Epistemology 101: Perfection and Imperfection

Within philosophy, epistemology is “the study of knowledge and justified belief.” Epistemology asks questions about the sources of knowledge, the limits of knowledge, and the justifications of knowledge. See Matthias Steup, Epistemology, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Edward N. Zalta, ed., Fall 2012 ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/ epistemology/. Below I argue that Rationalism, rather than Empiricism, provides the best explanation for how we gain knowledge. For background reading on these two competing views, see Peter Markie, Rationalism vs. Empiricism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Edward N. Zalta, ed., 2012), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/.

Humans acquire knowledge and discover all truths only through rational investigation. It is widely accepted that if knowledge is possible, it must be based in true, justified belief. Rationalism suggests that the superior path to knowledge is traversed through reason alone, that the senses are not reliable, and that fundamental truths are inborn within each person. Among these inborn ideas is the concept of perfection. Differing schools of thought, which disagree with the rationalist position, have made it necessary to further defend Rationalism and to refute their false claims. Their arguments attempt to prove that the concept of perfection is learned through experiencing imperfection. These arguments are weak, however, and fail to stand up to Rationalism.

Perfection is an abstract idea that cannot be perceived with the senses. In other words, we cannot taste, touch, feel, see, or hear perfection itself. Concepts such as flawlessness, or a degree of excellence that cannot be exceeded, are just the beginning of our understanding of perfection itself. Men can't even being to fathom how to empirically measure and understand the form of perfection. But there exists within us the opposite characteristic: imperfection. Critics of Rationalism might construct an argument as follows:

If we are alive, then we can be imperfection. If we are capable of imperfection, then we are capable of understanding imperfection through observation. If we are capable of understanding imperfection through observation, then we can understand its opposite—perfection (~imperfection)—through induction. We are alive. Therefore, we can understand perfection through induction.

This argument has a valid form and seems to lead to a true conclusion. Upon closer inspection, however, the argument's flaws are readily apparent. What is the strict meaning of the term imperfection, and how will one recognize it through observation? If imperfection is defined as anything that falls short of perfection, then what is the strict definition of perfection to compare against and demonstrate that the thing is indeed imperfection? If critics of Rationalism use an argument like the one above, then they themselves are capable of imperfection. And if they are capable of imperfection, then their argument is capable of imperfection. Therefore, if opponents of Rationalism use such an argument to prove that perfection can be known through sense‑experience induction, then their arguments are also capable of imperfection.

This Empiricist argument (“If we are alive, then we are capable of imperfection.”) is weak and leads to several inconsistencies and inadequacies. First, the argument includes a self-referential inconsistency: it claims that if we are living not only are we capable of imperfection but also we are capable of knowing perfection. But if we are truly imperfect, we are fallible and can not be trusted to conclude the truth about perfection. Second, the argument is unclear about the origin of the concepts of imperfection and perfection. By studying ourselves, we recognize that we lack excellence in various areas of our lives—we have flaws. The only way to recognize self-imperfection is to have a true, justified belief, backed by empirically tested data, of what perfection is since it is the opposite of imperfection. Yet the only way to arrive at the idea of perfection is to have the same type of knowledge regarding imperfection. Empirically finding these answers presents a major paradox.

Since perfection does not exist within our nature, we must rely on reason to uncover the truths already embedded within our minds. The form of perfection will always exist, regardless of whether we are ever perfect ourselves. The origin of all principles and ideas, then, must exist outside of our sensory experience. For present purposes, the form of imperfect and the form of perfect are the main focus. We can discover the concepts of perfection and imperfection either through empirical observation, experience, and induction or through rational inquiry. As demonstrated above, however, we cannot discover perfection and imperfection through experience, empirical observation, or induction. Therefore, we can discover perfection and imperfection—two innate ideas that have always existed—only through reason.

Understanding the form of perfect requires a priori knowledge, or knowledge that does not depend on sensory experience, because we cannot accurately classify anything in our our world as perfect. Observed actions about the nature of an intangible concept such as imperfection cannot lead to a justified, true belief about the nature and idea of its opposite. Therefore, perfection exists innately in the mind as an ideal and not as something experienced through a series of events. And because perfection is a concept of the mind, we must discover perfection by gaining knowledge. Because we cannot use experience, empirical observation, or induction to discover the concept of perfection, Empiricism cannot fully account for how we discover knowledge. It thus follows that humans acquire knowledge and discover all truths through rational investigation.