Knowledge, belief and suspicion. In every day dialogue these words are so often used interchangeably with no real detriment to any conversation. But as attitudes towards what is true and false continue to become more and more contentious, both at home and abroad, I feel it would be beneficial for everyone to take a breath and consult what generations of philosophers have contemplated when it comes to the differences between these three concepts. Now it should be said that the exact details of the definition of each is in no way settled upon, but through its ever ongoing reflection philosophy has settled on some pretty decent usage of the three words which we can explain clearly without the need of jargon or otherworldly thought-experiments. The most basic of the three is belief, which one might regard as the basic building block of all thought. A belief, simply put, is a statement which the speaker feels certain about. “I believe the meeting will be cancelled,” for example, means that the speaker feels certain that the meeting will be cancelled. One can believe many things – religious doctrine, ideological doctrine, beliefs on what is and is not music or art – and be a totally rational human being. It must be pointed out here however, that belief is not exempt to the rules of logic. That is to say that for a person to say that they believe it both is and is not raining would be for that person to depart from what we would consider a logical human being. If you were to believe that a glass is fragile, and yet would survive a sledgehammer’s swing you too would be illogical (or have an overwhelmingly loose usage of the word “fragile”). Aside from this observation on the interplay of beliefs, we may also make an observation on their multitude. A person may be prone to taking on several beliefs and in extreme cases of such we might be moved to call such a person gullible. Conversely, one may be prone to taking on as little belief as possible, and such a person we would deem a sceptic. Taking such scepticism too far may appear as a bout of madness- doubting the existence of the world or one’s ability to die for example, but for our purposes a sceptic would be such a person who takes on as few beliefs as possible to get by. We now move on to knowledge. So much has been written about what distinguishes knowledge from belief that one could literally spend a lifetime studying just that. But so many schools of thoughts and paradigms may be summed up neatly in a simple sentence: Knowledge is a belief which all logical sceptics hold. What do we mean here? Firstly, knowledge is a form of belief so certainty must be felt towards it. Secondly, this certainty is felt by the sceptic and so knowledge is established based on as few beliefs as possible so as not to upset the sceptic’s appetite. Thirdly, our friend the sceptic is logical, and hence breaches no rule of reasoning as he acquires this knowledge. Now this is not to say that all people must abandon their beliefs and become sceptic in order to garner any knowledge. But when making a sentence as bold as to claim to “know” something, one should ask: Would a logical sceptic believe such a thing? Have I adopted too many beliefs to come to this conclusion? Have I reasoned it all the way through out? Believing a prisoner his innocence simply because he proclaims it could not be considered knowing he is innocent, for example. For although his poetic words might move you, a sceptic could easily live their life not believing the prisoner and so would not take that belief on. To believe his innocence a sceptic would have to be faced with sufficient evidence, for without the belief that evidence is compelling one would go through their lives never heeding any sign of danger and it would be a short life indeed. On the other hand, to believe a man is lying simply because he has unsavoury habits would not be knowing he is lying either, because it does not logically follow that a man with unsavoury habits would necessarily lie. To know that he is lying one would have to see that his statements cannot logically be true. Hence our handy little definition has framed quite neatly the differences between knowledge and belief. What now of suspicions? A suspicion is a belief trying to become knowledge. It is the belief that a belief may become knowledge, given more evidence. Suspicions beget inquiries, investigations and questions, all of which aim to turn a suspicion into knowledge or establish that that is not possible. Unfortunately, amidst the confusing folk usage of knowledge, belief and suspicion the cart is often placed before the proverbial horse and expect knowledge to be presented before questions can be asked. This would, of course, defeat the purpose of asking questions at all. Before closing this text we turn to one last question: can knowledge be wrong? And, to once again cut through centuries of philosophical argument and get straight at the crux, yes it can. Say, for example, you are handed a map by an experienced guide who has guided you through a dense, choking forest many times using that same map. You have seen the map in action, so you have compelling evidence, and it would be insane to think that the map appears one way to your guide and another to you. So, being logical and sceptical, you rely on the map to guide you through the forest on your solo journey. For all intents and purposes you know the map will guide you true. Unfortunately, in the middle of the night a prankster switched out the map with an erroneous copy which you are now holding. You have every reason to claim to know the map will guide you true, and yet you are wrong. But what is important is not that all that which you know is correct but rather, if you were found out to have been misled, could you properly justify your delusion? It is one thing to be handed the wrong map from a trusted source, another to grab a random map and claim to know that it will guide you true. As long as you can justify how you claim to know something to a reasonable measure, then you are doing the most that can be expected for a solitary mind thrust into an unknown universe with no knowledge save what it manages to scrap together from experience. And right at the end our conversation has taken something of a metaphysical turn but it just goes to show you how epistemology – the study of knowing – is a field which brings together so intricately everyday situations like knowing when your lunchbreak is with mind-twisting ideas like the proposition that we will never know anything about the world and are just taking our best guesses. Joe BorgMan on the street.
