Chambliss (1989:163) indicated that Plato firmly believed that the uniqueness of humankind, the humanity of human beings, arises in thought. Knowledge is virtue and begins with sensory observations and is extended through reason (Allen 1985:19). Plato continued and said that knowledge is made perfect by faith, which transforms knowledge into meaning and purpose (Chambliss 1989:164). Thought is both necessary and inadequate. It is necessary because it has to open the way to faith, but it is also inadequate because deeper insights are felt as well as understood (Hetherington 2003:39). Human thought reaches beyond the senses to grasp the eternal and changeless (Allen 1985:30). In Plato’s epistemology he draws something of a division between what is sensible and what can be grasped by the intellect only (Allen 1985:47).

In order to highlight this he described three images, namely the sun, the divided line and the cave (Sosa 2008:37). In this process the importance of eyes that must be able to see (observe) and the need of light (sun) is accentuated. The Form of the Good gives the objects of the intellect their truth and to the person who grasps truth, the power of knowledge (Allen 1985:47). In Plato’s second analogy of divided lines, a line is first divided to represent the visible world (appearances or phenomena) and the intelligible world (reality). Each segment is also divided that represents degrees of clarity (Allen 1985:50). In one of Plato’s dialogues, the Republic, a philosophy of people who are unknowingly imprisoned, is told (Hetherington 2003:43). The people are chained in the cave without any experience of the world outside. The problem is that they are not aware of the lack of knowledge. The people inside the cave even have social interaction with each other. Anyone who wants to enter the cave and tell the people about reality will experience disbelief from the people. Their happiness lies in their ignorance, while understanding of the world is lacking (Furley 2007:2; Hetherington 2003:43). Plato tried to warn people about the danger of misleading themselves and their conception about reality. He tried to underline the fact that there is something (cognition) beyond everyday life.

Plato’s description on human caves is important in practical theological reflection. To be unaware of the outside world is nothing else to lose touch with reality. The challenge in practical theological investigation is really to become aware of the world and not only of the reality of God’s Word. People must learn to know (understand) more about the world they are living in without withdrawing into caves. Without understanding (cognition) of ourselves, the Word of God and also the world we are living in, people tend to misunderstand the meaning of life. This is according to Plato also the difference between a meaningful and meaningless life (Hetherington 2003:44). In Plato’s description the essence of the process of knowing and also of the gathering of information are coming to the surface.

Plato used the concept of phren (Greek word) to denote something physical but also to denote the inner person. The phronesis of the soul means receptivity (Bromiley 1985:1277). Phronesis and sofia are interchangeable. Therefore phronesis is the right state of the intellect and also the source of virtue. To educate somebody is to admonish them towards phronesis and truth (Bromiley 1985:1277). The problem with Plato’s thinking was the fact that he firmly believed that nobody can both believe and know the one truth, something of I do not believe it, but I know it (Hetherington 2003:135). Knowledge is something that one’s reason is giving to him or her. Plato in this way opened the way for mere intellectual thinking about cognition. In his epistemological thinking there was a definite abyss between knowing and believing.

According to Aristotle, everyone by nature desires to know (Furley 2007:3). The greatest pleasure comes from knowledge of whatever in nature and is eternal (Furley 2007:3). Allen (1985:117) indicated that logic was not a science or body of knowledge for Aristotle. Aristotle divided sciences into theoretical sciences, practical sciences and productive sciences. Logic was the preparation for the study of these sciences. Logic teaches people to reason rightly so as to gain knowledge (Allen 1985:117). Aristotle was concerned about the question: what is the best possible way in which a person can live? His discussion about this topic became influential in history (Hetherington 2003:49). The question has to do with what the point of life is and also the issue about whether there must be a point in life. He was concerned about a certain form of happiness which he called eudaimonia (Warburton 2005:175). Hetherington (2003:50) also indicated that Aristotle was concerned about the supreme good there could be in living as a person. To have eudaimonia is not the same as subjective experience of pleasure but rather has to with the flourishing of life (Hetherington 2003:49). Flourishing of life has to with acting according to virtue and intellect (Sosa 2008:84). No animal is capable of this practical and intellectual wisdom. Furley (2007:118) referred to Aristotle’s view on happiness and indicated that the human soul can be divided into rational and also non-rational parts. The rational part is concerned with intellectual virtues that can be called phronesis or practical wisdom (Furley 2007:119). The virtue of thought comes mostly from teaching and in some cases it is acquired very early. Teaching also steers people in learning the correct habits of virtue (Furley 2007:119). The ability to comprehend (phronesis) only belongs to a few and is denoting the idea of moral insight or knowledge that leads to a virtuous life.

