Theory of Knowledge, Theory of Man and it Relationship with Corporate Governance

Knowledge from a general perspective is known to us as the awareness of the absolute or

universal truth or ideas or forms which can exist without any subject or person apprehending
or understanding them. But knowledge for application purpose cannot exist without someone
apprehending them or using them for material or immaterial reason.
Any idea or categorized concept can be considered as knowledge only if it is supported by
rich reason and against it there is no contradictory reason as rich as that.
Search for knowledge continuously is the connection between knowledge and corporate
governance. As we know that corporate governance is a collection of actions, mechanism,
process, communication and compliance that lead a company to better control situation and
direction. Corporate governance essentially need to know the reason behind human behavior
and the process system of human being. And as the wrongdoings of human being can be
attributed to either the self-interest of a man or imperfection of knowledge, we cannot expect
governance where the reason is unexplained.
Through the passage of time the Human being has evolved, though some form of evolution
could not be proven yet adaptation is evident and cannot be denied and therefore the Theory
of Evolution has gained wide acceptance among scientists specially the paleontologists,
though the origin of life is too vague to describe even by cosmologists who only provides
theory regarding this issue from panspermia to even alien controlled or some intergalactic
spirits controlled origin and evolution. Knowledge develops in the way when we can ask
question, if questions cant be asked then knowledge cannot forward, oppositely knowledge
acquiring or scientific development stops where it cannot ask question or cannot get answer.
If we ask why the magnet attracts the iron we are likely to answer that because of
magnetism and also the magnetic bond rule this incident happens. If we again ask why this
magnetism happens the answer will again be like because of the atomic structure of magnet
and iron and their coming close together and electron sharing rules (paramagnetic,
diamagnetism) this magnetism happens. But if we again ask that why this electron sharing is
a rule? Why it happens? We may never find an answer. So the knowledge seeking has
stopped there, in future maybe we may advance in the field about why electronic sharing is a
rule? or may know why because of light the photosynthesis takes place? but may again
face new challenge and maybe the ultimate knowledge will stay unknown to us (other than
Page | 1

knowledge in mathematics), but we must ask questions as much we can to seek knowledge
further contribute to the human progress.
Knowledge never seek to stop, it wants to flourish, corporate governance on the other hand is
also not a settled issue, and it continues to question existing system, existing process and
procedure. Corporate governance and pure knowledge is therefore alike in nature and that is
they never stop asking question, they never settle with existing condition, never stops with an
answer and they never stop flourishing.
Before arriving at any conclusive statement we must all of these three issues , i.e., (1) Theory
of Knowledge (2) Theory of Man and (3) Corporate Governance.
We start with the discussion on Theory of knowledge.

The nature of knowledge:

Knowledge depends on a number of issues from biological to strictly philosophical. But all of
this issue are not settled as well and they contradict each other in numerous cases. Acquiring
knowledge involves confusion or suspicion and thinking about alternatives if any. Knowledge
is not always structural. But it can be studied. The branch of philosophy that studies
knowledge to understand its source and direction is called Epistemology. Some knowledge
may be true or adequate or some knowledge can be false (inadequate). The first idea about
knowledge was that it is absolute and permanent, but today most of the academicians and
scholars believe that knowledge is relative or situation dependent. So theory of knowledge
has become more adaptive and active. The definition that we have given at the first of this
discussion was that knowledge is awareness of the absolute. but that is what Plato and
students of his school of thought believed. Aristotle put more emphasis on the logical and
empirical methods of gathering knowledge, but he didnt deny that knowledge also comes
from apprehension of universal principles as well. Therefore there was two main
epistemological position on knowledge gathering, which are (1) Empiricism: Which
considers knowledge as an outcome of sensory perception and (2) Rationalism: Which sees
knowledge as the product of rational reflection.
Knowledge often depends on cognitive bound of a person. Arrow (1974) considered
knowledge as signals and how we modify the knowledge. But the genesis of knowledge is
mostly unexplained still now.
Knowledge is an Ideology?
Page | 2

