Few questions appear as foundational to philosophy, science, and everyday life as this one. We speak of knowing facts, knowing how to act, knowing the world. Knowledge seems like something we acquire, store, and refine over time.
“What is knowledge?” appears to ask for the nature of this possession-like relation to truth.
But this framing depends on a prior move: treating knowledge as a kind of object—something held by a subject rather than something enacted within relational systems.
Once that move is examined, the question no longer seeks a definition of mental contents. It reveals a familiar distortion: the reification of stabilised relational performance into stored possession.
1. The surface form of the question
“What is knowledge?”
In its everyday philosophical form, this asks:
- what distinguishes knowledge from belief or opinion
- whether knowledge is justified true belief or something more
- whether knowledge is internal (mental) or external (worldly)
- whether knowledge can be certain or fallible
It presupposes:
- that knowledge is a thing a subject has
- that it can be defined by necessary and sufficient conditions
- that it exists independently of its use
- that truth is a property added to belief
2. Hidden ontological commitments
For the question to stabilise, several assumptions must already be in place:
- that cognition is a container of representational states
- that knowledge is a stable object within that container
- that truth is a correspondence relation between mental items and world
- that justification is an external certification of internal content
- that knowing is separable from doing or acting
These assumptions convert relational competence into internal inventory.
3. Stratal misalignment
Within relational ontology, the distortion involves reification, internalisation, and separation of performance from system.
(a) Reification of knowledge
Knowledge is treated as an object.
- instead of a stabilised pattern of relational engagement
- it becomes a thing possessed by a subject
(b) Internalisation of truth
Truth is located inside mental representations.
- rather than arising from constrained relational fit within systems of practice
- it becomes a property of internal states
(c) Separation of knowing from doing
Knowing is detached from action.
- as if knowledge could exist independently of the practices it enables
- rather than being enacted through them
4. Relational re-description
If we remain within relational ontology, knowledge is not an object possessed by a subject. It is a stabilised pattern of successful relational engagement within structured systems of practice under constraint.
More precisely:
- systems instantiate structured relations under constraint
- organisms participate in these systems through perception, action, and construal
- over time, certain patterns of engagement become stabilised and reliable
- these patterns allow consistent navigation of relational environments
From this perspective:
- knowing is not storing representations
- it is the capacity for successful, repeatable coordination within relational structure
- “truth” is not a property of internal states
- it is the stability of fit between action, construal, and system constraint
Thus:
- knowledge is not what we have
- it is what we can reliably do within structured environments
5. Dissolution of the problem-space
Once knowledge is no longer treated as a thing, the question “What is knowledge?” loses its structure.
It depends on:
- reifying knowledge as object
- internalising truth as mental property
- separating cognition from action
- treating justification as external certification
If these assumptions are withdrawn, there is no static entity to define.
What disappears is not cognition, but the idea that it must be modelled as possession.
6. Residual attraction
The persistence of the question is entirely understandable.
It is sustained by:
- educational systems that treat knowledge as transferable content
- language that encodes knowledge as nouns (“a body of knowledge”)
- epistemological traditions centred on belief states
- the apparent stability of expertise and skill
Most importantly, knowledge feels like possession:
- we “have” information
- we “learn” facts and retain them
- forgetting feels like loss of something
This experiential framing encourages reification.
Closing remark
“What is knowledge?” appears to ask for the nature of what we possess when we know.
Once these moves are undone, knowledge is not defined as an object.
No comments:
Post a Comment