What are the differences between "I am certain" and "it is certain", and is passionate conviction ever sufficient for justifying knowledge?
What are the differences between "I am certain" and "it is certain", and is passionate conviction ever sufficient for justifying knowledge?
I am certain that I am NAME daughter of MOTHER and FATHER. However, is it certain that I am who I think I am? Can I rely on what my parents and others have brought me up into thinking? Can I trust my birth certificate? My passport? How do I know that none of my documents have ever been changed? Is there a possibility that when I was still lying peacefully in my cradle at the hospital, somebody just came and exchanged me for somebody else? If I try to prove it with a DNA-test, how will I know for certain that the DNA-test is correct? Even though I am passionately convinced and certain, frustratingly I can probably never claim that it is absolutely certain that I am who I believe I am. In every statement, no matter how many times it has been proven and justified, there will always be this tiny percentage of uncertainty. The mystery of certainty is indeed quite a complex one. As a friend of mine once said: "Certainty itself is, ironically, a very difficult subject to be certain about".1 This essay will however be exploring some of the different areas of certainty, attempting to explain why absolute certainty is so impossible for an average human to ever attain.
The traditional definition of certainty is often along the lines of "Something established beyond doubt or question, something definitely known".2 Søren Kierkegaard then made a distinction between "I am certain" which he called "subjective certainty" where the certainty refers to the knowledge and convictions of an individual and "It is certain" which he called "objective certainty" where the certainty is expressing a wider social opinion, which most often has been repeatedly "proven" in different ways.3 A question coming to my mind concerning the traditional definition is how one can establish something beyond doubt, and how one can know something definite. Using myself as an example: When I first came to study in Wales, I was absolutely certain that it was the Norwegian Viking Leiv Eiriksson who first discovered America. When we discussed the topic in class, I was quite surprised that the people from more continental Europe claimed they were certain that Christopher Columbus was the one. Following a Chinese girl came up with a Chinese name and an Arab with an Arabic name, all of us equally convinced that we were right. An indigenous American girl then raised her hand and said: "Well, I am certain that none of them discovered anything, because my people had already been living there for thousands of years when any of those first came!"4 These opinions are all expressions of subjective certainty, but at the same time a result of something perceived to be objective certainties in the countries we have originated from. By saying that, I mean that I am certain it was Leiv Eiriksson because I am relying on and believing in our ancient scripts and an authority both in the form of the Norwegian education and from what the older generations have passed on to me about it being certain. This means that in Norway, there is a "collective subjective certainty" (appearing to be an objective certainty), a wider social consensus where it has been assumed to be true and thereafter named "knowledge" that it was Leiv Eiriksson who discovered America. Knowledge will then be referring to those propositions that we are convinced are true, however that does not necessarily mean that they are universally and definitely true. The Norwegians have here justified their knowledge by combining the limited evidence we have with our passionate conviction, on the larger scale, outside of our borders the theory will most likely not be justified, as people will be reading the Norwegian evidence differently and claim that it cannot be proven. From the contemporary world's point of view, most people will probably argue it is certain that the indigenous people of America were the ones who first discovered her. Even though this is supported by both empirical evidence in the form of archaeological findings and logic in addition to the wider consensus, how is it more certain than the Norwegian belief? Can we ignore the possibility of aliens having landed in America thousands of years before apes had even thought about starting to walk upright as humans?
I am certain that I am NAME daughter of MOTHER and FATHER. However, is it certain that I am who I think I am? Can I rely on what my parents and others have brought me up into thinking? Can I trust my birth certificate? My passport? How do I know that none of my documents have ever been changed? Is there a possibility that when I was still lying peacefully in my cradle at the hospital, somebody just came and exchanged me for somebody else? If I try to prove it with a DNA-test, how will I know for certain that the DNA-test is correct? Even though I am passionately convinced and certain, frustratingly I can probably never claim that it is absolutely certain that I am who I believe I am. In every statement, no matter how many times it has been proven and justified, there will always be this tiny percentage of uncertainty. The mystery of certainty is indeed quite a complex one. As a friend of mine once said: "Certainty itself is, ironically, a very difficult subject to be certain about".1 This essay will however be exploring some of the different areas of certainty, attempting to explain why absolute certainty is so impossible for an average human to ever attain.
The traditional definition of certainty is often along the lines of "Something established beyond doubt or question, something definitely known".2 Søren Kierkegaard then made a distinction between "I am certain" which he called "subjective certainty" where the certainty refers to the knowledge and convictions of an individual and "It is certain" which he called "objective certainty" where the certainty is expressing a wider social opinion, which most often has been repeatedly "proven" in different ways.3 A question coming to my mind concerning the traditional definition is how one can establish something beyond doubt, and how one can know something definite. Using myself as an example: When I first came to study in Wales, I was absolutely certain that it was the Norwegian Viking Leiv Eiriksson who first discovered America. When we discussed the topic in class, I was quite surprised that the people from more continental Europe claimed they were certain that Christopher Columbus was the one. Following a Chinese girl came up with a Chinese name and an Arab with an Arabic name, all of us equally convinced that we were right. An indigenous American girl then raised her hand and said: "Well, I am certain that none of them discovered anything, because my people had already been living there for thousands of years when any of those first came!"4 These opinions are all expressions of subjective certainty, but at the same time a result of something perceived to be objective certainties in the countries we have originated from. By saying that, I mean that I am certain it was Leiv Eiriksson because I am relying on and believing in our ancient scripts and an authority both in the form of the Norwegian education and from what the older generations have passed on to me about it being certain. This means that in Norway, there is a "collective subjective certainty" (appearing to be an objective certainty), a wider social consensus where it has been assumed to be true and thereafter named "knowledge" that it was Leiv Eiriksson who discovered America. Knowledge will then be referring to those propositions that we are convinced are true, however that does not necessarily mean that they are universally and definitely true. The Norwegians have here justified their knowledge by combining the limited evidence we have with our passionate conviction, on the larger scale, outside of our borders the theory will most likely not be justified, as people will be reading the Norwegian evidence differently and claim that it cannot be proven. From the contemporary world's point of view, most people will probably argue it is certain that the indigenous people of America were the ones who first discovered her. Even though this is supported by both empirical evidence in the form of archaeological findings and logic in addition to the wider consensus, how is it more certain than the Norwegian belief? Can we ignore the possibility of aliens having landed in America thousands of years before apes had even thought about starting to walk upright as humans?