Sociologists often compared belief and ideology with knowledge. But it seemed to us that
they talked more about sociology of belief rather than sociology of knowledge. The also
explained that belief and knowledge is an ideology that reflects the structure of a society.
Knowledge is a Transfer of Information?
Knowledge according to management scholars is transfer of knowledge. Thereby they believe
that knowledge is more about transfer than creation.
Knowledge is a Process of Physiology?
Biology scholars considers that knowledge is a process of memory and the brain which holds
it. But according to biology the nature of knowledge is unknown. Knowledge is relative
according to biologists as well.
Knowledge is a Justified Belief?
Philosophy considers knowledge as justified belief, which indicates that human knowledge is
imperfect because justification is an evaluation process, and the evaluation may or may not
end where it is now. Only philosophical point of view talk us about the actual knowledge
creation process. But there are different philosophical position of source of knowledge.
Does Knowledge Come from Observation and Experience?
Many philosophers such as Aristotle and David Hume contends that Knowledge come from
observation and experience mainly. In nature there can be many causes of an effect(s) or
many effects of a causes(s). To find the approximate cause or effect requires experience and
practical/material observation. Also the analytical ability, cognitive correspondence ability
and logical induction or deduction ability of every person is not same. To justify a belief
according to Aristotle school of thought we need to know about the society and its structure,
social transformation and relation and communication among men. Most scholars of
Aristotles school of thought were agnostic. Their value process was agnostic empiricism.
Does Knowledge Come from Pure reason or Priori ?
Another group believe that knowledge comes from pure reason or very rich reason or
Priori. Priori comes independent of empirical evidence. Immanuel Kant and Gottfried
Wilhelm Leibniz are two of the proponent supporters of this school of thought. Revision of
belief is less allowed in this school of thought than the Aristotle school of thought. Most of
the scholars of this school of though was against radicalism both in belief and non-belief.
Page | 3

Immanuel Kant for example was strong critique of Church order and radicalized theocracy,
but he was also strong opponent of less knowledgeable non-believers who didnt know about
the European Enlightenment but was radical supporters of atheism. Kant is said to be the
pivotal person in modern philosophy. Leibniz believed in supernatural spirit but not what
many of us believe in, he talked about God who is not omnipotent, i.e., a God who cannot do
and be present everywhere.
What does Epistemology Says about Knowledge?
Epistemology suggests that there are several causes and effects of an act or event and thereby
epistemic knowledge or better knowledge is created by choosing the strongest or proximate
cause(s) or effect(s). Thus this theory of knowledge of philosophy is used in analyzing and
amplifying social and business theories and experience for the purpose of illuminating the
theory of knowledge. Therefore for epistemic justification of knowledge there must be
understanding about the society, social structure, social transformation, social stratification,
human interaction and communication. In corporate governance the business theories and
experience such as self-interest, agency relation, separation of ownership and management
and resource based production function can be further illuminated by the philosophic
definition of knowledge. But knowledge must bring peace.
Corporate Governance and Philosophy of Knowledge:
Like corporate Governance the philosophy of knowledge is that there is no limit in search for
alternative better or pure process. Corporate governance faces a number of challenges and
obstruction in its way. By implementing a standard rules or regulation the governance cannot
run smoothly for years to come for even a same subject rather than for different subject in
different settings. Therefore we need cross examination and need to consider each
understanding of knowledge and thereby merging them into a synthesized version of
knowledge we can achieve epistemic unity of though and can find common ground or
common value. Corporate governance cannot accept a strict prescription if not backed by a
rich reason or belief. And rich reason is very rare in the nature , therefore corporate
governance must depend on epistemic justification of knowledge and try to implement
situation dependent and adaptive knowledge. There cannot be one size fits all setting. The
corporate governance also must take steps on condition that exist according to reflection
correspondence theory of knowledge. According to reflection correspondence theory

Page | 4

knowledge has no priori or rich reason but it maps the external objects or instruments
through sensory organs and reacts to the setting.
Epistemic Unity of Thought and Corporate Governance
Though it is not necessary for knowledge to have epistemic unity, or synthesized
knowledge it is necessary for corporate governance to utilize some form of synthesized
knowledge to reduce intensity of resistance and to promote peace and stability. It is not
developed in one day from the philosophy of Immanuel Kant these idea about keeping a
room for some synthesis came and by the years it has developed, and is widely accepted
today. Because knowledge can be considered as universal but its situation dependence and
adapting to the environment should not be neglected. If the philosophy of knowledge conflict
with each other there should be a combination of knowledge, if so then the application of the
knowledge can achieve a solution. Therefore only the plurality of knowledge and synthesis of
knowledge can achieve this stable situation and peace, but it is not necessary that the
epistemic unity is the truth, only the outcome of epistemic unity is the main concern.
According to George Herbert Meads sociology of thinking human being has high reflex and
she thinks and experiences from the overlook of other. As knowledge is a plural process and
belief is a singular process it is knowledge that corporate governance seek not singular belief.
Imperfection of Knowledge and Corporate Governance:
Imperfection of knowledge is inherent in every person in different intensity, when a priori or
pure reason is absent or when a person has cognitive limitation this imperfection happens.
The imperfection may happen due to single belief and unwilling to change even if that single
belief is wrong. Corporate governance cannot tolerate stagnation of thinking, and
imperfection of knowledge if the imperfection is evident. Though it is indicated in philosophy
that we cannot create knowledge only belief or justified belief, corporate governance
emphasizes on only justified beliefs, not simply belief. Therefore revision of belief is
must. Revision of belief must not be taken lightly, it may find out new finding that has richer
reason or it may back up existing belief. We should not either expect existing belief to be
supported or expect mandatory outcome of alternative, we should have freedom of mind, that
is the main aim corporate governance all along. Without pure reasons or priori such as those
behind why telling truth is good? or why Hippocratic oath is mandatory for every doctor?
we should be able to question every belief. But also to find better alterative not just any
alternative. A prejudiced mind is a poisoned mind, therefore although having high cognitive
Page | 5

