I’ve been working with a graduate student on Buddhist philosophy. We are especially looking at Buddhist epistemology. The First Noble Truth says: “All is dukkha,” which can be understood as “all is change,” or “all is impermanent.” This can be applied in epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. Here I am thinking about epistemology: all is change or impermanence and so knowledge as permanence is not possible (what we claim to know now will change—all is change).
We do not need to confuse this with humility. We should be humble and open to rethinking what we claim. Nor is this the same as recognizing the frailty of the human condition. We are prone to error and some would even say we are fallen.
Instead, this is a statement about the nature of reality itself. It is a kind of feedback loop: because all is impermanent there is nothing permanent to know; and, because all of what I know can change I would never know what is permanent.
This could be taken to be a statement about the limits of knowledge or about knowledge itself. Our beliefs are always revisable. All beliefs can change because all is change. What we think we know today may very well change tomorrow. Or it might mean all of our beliefs change over time and even moment by moment.
This is incompatible with theism and is why Buddhist philosophy is sometimes said to be a-theist (that does not mean materialist). In theism God is eternal, permanent, real, and the human mind can have knowledge about God which is therefore lasting and permanent.
From this we can see how our presuppositions shape our epistemology. If we begin with “all is impermanent” we also end up with a specific view of epistemology. This presupposition is in the background of many contemporary theories of knowledge without having direct influence from Buddhism. It is often difficult to even get this kind of presupposition into focus for a discussion to make progress. Must we begin with “all is change?” How can we know what to begin with?
However, I want to conclude by noting that all definitions of “knowledge” presuppose the law of identity. This is not just some definitions that speak about certainty. All knowledge claims are knowledge claims. This is true of the First Noble Truth. It affirms that all is dukkha and it does not claim “not all is dukkha.” Does this indicate that something is lasting and permanent?