0 Comments
Two weeks now have passed from the most shocking tragedy which Malta has ever seen: the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia. Already you can hear murmurs in the streets trying to compose a calm and soothing tune, trying to make us believe everything is ok. Things are not OK, these murmurs are lies. Let’s start with the biggest lie of all: “We don’t have to worry about Malta, the actions of one individual don’t speak for a whole country.” Perhaps if we had no memories, no paper and no electronics someone might slide this sly lie by. Alas, no. There have been five car bombings in Malta in this last year alone and nineteen car bombs since 2010. And every single time we whisked our worries away with “Oh but they’re criminals, they got what was coming to them.” Ah, the rot. The rot does not sit neatly along the sides unabated. While your eyes are averted it creeps slowly but surely towards the centre. The rot has crept up from the criminal underworld to kill a journalist – how long before it kills a policeman? In the same week as Daphne Caruana Galizia was assassinated, another man fired shots at a police officer and turned up in court with a blood-stained shirt. Who has to die before we accept this is a problem? Perhaps before we could claim the naivety of a young nation not knowing that if we sweep criminal violence under the carpet the blood will just seep through. But we can’t plead ignorance any more. The writing is on the wall, clear as day. It is not the action of one individual here that’s the problem (assuming always, that there is only one assassin). It’s the fault of a violent, turbulent underworld which we have pretended doesn’t exist for too long. It exists, and we can only turn our gaze away so far before we break our own necks. Let’s go for a second lie, more rare due to its disgusting nature but out there all the same: “She had it coming to her. Maybe not a car bomb, but when you write like she wrote, you’re asking for ‘trouble’.” Right, not a car bomb then- but ‘trouble’. How much ‘trouble’ would be ok? And, while we’re on the topic, does it scale down? If I make fun of a politician do I deserve to get slapped? What if I point out the uncanny likeness between our Police Commissioner and Pepe the Frog, do I get kicked in the crotch? How much ‘trouble’ is the right amount? It’s ludicrous of course, and so is anyone who believes that the right course of action in the face of speech is to assault the speaker. If someone says something you don’t like, use your words to defend yourself. After all this is a civilised country not a mafia sta- oh, wait. Now as good as a closing line as that would be I really must mention one last prevalent lie as it is so deviously easy to confuse it for a truth. The most compelling form of false-truth; the false-hard-truth, well loves because people can feel wise and stoic while spouting garbage. It goes something like his: “What happened is tragic but we can’t lay the blame at the feet of our national institutions and call them weak. Tragedies happen, and we now have to band together in this time of crisis.” Ah yes, I forgot the self-righteous bit at the end, the sheepish defence of the status quo masquerading as some kind of proud nationalism. So, firstly, are the national institutions weak? Well, no car bombing has ever been solved, tax evasion is rampant, there may or may not be (read: is) a human trafficking route going through the country, the Prime Minister did nothing about two PEPs being tied up with the Panama scandal (not to mention, of course, the ever-looming possibility that he was involved himself), foreigners are buying passports while we’re not allowed to know who they are and don’t even get me started- don’t get me started- on how our courts handle rape and paedophilia. Even the public transport is in shambles! Oh, and people are taking kickbacks from our healthcare system and clean energy so even the little we got right we got wrong. I’m going to go with a concise “Yes” on this one. Now, did it lead to our second Black Monday? Catching criminals and confiscating military-grade explosives certainly would have. And while not every problem we have may have lead us here, they are certainly leading us somewhere and I fail to imagine that it’s somewhere good. There will be more tragedies down the line, and every time we’ll point back to our faults and say “we should have fixed this!” and doubtless someone will call you partisan towards the opposition and bravely state that the status quo, regardless of who’s in power, is a golden age of peace, justice and- the most coveted of all- prosperity. I don’t know how to get this point across without making it seem blindingly obvious: this is about politics. Nobody is “making” it about politics any more than people make climate change about the weather. An investigative journalist who wrote about both political