A Critique of Epistemology

Abstract

Epistemology is a natural urge of a metaphysics that have no other way to convince about the reasonability and justifiability of the systems. Metaphysics cannot survive without epistemology and both taken together form a system. It constructs a number of entities and produces a number of epistemic proofs and justification to justify them. Metaphysicians claim to know the entities by perception, inference, resemblance, presumption, authority, implication, non-apprehension, practice, unseen power and several other means of knowledge. If they do not find any popular proof to prove a certain kind of reality, they give evidences and logical justification to convince about the veritable myth of their assumptions. Even in some cases they accept imagination also as a proof. Epistemological proving scheme, based on metaphysics or on a theory about thing –in-itself which is beyond the grasp of reason, falls short in checking metaphysical construction either from their own contradiction or from their incapability of encountering with the reality. Such proving is based on creating confusion between the object they intend to prove, the object reached by their arguments of proving and the object beyond the limit of the arguments. More clearly, they intend to prove the object of knowledge, which they grasp, and their arguments prove the object that they do not grasp that is beyond the grasp. Such amalgamation has caused great harm to philosophy. The paper views the epistemological ideas and their gradual turning points in the east and west theories. What is the object that needs proving and what object the epistemic proofs prove? Why this epistemological proving fails in its aim that is, the limit of epistemology. It discusses the nature of knowledge; is it substance, quality, an activity, úûnya and the later part critically analyses and examines the epistemological tools generally used by epistemologists for proving their metaphysical assumption. Popular definitions of sources of knowledge in view of Western and Indian perspective are critically analyzed and their inconsistencies have been well pointed out to further new researches in the field.