link!