The Legitimacy Of Knowledge

This article mainly researches the legitimacy of knowledge.It is proved by the history of epistemology that the human being's different cognitive manner always leads to the different living style of human being. There are different paradigms of epistemology based on the different comprehension about knowledge, Ancient epistemology, Modern epistemology, Post-modern epistemology, etc. The legitimacy of knowledge is a foundation problem of knowledge. The different paradigms of epistemology have different legitimacy principles. As to Ancient epistemology, it is believed that the legitimacy of knowledge comes from substance, namely idea or form. As to modern epistemology from Descartes on, the legitimacy of knowledge comes from the subject, namely reason and experience. As to modern epistemology from 20th century, the legitimacy of knowledge is consensus coming from inter-subjectivity. The post-modern theory of knowledge emphasizes that paralogy is the principle and characteristic of knowledge.The legitimacy principles of knowledge are important for the history of civilizations and knowledge. Human being will examine their knowledge deeply and adjust its legitimacy principle when important turning are taking place in their age or their practice is facing huge predicaments. They will form their new paradigm of epistemology to fit and guide their ages. This article will survey the history of the legitimacy of knowledge and related dimensions of the legitimacy of knowledge, the crisis of the legitimacy of knowledge coming from postmodernist, the argument about rebuilding the legitimacy of knowledge between Jurgen Habermas and Jean-Francois Lyotard. The goal of the article is transcending that argument, rebuilding the legitimacy of knowledge, and constructing a paradigm of theory of knowledge consistent with the social develop and knowledge-economy ages.The article is composed of eight parts, namely the introduction and another seven parts. The introduction gives the outline and total missions of the thesis, and analyzes the legitimacy principles of knowledge that corresponds to different paradigms of epistemology. Ancient epistemology holds that the knowledge is concerning substance; the legitimacy of knowledge comes from substance. The metaphysics essence guarantees the legitimacy of knowledge directly. But the knowledge concerning substance depends on the intuitions of man, and it needs to be proven and surmounted. As to modern epistemology from Descartes, the legitimacy of knowledge comes from the subject, namely reason and experience. Only the universal and inevitable knowledge that depends on subject has the legitimacy. Its biggest problem is that it always wants to look for a metaphysics basis for the legitimacy of knowledge. Modern epistemology from 20th century wants to eliminate metaphysics from philosophy. The legitimacy of knowledge lies in acceptability of the knowledge that comes from the consensus of community. The language is a medium of reaching consensus, so the philosophical Linguistic-Turn took places at the beginning of the 20th century. Both Jurgen Habermas and Jean-Francois Lyotard wanted to reconstruct the legitimacy of knowledge. Jurgen Habermas insisted that the legitimacy of knowledge consensus come from the interlocutor in fairly dialogue. Jean-Francois Lyotard emphasized that consensus was a horizon that would never be reached. The legitimacy principle of knowledge is paralogy. We will ask whether the legitimacy principle of knowledge constructed by Post-modernism is mine.In section one, we introduce the general situation of knowledge and the meaning of the legitimacy of knowledge, and provide the background for researching the legitimacy of knowledge. Firstly, beginning with the classical definition of knowledge, we point out that people had neglected the legitimacy of knowledge in this definition for long time, but this problem is an essential one. Secondly, we analyze the different comprehension and conditions of knowledge in different ages. And then we classify knowledge based on the criteria of legitimacy. Scientific knowledge and narrative knowledge are Jean-Francois Lyotard's categories of knowledge. Knowledge is not same as science, especially in its contemporary form; and science, far from successfully obscuring the problem of its legitimacy. Lastly, we generalize the meaning and relevant dimensions of the legitimacy of knowledge.In section two, we analyze the legitimacy of the scientific knowledge. Modern epistemology from Descartes formed two kinds of view about the legitimacy of knowledge. The rationalism considered that the legitimacy of knowledge based on the deductive method; and the legitimacy of knowledge lies on subject's inter-evidence. The empiricism considered that the legitimacy of knowledge based on the experiential induction; and the knowledge that not come from experience or was not confirmed by experience has no legitimacy. Kant wanted to overcome shortcomings of both. The scientific knowledge neither purely comes from experiential induction nor purely comes from deductive method. Kant put forward the problem of how the priori synthetic judgments are possible in order to build the foundation of the scientific knowledge and return the legitimacy of the scientific knowledge into the priori realm. Modern epistemology from the 20th century pays more attention to the problem of examination and distinguishing sciences from non-science. The logic positivism strictly distinguished science from metaphysics whit the criterion of meaning and confirmation principles, and eliminated metaphysics from philosophy. The legitimacy of scientific statement depends on experiential induction and observation languages. K. Popper pointed out that logic empiricist criterion of meaning and confirmation principles were the logic of scientific advocacy, not the one of scientific discovery. We should give up the confirmation of knowledge and establish falsifiability as criterion distinguishing sciences from non-science. The basic characteristic of the logical empiricism lies on logic and empiricism. Historisism thoroughly overthrew the logic empiricism, and destroyed the legitimacy of the scientific knowledge. In addition, the scientific knowledge loses the legitimacy from narrative knowledge because of the theory of language games that emphasizes incommensurability of principles between language games. The crisis of the scientific knowledge's legitimacy appears.In section three, the legitimacy functions of narrative knowledge are concerned. The narrative knowledge basing on its characteristic has the functions to make itself the legitimate. At the same time, the functions of narrative knowledge provide the legitimacy for the scientific knowledge. The scientific knowledge desires