Can the subject really apprehend the object? Are they really separate consciousness? Is knowledge possible? What are the conditions for the possibility of knowledge?

These are very complex questions that are really hard to answer. I don't mean to actually finding an answer to them but to briefly explore some approaches that have been taken on their possible answers.

First off, when we ask ourselves about the possibility of knowledge we must refer to an "epistemological position".

WHAT IS AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL POSITION? It's a certain position one holds regarding how we acquire knowledge in all of its forms and why we acquire it for, it's possible controversies, implications and problems.

An epistemological position is what defines, shapes and influences the way we view, understand and develop knowledge.

Every School of Thought in the History of Philosophy and thought itself (even outside of the field of Philosophy) has existed because of a shared perspective or outlook on a determined subject. These schools have developed an intellectual tradition based on a shared epistemological position. In that sense, the creation or "birth" of a new School of Thought lies on a shift or change on said epistemological position.

Let's dig a little deeper into one of these epistemological positions, the one that is, I daresay, one of the most known and most controversial: Dogmatism

^{Note: Since this series are meant to be sort of an Epistemology "course", I don't intend to explore Dogmatism from the religious or even historical point of view, just from an epistemological point of view, that means that I will explore the problems, controversies and implications this notion has on knowledge itself. You are welcome to add on any comment about the historical, religious and even political nature of Dogma/Dogmatism if you think could "enrich" this discussion.}

What is Dogmatism?

The word "dogma" comes from the greek "δόγμα", which is usually understood as a fixed or established doctrine/belief whose truth cannot be questioned, "that which one thinks is true". A Dogma also refers to a statement that must be accepted by its own position of “authority” and by no means should be questioned.

This is why the emergence of Dogmatism is historically linked to the development of religious representations and the demands of faith in the dogmas of religion, which are affirmed as irrefutable truths, have no rules for criticism and are obligatory for all believers.

In the context of Theory of Knowledge, Dogmatism refers to the epistemological position to which there is no problem of knowledge. In other words:

Dogmatism assumes the possibility and reality of the relationship between subject and object, therefore, this relationship poses no problems, no controversies and no questions. According to this position, it's a given that the subject-knower (cognoscent) aprehends the object-known, ergo knowledge not only it's possible, it is.

Philosophical Dogmatism means maintaining a blind confidence in the possibility of reason as an organ of knowledge.

This epistemological position is supported by a blinded trust in human reason, to this point unweakened by any shred of doubt.

The problems of Dogmatism

Dogmatism presupposes the supremacy of the object in respect to the subject.

The fact that knowledge poses no problems to Dogmatism relies upon a deficient notion of the essence of knowledge. Of course, a relation such as the one between the subject and the object cannot seem problematic to someone who doesn't realise that knowledge represents a relation. This is what happens to the (wo)man of dogma: they don't see that knowledge is by essence a connection between a subject that knows and an object that it's known.

This point of view basically takes on knowledge as a sort of "tool" you can use to "grab" the object of knowledge, instead of understanding knowledge as the process in which an object and an subject "aprehend" eachother. In this kind of correlation one element cannot be superior to the other, for they are both necessary and essential to knowledge.

Dogmatics believes that the "objects of knowledge" are given to us merely through themselves. And this happens not only in the field of perception but also in the field of thought. According to Dogmatism, the "objects of perception" and the "objects of thought" are given to us in the same way: directly through corporality. This point of view seems to miss that we can only know certain objects through perception.

Another thing that Dogmatism seems to miss is the fact that values do not have a pure and absolute existence, they exist because there is a conscience that values. Why is this a problem? Well, because to affirm all of this is to completely "skip" or ignore the Subject and its purpose, its role in the process of knowledge.

Other characteristics of Dogmatism

We could say there are three types of dogmatism:

• Theoretical Dogmatism: which refers to theoretical knowledge, just like we explored at the beggining of the last section.
• Ethical Dogmatism:it alludes to the knowledge of values (principles), especifically moral knowledge.
• Religious Dogmatism: it refers to values as well but from the religious knowledge point of view.

Historically and psicologically speaking, Dogmatism is the oldest epistemological position, and the "first" one to be held, since it depicts naivety and even innocence of the human mind. We could say it's kind of the Peter Pan of the epistemological positions haha.

In the initial periods of Ancient Greek Philosophy, Dogmatism is dominant in an almost general way. Epistemological reflections do not usually appear between the Presocratics; Ionian philosophers, Eleatics, Heraclitus, Pythagoreans, etc. These thinkers were still encouraged by an absolute trust in human reason, they leaned over “the being” and nature and they didn’t believe that knowledge itself was a problem.

This problem was first considered probably by the Sophists. However controversial as they were, they proposed the problem of knowledge and made it possible for a strict dogmatism to be never possible inside of Philosophy.

Since them we can find epistemological reflections about Dogmatism in one way or another in various philosophical systems. One of the most relevant is that of Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804)

Dogmatism is thus the dogmatic procedure of pure reason without previous criticism of its own powers. – Immanuel Kant (Critique of Pure Reason)

To Kant, Dogmatism is the position that cultivates Metaphysics without even having examined beforehand the ability of human reason to such cultivation. In this regard, pre-kantian systems of Modern Philosophy are, in fact, “dogmatic”, however that does not mean than we cannot find epistemological reflections or assumptions of the problem of knowledge in them (we actually do find them in Spinoza, Descartes, Leibniz…), it merely means that, at least from the Modern Era onwards, we should not talk of an absolute or general Dogmatism, but a special kind of Dogmatism… Not a logical Dogmatism, but a Metaphysical one.

Consulted sources:

^{Theory of Knowledge - J. Hesen.
VOX Dictionary Spanish-Classic Greek
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Wikipedia: Dogma
Immanuel Kant: The Critique of Pure Reason Index}

Image sources

^{Post Image
Subject-Object connection: Made with Canva.
Dogma: VOX Dictionary
Take a Stand
Dogmatic cartoon
Immanuel Kant}

Thanks for reading!

Check out some of my other posts:

Notable Women in History [Chapter 1] Ada Lovelace
The Importance of Having Female Role Models
The Rise and Fall (Short Story)
The Rizome (Extract of an Essay)
A Broadway Enthusiast Catalog: Waitress The Musical!

See you next time!

Alicia xx