parties was victim of yet another car bomb on the anniversary of the first Black Monday – the day when a politically motivated crowd burnt down a newspaper’s offices and then beat up a rival politician’s mother. What did you think we were going to talk about? The state of the road she was on when it happened? The only way this could be more about politics is if the last story she wrote was also about politi- nope that happened. If her source for the most politically scandalous story of her career claimed to be threatened by- oh, also happened. Ok, what if her son was also involved in the story which- oh, man, there’s no way this could be any more about politics. So stop complaining about it being political! Of course it’s political. In a country where everything is political this struck you as odd? There are many national problems in this country, as outlined above, and they need to be addressed. So yes, we’re talking about politics. Deal with it. And before you even say it: it’s not divisive to criticise your country unless you make it divisive. If you take issue with the slightest change to the status quo, then yes what is coming is going to divide us. And if that’s what’s needed, then that’s ok. Unity is in no way sacred: you would not drink wine mixed with vinegar, or a sandwich with one mouldy slice. We have to cut the rot away, and if you can’t see that, well then be offended but it’s not going to make you any less wrong. You have the right to your opinion (for now) but so do all of those around you. How high is their opinion of you going to be, if you refuse to see reason? Jonathan EbejerSIERA President Article 3.3 of SIERA's statute, amongst other things, states that "...it believes in the following values: tolerance, inclusion, peace and respect for human rights. It shall respect as well as refrain from acting contrary to the democratic principles and fundamental human rights as embodied in the laws and constitution of the Republic of Malta". Freedom of Speech is a basic Human Right that our country and citizens ought to respect. Unfortunately, on Monday, this right was tested. The barbaric act on Daphne Caruana Galizia has impacted everyone and reactions have been mixed. Some have said the Freedom of Speech is dead, others have said it's not. I believe that freedom of speech is up to the people who wield it. . Without this fundamental right, organisations like SIERA and many others would not exist in the present day. As history denotes, all the rights we have in this day and age have come through others' sacrifices and exercises of free speech, even when society tried to take it away from them. Democracy in itself as we see it today has come through countless wars - civil and otherwise. As stated above, today we are tested. Today actions do not speak louder than words. Today our actions are our words. Words create discourse, and social changes have been built over that discourse. The discourse we shape today will impact the Maltese Islands not only in the present but in the future. That makes it our duty to remember and state that freedom of speech is not dead, because it can be found in each one of us. It is not about agreeing with someone, but about having the basic right to say 'I disagree,' or 'I agree'. Taking action means more than attending a vigil, planning or attending a protest or writing an article. It means how we act in our day to day lives. On Monday I learnt activism comes in different forms. When my mother heard the news, as soon as she saw my brothers, she set them down, and explained to them why she should have not been killed and why it is important to respect everyone's opinion, even if you disagree with them. My mother did not attend any vigil and did not go to a protest. She probably did not know that these events were being planned because she does not follow posts related to them. However she spent the time to teach her children an important lesson; a lesson of respect, tolerance and freedom of speech. That is its own version of activism. These two kids will eventually grow up and might teach this lesson to other people in their daily lives. Action starts from what we do in our day to day lives, how we treat others, and how we act when facing dark moments in our lives like the one that happened on Monday. This is why I believe it is not only our right but our duty to honour Daphne Caruana Galizia and others who throughout history have lost their lives fighting for this right. We must stand up ourselves, speak up where we see wrongdoing, voice our opinions when others attempt to silent us, and most of all exercise this precious right that each one of us should have. We Stand in honour of Daphne Caruana Galizia, We Stand for Freedom of Speech! John Charles FenechSIERA general secretary. Starting University has been one hell of a journey, and it all started off with the infamous Freshers' Week. The