The Structure of Human Knowledge

Scientific work is regarded as a fundamental one that offers long-term effects and secures the advancement of the humanity. Many philosophers endeavored to determine and shape human knowledge and identify the main principles of acquiring them. Among the primary ones are Plato, who arranged the Academy of his followers as a way to make technological educational advancement and develop information in terms of its ease of acquiring. However, Plato’s ideas were not fully based on what nowadays is called empirical evidence.

His thoughts are known for people to a major extent thanking to his students. Aristotle was one of the most famous of his students and it resulted in both of their names to sound all over the world as the names of pioneers in the variety of scientific areas. Nevertheless, Aristotle was mainly preoccupied with the nature of technology and was significantly interested in the structure of human knowledge as a social and political phenomenon.

Aristotle believed that the sole cause for doing any type of science or the foundations of knowledge is information in any of its forms. It may be visualized as a system of hierarchical preparations and relations them. He was the one to develop the tripartite division of human knowledge, specifically into epistemic, technical and phronesic (Barnes 45). The performance of theoretical cognition is aimed toward producing knowledge for its very own purpose (Shields). It needs to serve the subsequent and consistent improvement of the technology as a holistic category. Practical sciences are targeted on producing knowledge for progress and conduct (Shields).

It might seem necessary to design laws and rules for sensible use, and it could help a person, for example, in governing society or treating other humans. The cognitive sciences are aimed at teaching humans how to produce beneficial gadgets and use the knowledge for own prosperity (Shields). The commonplace characteristic of theoretical and practical expertise is that their outcomes are non-material, but they are simply presented in thoughts, ideas, standards or techniques.

Although the findings of theoretical sciences are of extra popularity and in most of the cases tend to have fundamental character, they still increase the prerequisites for generating and enforcing realistic and applicable knowledge. For this cause, Aristotle named them “first sciences” as inside the hierarchy they occupied the very best level. Concerning the similar features of realistic and effective knowledge, their effects can be utilized by humans in a positive way. For example, someone can learn how to treat different human beings in a just and in the way that corresponds to their actions or how to encourage others for running harder. Similarly, a person may be taught how to paint a photo or write a poem. The key variations among practical and theoretical sciences are the manner of the knowledge production and nature of their results. Generation of practical information involves more often not exclusively mental practices and the effects are not fully clear.

Creation of effective knowledge requires mainly manual activity, but the conceptual abilities are also involved. The results are usually presented in the material objects that can literally be touched or tried. According to Aristotle, the institutions of theoretical technology includes theology, arithmetic and herbal pharmacology. The theology includes metaphysics and logic (Barnes 45). Aristotle regarded metaphysics as the “first philosophy” because it researches the essential concepts of being, of human conscience, of the experience of existence, of members of the relations between the material and the global.

Currently, it is named simply philosophy within frames of which Aristotle`s works are studied. Logic is accountable for the appropriate association of the understanding and is aimed at the avoidance of mistakes and contradictions. The count number of such as common sense into the machine of technological knowledge is questionable. Aristotle viewed it as an auxiliary way of learning specific disciplines. “Aristotle himself, however, makes use of the term “logic” as equivalent” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”).  Every person needs to have abilities of logical thinking since it is a good way to exercise willpower of one`s scientific activity.

The philosopher advanced good judgment guidelines as a way to decide what is relevant and what is not by referring to whether the statement is proved or lacks proper/corresponding argumentation. However, a few researchers of Aristotle’s works classify common sense as a part of theology because it has its legal guidelines and the particular basis of expertise. It seems more accurate and appropriate to decide common sense as an element of theology and separate technological knowledge; however, not as the supplementary tool. To a certain extent, Aristotle changed into right that each affordable and rational individual ought to realize the premise of common sense thinking. Still, it refers mostly to fundamentals like retaining consistency of reasoning and statements, accurate contradictions and confusions.

The common sense as a holistic machine of knowledge is more complex because it can address figures in addition to verbal units. The universality of applying common sense to other sciences makes it equal to metaphysics. For example, the institution of arithmetic consists of arithmetic and geometry (Barnes 45). Mathematics deals with figures and reflects the goal  in numbers. According to Aristotle, “arithmetic studies gadgets that do not exchange and do not have separable existence” (Shields). It is justified and comprehensible to refer mathematics to the theoretical technology as a fundamental area producing understanding that can be utilized in other areas. Given the contemporary situation, mathematics constitutes the base of computer technological knowledge and economics, is used for calculations in physics, chemistry, and biology. Regarding the department of herbal sciences, Aristotle named it natural philosophy or physics as it is the interpretation of Greek term for nature.

Aristotle defines botany, chemistry, and biology studying animal and plant world, which “objects are changeable and one after the other existing” (Barnes 45). Aristotle seems to be wrong because these days the understanding of these sciences is used to produce a few outcomes that are beneficial for humans. The lack of way of gaining knowledge at Aristotle`s times led to referring natural sciences to the theoretical ones. In fact, their function on the theoretical part is constantly being replenished with new discoveries. Still, the purpose of natural expertise has modified from easy knowing for itself to producing data for realistic use that can result in the creation of abstract terminology. It is tough to refer it to any of the advised institution as it seems a complicated branch proposing theoretical, realistic and effective qualities.

According to Aristotle`s writings, realistic knowledge encompasses ethics, politics, and psychology (Barnes 45). Within politics, the fundamental concepts of presidency and democracy have been developed. Due to the moral attention of historical philosophers, the fundamental thoughts of the judicial branch and justice have been designed. However, current theorists often regard ethics as an essential part of philosophy and a fundamental science relevant to other medical fields.

For example, it is obligatory to refer to ethical norms while conducting some test in psychology or sociology. Consequently, it is far more affordable to refer ethics to theoretical information. Aristotle wrote about arts, literature, rhetoric, and sculpture as of effective technology (Barnes 45). The equal it remains in the present day world. Yet, the matter of referring the rhetoric to efficient information is questionable. At Aristotle`s times, it was necessary to be a skillful speaker in order to persuade people and manage society.

Currently, the epoch of statistics age has begun and the value of calculations has significantly increased. As can be seen, the modern sciences are different from those recognized at Aristotle times, as he did not have all the data known for current scientists and philosophers. His classification is affordable and justified, but no longer relevant to modern information. It does now not imply Aristotle should be disregarded, as they still constitute the premise of technological knowledge and philosophy.

Featured Articles