its statements to be true but does not have the resources to legitimate their truth on itself. It is necessary to ask for help from narrative knowledge. In any ages, there are some narratives to be dominant, called"grand narrative". These grand narratives are the narratives that have legitimate functions. They need no argument and no suspicion. They are absolute knowledge. The typical grand narratives are the speculative narrative provided by German philosophy and the emancipative narrative provided by Enlightenment. But in contemporary, because of various social crises and human being's survival crises; because of the blossoming of techniques and technologies, which has shifted emphasis from the ends of action to its means; because of the redeployment of advanced liberal capitalism; and importantly, because of the seeds of delegitimation and nihilism that were inherent in the grand narrative, the grand narratives have lost their credibility, regardless of what mode of unification it uses, regardless of whether it is a speculative narrative or a narrative of emancipation. The scientific knowledge turns to technique narrative for the legitimacy, thus making knowledge and power together.In section four, the subject dimension of the knowledge legitimacy is discussed. Since Descartes, the birth of subject leads philosophy turning to epistemology,"man"becomes the cognitive subject, world become the cognitive object. The subject provides a new Archimedes point for knowledge, the legitimacy of knowledge no longer depends on the God or absolute beings; all knowledge comes from the subject on earth. The symbol of the subject's birth is Descartes'proposition"I think, therefore I am". Kant develops the subject into the priori subject. Kant's proposition is"man makes the law for world","man makes the law for himself"and"man is the end". Hegel's proposition is"the substance is the subject". Spirit or idea is entireness, and man replaced God's position because the rational ability of the subject was enlarged more and more. Ultimately, one extremity that man depends on God was replaced by another extremity that man makes himself the center of world. Among various critiques of the subject, Michel Foucault's deconstruction of subject is representative. Michel Foucault points out that thing making man himself king is man's limitation. Man as subject is a kind of invention lately;"man"was born in the alternation that the Classic Episteme turned into the Modern Episteme, and the subject will disappear because of its change again. Accompanying with the disappearance of subject is the independence of knowledge. Knowledge can decide itself because of the self-discipline of discourse. Knowledge does not obey outside social structure any more, but its own form structure inside itself only.In section five, the power dimension of the legitimacy of knowledge is concerned. The power has nothing to do with form but force, and it is another dimension differing from knowledge, but in fact knowledge and power hang together indivisibly. Michel Foucault discovered the power after returning knowledge back into files and analyzing knowledge. The relation between power and knowledge is inherent and inseparable: without constructing a kind of realm of knowledge, there is on relations of power; and without building the relations of power in advance, there is not any knowledge. The power provides the necessary environments for producing the knowledge. Something will be forced to open out itself in new way and to reduce new knowledge about its being and action, if they are put in to the realm of power. The factor of power has taken part in the process of knowledge producing. The operations of power need the support coming from power techniques that come from relevant knowledge. Knowledge provides the rational foundations for power's operations. We must discover knowledge and produce truths in order to operate power. The goal of knowledge is truths, but power decided the process that truths were produced and affirmed. Truths are restricted by the rules used by people to distinguish"true"from"false". The truths system consists in any societies. In every society, there is its universal principle about the truth discourse, its institutions for distinguishing real discourse or false one, its techniques and procedures for gaining the truth, and its placement of the people who are responsible to give the truth discourses. Thus the truth and the power are bound together.Section six discusses the argument about reconstructing the legitimacy of knowledge between Jurgen Habermas and Jean-Francois Lyotard. Jurgen Habermas followed the road of Inter-subjectivity before him. He brought the human being social activities into the realm of epistemology, analyzed knowledge and interests. He considered that knowledge couldn't be divided from interests; the legitimacy of knowledge lies on the principle of consensus. Consensus is an agreement between men, defined as knowing intellects and free wills, and is obtained through dialogue. Jurgen Habermas explained the universal pragmatics and communicative action for reaching consensus. It is a difficulty for Habermas that reaching consensus needs some kinds of ideal dialogue conditions that are hard to fulfill. Jean-Francois Lyotard pointed out that it is impossible to reach consensus, because Habermas'conception is based on the validity of the narrative of emancipation. The goal of dialogue is paralogy rather than consensus; consensus is only a particular state of discussion, not its end. Its end is paralogy, for discovering new things continuously. The result of pursuing consensus is that the multiplicity of the rules language games is destroyed. It is necessary to replace consensus with paralogy, the paralogy is the legitimacy principle of knowledge. We know, canonizing paralogy, knowledge will turn into epistemic relativism that epistemology always want to get away from.The end part of the article, namely section seven, we try to transcend the argument about reconstructing the legitimacy of knowledge between modernity and post-modernity, to reconstruct the legitimacy of knowledge, to found the paradigm of anthropologic epistemology adapting to the contemporary knowledge-economy society. Firstly, we point out the positive significance of the reflections of post-modernism and modernism on knowledge. And then, we analyze theoretical limitation of post-modernism and critical modernism, and indicate that their theories cannot take upon its task to construct the paradigm of the theory of knowledge, which suit social development of contemporary knowledge-economy ages. Finally, to meet the contemporary social requirement, we should build the epistemological paradigm of anthropology basing on putting practice as the legitimacy principle of knowledge.