delightful sensory overload and confusion of that which is Freshers' week is a cocktail of both somewhat terrifying and incredibly mesmerising. Walking through the massive crowds forming absolutely everywhere, you can’t really help but feel a sense of excitement for the upcoming year, and at the same time a reassuring sense of accomplishment and relief. After all, you’ve made it! This is it, the first chapter to starting along the path of your career; the stepping stone to becoming who and what you want to be. Now, I know there may be many doubts and clarifications needed along the way, possibly even course changes, however I think that is part of the journey in itself. We learn from our mistakes and mishaps and strive to become better and find the source of what drives us through it. On another completely opposing note, did I mention freebies? Everybody loves free stuff, I mean seriously. I genuinely have enough stationery to last me the entire academic year, just from that one week. Don’t think they skimp out either and get those barely assembled pens that practically deteriorate after writing a page of notes. Regardless of how realistically useful said objects are, you can’t help but start to accumulate an insane amount of miscellaneous stationary, pamphlets and application sheets as you stroll through the multicoloured rows of countless stands. To which point you’re left with with more stuff than you can physically squash inside your now seemingly undersized handbags or backpacks. Another aspect which I thoroughly enjoyed and that caught my attention instantly, was the vast amount of interesting associations, debates and activities available, of which I signed up with all of them. Honestly, it was ridiculous amounts, I think I may have had a tiny lapse of sanity and imagined that I could somehow suddenly conjure free time at a whim. However, that being said, I was absolutely dead set on making University more than just a scholastic year, but an experience too; one that would hopefully reside with me for many moons to come. and to joyfully recount my shenanigans on drunken nights out. Now that the chaos of the first week is over, and the panic of not being able to navigate through this cruel maze we call our University layout has subsided, things are finally starting to settle into place. It is so fantastically reassuring to finally start to comprehend the inner workings of University and the dreaded timetable. The pressure and confusion has seemed to have calmed down, as I truly hope it has for all of you, and what a relief. That isn't to say that there haven't been recently uncovered annoyances emerging and replacing their forerunners, after all we wouldn’t want things to be too easy! Let’s not be ridiculous. The thing that comes to mind instantly, is that unfortunately in some of my lectures, there are more students than there are chairs. In my case, we already are a rather large class, however once that number is added with additional courses for certain lectures, we become an extraordinary amount of people. Regardless of the amount of classes joined together, this does not change the pre - determined amount of seats available in the lecture hall, which is what leads to the Hunger Games-esque moment of storming through your fellow classmates, and proceeding to half-sit on them in hopes of something sinking in that lecture. This is especially so, if you so happen to be running a little late due to the notorious buses and/or traffic, or in my case my, as I will wholeheartedly admit, just who I am as a person. Now that I’ve taken a good chunk of your time with my incessant ramblings, I would love to know your outlook and perspective of your experience as a Fresher! Or even ass a returning student, hell I’m not prejudiced! Lauren Polkey
It's no secret that students in Malta aren't taken as seriously as people who make a living. This is true in many spheres, for example, when it comes to the job market, many consider students to be nothing more than cheap summer labour. When it comes to political issues, both parties are congratulated when they promote reform or change in the education sector, but students themselves are rarely listened to when it comes to political issues. I remember this being illustrated perfectly when a Maltese politician was in Ukraine a few years ago, and when asked about the riots in the Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square), described the violence as a mere 'student protest' in an attempt to downplay the situation - a situation which turned into one of the bloodiest conflicts fought on european soil in living memory. I have no definitive proof as to why this is the case. It's most certainly not just a local phenomenon, generally speaking, wherever you go, students tend to be seen as people who just don’t know enough to be relevant yet, which is funny, considering that we spend most of