Theory of Knowledge, Theory of Man and their 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 knowledge in mathematics), but we must ask questions as much we can to seek knowledge further contribute to the human progress. Knowledge never seeks 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 these issues 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 were two main epistemological positions 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. Corporate Governance:Corporate governance broadly refers to the mechanisms, processes and relations by which corporations are controlled and directed. Governance structures identify the distribution of rights and responsibilities among different participants in the corporation (such as the board of directors, managers, shareholders, creditors, auditors, regulators, and other stakeholders) and include the rules and procedures for making decisions in corporate affairs. Corporate governance includes the processes through which corporations' objectives are set and pursued in the context of the social, regulatory and market environment. Governance mechanisms include monitoring the actions, policies and decisions of corporations and their agents. Corporate governance practices are affected by attempts to align the interests of stakeholders. Interest in the corporate governance practices of modern corporations, particularly in relation to accountability, increased following the high-profile collapses of a number of large corporations during 20012002, most of which involved accounting fraud; and then again after the recent financial crisis in 2008. Corporate scandals of various forms have maintained public and political interest in the regulation of corporate governance. In the U.S., these include Enron and MCI Inc. (formerly WorldCom). Their demise is associated with the U.S. federal government passing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, intending to restore public confidence in corporate governance.Knowledge is an Ideology? 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 consider 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 talks us about the actual knowledge creation process. But there are different philosophical positions of source of knowledge. Does Knowledge Come from Observation and Experience?Many philosophers such as Aristotle and David Hume contend that Knowledge come from observation and experience mainly. In nature there can be many causes of an effect(s) or many effects of 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. 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 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 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 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 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 does not specify a single field of knowledge or single philosophy of knowledge. All fields 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 brings 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 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 ever 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 provides momentum to corporate of governance. Therefore, the Theory of Knowledge is integrated to the origin and development of corporate governance.

Theory of Human Evolution:Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years.Top of FormBottom of FormHuman Evolution:One of the earliest defining human traits, bipedalism -- the ability to walk on two legs -- evolved over 4 million years ago. Other important human characteristics -- such as a large and complex brain, the ability to make and use tools, and the capacity for language -- developed more recently. Many advanced traits -- including complex symbolic expression, art, and elaborate cultural diversity -- emerged mainly during the past 100,000 years.Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called pygmy chimpanzees) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa.Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many early human species -- certainly the majority of them left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early humans, and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species.Early humans first migrated out of Africa into Asia probably between 2 million and 1.8 million years ago. They entered Europe somewhat later, between 1.5 million and 1 million years. Species of modern humans populated many parts of the world much later. For instance, people first came to Australia probably within the past 60,000 years and to the Americas within the past 30,000 years or so. The beginnings of agriculture and the rise of the first civilizations occurred within the past 12,000 years.

The Process of Evolution: The process of evolution involves a series of natural changes that cause species (populations of different organisms) to arise, adapt to the environment, and become extinct. All species or organisms have originated through the process of biological evolution. In animals that reproduce sexually, including humans, the term species refers to a group whose adult members regularly interbreed, resulting in fertile offspring -- that is, offspring themselves capable of reproducing. Scientists classify each species with a unique, two-part scientific name. In this system, modern humans are classified as Homo sapiens.Evolution occurs when there is change in the genetic material -- the chemical molecule, DNA -- which is inherited from the parents, and especially in the proportions of different genes in a population. Genes represent the segments of DNA that provide the chemical code for producing proteins. Information contained in the DNA can change by a process known as mutation. The way particular genes are expressed that is, how they influence the body or behavior of an organism -- can also change. Genes affect how the body and behavior of an organism develop during its life, and this is why genetically inherited characteristics can influence the likelihood of an organisms survival and reproduction.Evolution does not change any single individual. Instead, it changes the inherited means of growth and development that typify a population (a group of individuals of the same species living in a particular habitat). Parents pass adaptive genetic changes to their offspring, and ultimately these changes become common throughout a population. As a result, the offspring inherit those genetic characteristics that enhance their chances of survival and ability to give birth, which may work well until the environment changes. Over time, genetic change can alter a species' overall way of life, such as what it eats, how it grows, and where it can live. Human evolution took place as new genetic variations in early ancestor populations favored new abilities to adapt to environmental change and so altered the human way of life.

