Who says a pen is a pen?

WHO SAYS A PEN IS A PEN?

In our first official Philosophy class, I was surprised to know how deep and rigid philosophy is. My mind was perfectly calm then. I’ve set my mood beforehand that I should really anticipate this class. Not only was I excited because I like the teacher but also it was the subject course I was foreseeing through, all over my college life. My expectations were set; of course, I laid down that our Philosophy class should be then active, one which is engrossed in pragmatic discussions, but how pragmatic should it be, I couldn’t convey.
So, all my attention was on the subject matter, how the teacher would impart to us the certain understanding, non-philosophy majors should grasp. A world with a different tone, I expected.
As the teacher commenced the class, all of us with our petite grip of what philosophy is, has been ask indeed how we would define philosophy in our most common understanding. We all comprehended the literal meaning of it, philosophia in Greek, meaning “the love of wisdom”. However, within that connotation one cannot just reside in it fully, needless to say, it must extend to something, right? Which is exactly what Sherjan, our teacher and at the same time, author of our book elaborated to us by introducing a subject of thought which we could relate on what we ought to know what philosophy is. A pen was highly presented in its cause.
A pen, a purely solid material in the make up was held and has been opinionated in its origin. He established by asking “What knowledge could you tell that the pen I’m holding is a pen?” I answered “common sense” but however, contributed no impact at all to the discussion. A classmate responded “because of its use that we know it is a pen”. Another rejoined that it is by experience. One answered back “it’s because it’s what society laid down to us” and the other for the reason of its existence.
So, anyway, how could we refute such knowledge that we know it was that knowledge which aided us that we know that it is a pen? I was thinking, its usage was a primary cause and is therefore too basic and therefore is not the right answer at all. Doubting myself, I even questioned my senses, if there is indeed a precise answer as to what we are discussing. He continued that if then a pen is out of ink and hence cannot write, would it cease its continuation being a pen? It was apparent that it cannot be. So, therefore it wasn’t usage.
Another claim would be that since we experienced it. It is in by the way of writing we know it is a pen. Nevertheless, construed to be false. A good instance would be, he retold that we are all sitting in chairs, which in fact true, and that he is sitting in a table. But never would he daresay, he is sitting in a chair while he’s on a table. So, what are we talking again? I reviewed my mind. At this point, I couldn’t derive any apparent answer why. Gaining back my sanity I sort of realized, indeed, a table is not a chair which you could call on, so how could one gain that kind of understanding anyway? The discussion continues.
With the contention that it is a pen given that society laid it so resulted groundless. Why? Is it so that if our society labels that it is a pen would other society labeled it as a pen also? What about the other people who does not belong into our circle, then significantly, it isn’t a pen to them because we haven’t passed down the clue that it is undeniably a pen.
Lastly, the “what we see, we believe” notion, is it because we see it that it is identified in its being? Sherjan baffled us with a rationale example of a candle. He let us visualize a room with four corners with a door in it. The people in that setting were lighting a candle in the middle of a room, and afterwards went out. Upon conveyance so, do we derived that the candle is still lighting? Ahead of this astonishing case, my paradigm continued to twist 360 degrees all over. By what means and wisdom do we acquire the idea that the candle is still lighting? I was really hooked up. Now, that was something new I encountered. Though, very basic actually into our postulation that such guess appeared to be true. What he stated to us is that we were just conferring assumptions. Thus, does knowledge emerges to be plain assumptions? But that ain’t knowledge at all. The problem with humans is that we are too assuming, it is that very confidence we know it is a pen, because it has been an assumption throughout and it follows that it’s not knowledge.
Perplexing indeed. At that aspect, I found myself clueless, a mere idiot, and a moron trying to learn things. He then began to launch that at least we know for the truth that we don’t know these things, because in not knowing these things, we obtain the energy to discover more. At least it is in that knowledge that we know we don’t know that which reminds what we know, he added.
Indeed, perhaps we don’t know our true selves. But those who knew who they are are the ones who established what’s their extent and therefore has a more reason for living. I associated myself with this undertone. In the past years of my life, I have been in an identity-crisis because of not knowing who I am. Only discerning my potentials, I hold on to what I believe to be me. And is it that I only recognize who I am because I have something to hold on to? No books could plainly elaborate it to me. But in his lesson, I grasped what is essential to know – the very knowledge which tells us how to convey things.
Though, there might not be a precise answer as to what I’m writing and therefore the puzzle prolongs. There is one thing I assume in here certainly. That a pen is a pen by not knowing it is a pen at all, the very knowledge of “I don’t know”. I know that I don’t know how this writing will influence others, but it is in questioning that philosophy becomes functional in the very being of the self.