ability a person can do wrong when she has bounded limitation in belief. Often nature can be
misread therefore we should continue to find better alternative as long as it is possible and
logical. Because human opinion tends to take a definite form universally, if that opinion is
accepted and passes levels of acceptance from individual to family to society to nation and to
the world as a whole.

Justified Belief when Knowledge creation is far ahead?

If we continuously search for knowledge and fail to create knowledge as philosophy of
knowledge we can take justified belief for the purpose of corporate governance. Because the
main purpose of corporate governance stands as maximize truth and minimize falsity, to
amass a large body of beliefs with a favorable truth-falsity ratio. Justified belief can be used
for corporate governance as long as there is no belief having better justification. But when
better justification comes that particular belief can replace existing belief. Justification
reasons are also not overriding, they are independent and exist without apprehension or use.
There should be certain ground of justified beliefs, propositions and perceptions as follows:
(1) They may be justified by certain relations that they bear to what is directly evident,
(2) They may be justified by certain relations that they bear to each other,
(3) They may be justified by their own nature and quiet independent of the relations that
they bear to anything else.
We have known previously that priori or pure reason depends not on sensory experience but
on logical principles, though it was not widely accepted by Aristotle or David Hume the
proponents of Empiricism. When we talk about justified belief it must be like empirical
comparison of different perception or belief. When priori is evident there is little scope for a
justified belief, but unlike the experience or observation, a priori is very difficult to come by.
So, often corporate governance is based on justified belief.
Use of Knowledge or Creation of Knowledge?
In corporate governance creation of knowledge is not absolutely necessary, use of existing
knowledge is reasonable for most cases. From the evolutionary epistemology or synthesis of
knowledge we have come to know that a collaboration between different field of
understanding of knowledge can eventually lead to stable and better corporate governance.
But again meme of or replication of existing knowledge can be used for corporate
Page | 6

governance as well. It is also known that knowledge seeking comes to an end at death, but the
replication of the knowledge already within the society creation of relevant knowledge may
be possible as well. As we know that knowledge does not depend on a single individual it
flourishes. Therefore the concept of constructivism or individual constructivism is very risky
and thereby social constructivism is needed.
Field of Knowledge and Corporate Governance
Corporate governance do not specify a single field of knowledge or single philosophy of
knowledge. All field and all philosophy are considered. From economic and business point of
view to material science and philosophy every field of knowledge must be utilized is
necessary for good governance. Therefore coherent knowledge is a necessary for corporate
governance. As we have also came to know from David Humes Theory of Human
understanding that the though process of different person from different background and
current condition is different therefore they must be individually characterized only to create
connection between them and their understanding that they consider as knowledge.
Knowledge through Discrimination for Good Governance?
Many philosophers believed that knowledge is often derived from discrimination this
philosophers was those who also believed that knowledge is transfer of information. The
difference between good governance and bad governance is often accredited to information
availability and relevant information flow.
Corporate Governance in case of Independent Reasoning
The self-interested behavior of human being is essentially dependent reasoning. But the
concept of independent reason essentially comes from a free man thinking out of the
boundary of self-interest, group interest or class interest. For corporate governance
independent reasoning is a good practice.
Theory of Human Understanding and Corporate Governance
There is essential connection among ideas that people from different background possess.
This connection is based on three principles, i.e. resemblance, contiguity of time and place
and cause & effect. A mention of a particular corporate governance situation bring the image
of that condition which is known as resemblance. The mention of geographic and period wise
practice of corporate governance gives us the idea of contiguity of space and time. If we see a

Page | 7

good corporate governance motivation of the employees and trust of the shareholders will
follow that is cause and effect.
Conclusion on Connection between Theory of Knowledge and Corporate Governance
Through the passage of time it has been evident that knowledge comes from a variety of
sources and the epistemological study has justified that no one philosopher of knowledge is
absolutely right about the source and nature of knowledge. Knowledge seeks to ask question
and seeks to get answers to it , and the most justified answer is the key to good corporate
governance. As knowledge creation and justification never stops, corporate never seek to
stop, it wants to flourish in every way and every manner possible. Peoples tendency to seek
knowledge and further the existing body of knowledge eventually provide momentum to
corporate of governance. Therefore, the Theory of Knowledge is integrated to the origin
and development of corporate governance.

Page | 8