Culture: Culture has many definitions, and it affects everything people do in their society because of their ideas, values, attitudes, and normative or expected patterns of behavior. Culture is not genetically inherited, and cannot exist on its own, but is always shared by members of a society (Hall 1976, p. 16). Hofstede (1980, pp. 21-23) defines culture as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group from another, which is passed from generation to generation, it is changing all the time because each generation adds something of its own before passing it on. It is usual that ones culture is taken for granted and assumed to be correct because it is the only one, or at least the first, to be learned. Culture is a complex concept, and no single definition of it has achieved consensus in the literature. So, out of the many possible definitions examined, the following definition guides this study: culture is a set of shared and enduring meaning, values, and beliefs that characterize national, ethnic, or other groups and orient their behavior (Mulholland 1991).

The concept of Human Development:

A culture is, in a large part, influenced by its environment. Specifically, several environmental factors have been found to be important in shaping cultures predictability, ease, and interdependency of the people (Bhawuk & Triandis).Predictability of the environment can depend on things like natural disasters, war and peace, or the presence of similar or different kinds of people. When the environment is very unpredictable, such as when there is constant threat of hurricanes, people tend to be more spontaneous and engage less in planning, because planning is often not worth it. Systems may be created to give more support for the population as a whole, whose individuals are equally affected by such threats, rather than letting individuals fend for themselves.Ease or difficulty of the environment refers to the availability of resources. Some environments provide easy fulfillment of needs such as obtaining food and water. Other environments, for example, those in harsh climates, may make it difficult for individuals to gather and maintain resources. Such factors will obviously affect the extent that people need to organize.Also, the degree that people are interdependent, or must depend on each other to fulfill their needs, also shapes their culture. For instance, in a hunting society, the hunters may need to coordinate effectively to obtain food. They each depend on each other to do their part so that everyone can eat.Environmental demands such as these can affect how a group of people communicate and coordinate with each other, set up rules and norms for behavior, and think about the world. Their way of life becomes their culture, which is passed on from generation to generation.Nonetheless, the environment is not the only aspect that shapes culture. Although cultures influence individuals, individuals can also influence culture. We can see this effect, in an extreme way, with individuals such as Mahatma Grande. Cultures also evolve as the environment changes, including climate changes, the accommodation of other people and their culture, and technology changes or modernization.With the transmission of culture expansion of knowledge takes place.Language: The system of words or signs that people use to express thoughts and feelings to each other, any one of the systems of human language that are used and understood by a particular group of people, words of a particular kind.The development of knowledge also affected by the development of language as it helps in transmitting the knowledge from one group of people to another group of people. By this process the present knowledge develops, purifies and ultimately flourishes with its own beauty.

The Relation between the theory of evolution and corporate governance:

Corporate governance is a new born baby of the mother knowledge that is yet to be explored. Nothing much have been done on this issue as we know the concept is not present in many country of the world it is also a very much judgmental issue with the passage of time the human being evolved and with the passage of time knowledge flourished. Many branches of knowledge took birth with the time elapsed e.g. the science of making fire become knowledge when the ancient people rubbed one stone with other one but with the course of time the method of making fire have been changed but the basic knowledge remained the same. As we know that the baby needs care and love for its proper development we mentioned it earlier that corporate governance is a new born baby so it is needed to be taken care of and also need appropriate exploration and nourishment for its improvement. Thus the new branch of knowledge can ameliorate. As the corporate governance is comparatively new issue and without gaining proper knowledge one cannot achieve good governance so in this part knowledge is a must as we know that the development of knowledge took place with the passage of time, a knowledgeable person is only able to ensure better governance. As time elapsed the inquisitive mind walked in different way by this process a development of current knowledge took place in the same manner the issue of corporate governance emerged as this issue being new little knowledge is available. It must be hoped that with the flow of time the knowledge must be flourished. We previously said that better knowledge ensures better governance and evolution of human being ensures better knowledge then it can be easily said that theory of human evolution facilitates better knowledge and subsequently better governance in other corporate governance. Page | 14