our time learning. However, a big part of this lack of social relevance is due to the fact that we do not challenge these ideas when they are presented to us, but rather accept them as being a part of reality. When one is offered an illegally small amount of money off the books in exchange for waiting tables, stacking deckchairs or washing dishes for 6-9 hour shifts, one should always either fight for a legal amount of money if nothing else, or search for better prospects which don't involve daylight robbery. If one is told that one's voice counts for nothing, because one is not 'old' enough or 'smart' enough to 'know' what a situation is really like, do not express anger or frustration, as this simply proves the point of those who say such things; that we are too impetuous or naive to assess a situation correctly and with wisdom. As a student body, in order to achieve greater relevance and have our voices heard, we need to rethink our own position. We are currently divided, in more ways than one. Arts vs. Sciences, Social sciences vs. Natural sciences, Organisations vs. other Organisations. While a healthy amount of competition can be beneficial, it is all too often that i see students bicker over petty differences. We need to make it clear that although anyone may find it easy to dismiss what a single student has to say, it is much. much harder to ignore the voice of a thousands' strong student body. Gavin Borg
“God is dead!” exclaimed Zarathustra, “And we killed him!” Perhaps one of the most misinterpreted phrases ever, penned by Frederick Nietzsche, describe the ranting of a madman before elite members of German society. What is often left out in retellings of this fictional anecdote is that the elites were not scandalized by Zarathustra’s words. Rather, they laughed and mocked him for being amazed by the obvious. Zarathustra's raving was, of course, figurative – a metaphor for the belief in God having been completely, or almost completely, phased out in contemporary German society. But Nietzsche’s message – the message which has kept philosophers studying these words to this very day – was not that this death had occurred, but that it was a tragedy. And it is in the tone, not the text, that the message truly lies. Let us delve deeper into the details about speech before going on any further. When a person speaks to another, it is very rarely to merely convey information. Unless in a formal schooling setting, one person divulges information to entertain, enquire, amaze, share, console, seek advice- a myriad of reasons and each one carrying an important and special pearl: intention. In fact, one could say this is true of all human communication, not just speech. How we dress, write, play, sing and so forth bears with it a mark of intention – to impress, to entertain, to dominate et cetera. Now how does this simple observation concerning communication connect with Zarathustra’s words? To see that we must make one further observation, this time about intention, and it is simply this: one cannot understand an intention without understanding what the intender values. For example, if a fox creeps up behind a rabbit, its intention is obvious – foxes value eating rabbits. However, if the same fox behaved the same way to a kettle, we would be rather perplexed – foxes don't value kettles. In fact, our first response might very well be to say the fox is confusing the kettle for a rabbit! The very same way as this we decipher each other's intentions: Jehovah’s witnesses knocking on doors, men buying drinks for women, a salesman loitering by the door. Every action has its intention deciphered using what we imagine the person values as our decryption key. Back when God was alive, what was valued was much more uniform. Virtues were set in stone and, by extension, values were also somewhat stable. Not everyone was equally religious or had the same religious interpretations, but at least there was a common yardstick for measurement. This is the tragedy which torments Zarathustra - the lack of a hierarchy of values. On the contrary to Zarathustra's desperation, Nietzsche and several philosophers and writers after him revel in the radical freedom given to them by this ubiquitous absurdity they see in human life. There are, however, pitfalls to this freedom. Firstly, let us bring to bear on the argument our earlier observations about communication. With no standard yardstick for what is or is not valuable, communicating becomes many times more complex. For example, in a community very devotedly Catholic, a stranger lending a helping hand is very likely to be interpreted as being a Good Samaritan- we imagine that he values helping others, and so we conclude his intention is to help. But take away the Catholic context and that same stranger lending a helping hand may be several things- a con artist, a man expecting something in return, a man looking