When studying Theory of Knowledge (TOK), how do First Principles aid in analyzing the 'origin of knowledge'?

Hello, this is a very interesting question. I'll try to explain my thoughts in simple terms.

You can think of it this way: when we usually learn things and understand the world, it's often like "cooking by following a recipe." The recipe says add three spoons of salt, so we add three spoons of salt; it says stew for 20 minutes, so we stew for 20 minutes. This "recipe" represents the rules and knowledge we've heard from others, read in books, or that are generally accepted.

First Principles thinking, on the other hand, is like telling you not just to follow the recipe, but to ask: "Wait, why am I adding salt to this dish? What's the purpose of salt? Is it to enhance flavor? To dehydrate? Or to preserve? Besides salt, what else could achieve a similar effect? Soy sauce? Oyster sauce? What are their fundamental differences?"

You see, when you think this way, you're no longer simply copying the recipe. You start to explore the most fundamental elements and logic behind "cooking."

Now, let's return to TOK (Theory of Knowledge) and the question of "the origin of knowledge."

TOK itself asks some very fundamental questions, such as: "How do we know what we know?" and "What is the very first brick in the edifice of knowledge?"

We usually think that the origin of knowledge is simply "seeing is believing" – I saw it, so I know it. Or "what the teacher taught" or "what's written in books." These are like steps in a "recipe" that we've grown accustomed to and take for granted.

But if you analyze this using First Principles, you'll start to "challenge" these assumptions:

1. Challenging "seeing is believing":

   • What is the essence of the act of "seeing"? It's light entering my eyes, the retina converting it into electrical signals, and the brain then "interpreting" these signals.
   • Is this process 100% reliable? Light can be distorted (e.g., a chopstick in water appears bent), eyes get tired, and the brain's interpretation carries my past experiences and biases (e.g., various optical illusions).
   • Therefore, "seeing" itself is not an absolutely reliable, most fundamental "origin of knowledge." It's merely a channel through which we receive information, and this channel can be flawed. So, what is a more fundamental origin than "seeing"? Is it "I perceived a signal"? You see, this is where it starts to get deeper.

2. Challenging "logical reasoning":

   • Some say the origin of knowledge is logic and reason, like Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." He doubted everything, and finally realized that the act of doubting itself proved his existence. This seems like a very solid starting point.
   • But using First Principles, we continue to ask: "Where does logic itself come from? Why do we consider those most basic axioms (like A=A) to be true? Are they self-evident? Can they be broken down into more fundamental things? We rely on logic for reasoning, but what is the 'origin' of the reliability of logic as a tool itself?"

So, when analyzing "the origin of knowledge" with First Principles, its role isn't to give you a standard answer, saying "the origin is A" or "the origin is B."

Its function is to give you a sharp "knife," allowing you to peel back, layer by layer, all candidates claiming to be the "origin of knowledge" (such as senses, reason, language, memory, etc.), stripping away all the acquired, conventional, and taken-for-granted outer layers, to see what the hardest, irreducible "core" that remains is.

Using this method, you no longer blindly accept ready-made conclusions like "knowledge comes from the senses" or "knowledge comes from reason." Instead, you personally examine how solid the foundations of these conclusions are. This process of "personal examination and tracing back to the source" is itself the core spirit of the TOK course, and the greatest help that First Principles can offer. It transforms you from a "consumer" of knowledge into a "quality inspector" of knowledge.