for praise, a predator who's found easy prey, and so on and so forth. It is a burden on both parties- on us to understand his intentions, and on him to be understood. And here is where things take an interesting turn: in society's efforts to be understood without any fixed measure for value, it has turned to popularity as its yardstick. How popular a thing is, has been transformed into how valuable a thing is, simply because that is the easiest solution to us having ourselves understood. If Susan deeply values stamp collecting, but no one else really cares, the extent and variety of her very impressive stamp collection is not recognized by those around her, and so she is not understood as a successful stamp collector. However, if people commonly value the vitality, strength and sheen of hair, then Susan must invest more time into her hair to be understood as successful, even if she herself doesn't care much about hair. Now of course, this has always been this problem when it comes to hobbies- there has never been a common "law" for what people enjoy. But with the death of God, this problem began presenting itself in the ethical domain as well, and by extension into more or less every domain in life. Right and wrong had dissolved and with them so did values and virtues. Being an honest and hard work no longer means anything if honesty and hard work are disregarded. So people moved away from acting for the sake of virtues and started acting for the sake of popularity. So truth devolved into rhetoric, news devolved into fear mongering and journalism devolved into clickbait (hence the title of this article) and needless to say money, the universal measure of demand, became a cornerstone of how we define ourselves. Whereas in a world where generosity is valued, a poor man may easily be very successful by virtue of having given everything away, in a world where value is undefined, a poor man cannot possible be successful because he doesn't have money- the most popular commodity. And the most bitter point of this tragedy? Those of us who do pursue the path of popularity have their own private ways of valuing the world around them, which they betray because they know it won't be understood. Like Susan who abandons her stamps for her hair, so many of us abandon the lives we want to have in favour of the lives others can appreciate. Now the tone above may be fatalistic, but this isn't an inescapable faith. Like Nietzsche and the philosophers who followed him, we must embrace the lack of common value and not try to fill the void its left behind with popularity. Once we accept that there are no common grounds for value, we also accept that other people are never going to truly understand us (except the close few who value life in the same way we do). And here follows a great liberation: freedom from the scrutiny of others, freedom from the need to make sense to them. If being understood is so dismally impossible, why bother? We are free to embrace who we are despite what others may think. And if they knew any better, they would be perfectly at peace with the fact that there are people they cannot understand and harmony can be found in spite of a lack of common grounds. To end on a (very) positive note, our laments about Zarathustra's "tragedy" only leads us to see how truly free we are to pursue our own lives in spite of the great many differences present in any society. Jonathan Ebejer
We're quite lucky as Maltese students for many reasons, not only is our university free, but many extra curricular activities and events are planned weekly during the scholastic year, however, although there is alot of praise to give, we cannot ignore certain things which prove to be a source of real stress for any students. Something which almost all will agree with is the fact that the rate at which examination results are published, especially in certain faculties, are notoriously long. This can prove quite stressful on students, even more so for those prone to a more nervous disposition. When compared to the waiting period for results of foreign universities, the University of Malta falls behind. One of the biggest steps our university has taken in recent years is the esims system for easier communication between students and lecturers, as well as to recieve results automatically as they are published. Maybe the university should take it a step further, possibly by having more exams carried out on the computers in the ict building, removing the need for pen and paper correction. All in all, I'm very happy and grateful to be a student here in Malta, I've learnt lessons and made friendships that are going to last me the rest of my life. All I'm saying is that some of those friendships were made so strong because of how many experiences of dread we shared together waiting for those exam results to come out' Gavin Borg
|
Authors- Lauren Polkey ArchivesCategories |