Aristotle distinguished the theory of what he called hylemorphism (matter and form). The two principles of matter and form are something that everything consists of (Van der Walt 1981:44). Matter is the bodily things in Aristotle’s thinking and form is the soul. The notion of purpose of man is, according to Aristotle, thinking something to think of and man’s ability to express his rationality, the rational soul (Sosa 2008:62). The nous of humans activates the form of man, his rational soul (Van der Walt 1981:44). Thinking itself became the originator and creator in Aristotle’s thinking. Therefore Aristotle’s epistemology was merely empiricistic (Sosa 2008:317).

According to Aristotle people have scientific understanding of something when they believe they know the cause (aitia) of something. Aristotle begins with terms, then analyses the syllogism, which is an arrangement of several propositions (form of rational arguments). Aristotle’s view on science was that of a deductive science, from the general to the particular (Allen 1985:118). People take premises that are known to be true and then draw conclusions that are also known to be true, because it emanates from the premises (Sosa 2008:10). The theory of syllogistic reasoning is, according to Aristotle, concerned with the relation between premises and the conclusion (syllogism). In his epistemology he reckoned with indemonstrable starting points (Warburton 2005:175). The thinking of Aristotle has influenced many philosophers and it could also be fair to say that it also dominated history for a long period of time (Allen 1985:160).

Although much critical voices can be added to Aristotle’s contribution and to the fact that thinking was merely his god, it must be stated that his insights on thinking and ethics are something practical theologians can elaborate on. The flourishing of human life is another aspect that is important in practical theological epistemology. To be moral and to have the knowledge about living in a moral manner is also a very important aspect that can be learned from Aristotle’s thinking. It became clear from the above discussion that people’s knowledge about life really matters. Knowledge is not just about intellectual things but also about the empirical reality.

Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonise Aristotle with Christian doctrine (Allen 1985:152). Thomas distinguished between two types of knowledge, namely knowledge (cognition) about God and knowledge of the cosmos (Van der Walt 1981:144). Faith also has the characteristic of knowing. Thomas Aquinas, in distinction to Plato and Aristotle, highlighted the important fact that faith is no uncertain matter. To keep reckoning with cognition in practical theological research is also to have cognisance about the fact that faith also has to do with the dimensions of understanding and knowing. Thomas Aquinas also highlighted the existence of two kinds of cognitive activities, namely a speculative cognition and also a practical cognition (Van der Walt 1981:144). In the speculative cognition thought is playing a major role while the human will is playing a predominant role in practical cognition. Thinking has to with knowledge and the will with actions. Thomas regarded knowledge of the universal things as important (Warburton 2005:555). Knowledge is guided by the senses of people because knowledge is gathered through human senses. Science is not about facts according to Thomas. Science has to do with universal causes and must prove why things are like they are (Van der Walt 1981:144). Thomas Aquinas thinking has to do with knowledge of the universal things. It could also be fair to say that knowledge on the causality of things was important in his thinking. Faith and knowledge are functions of the human intellect (Van der Walt 1981:146). Faith has the function of a bridge between the processes of opinions (opinion), faith (fides) and knowing (scientia). Faith is more solid that opinions, but not so secure as knowledge (Van der Walt 1981:146). The human thought is preparing the way for faith, something that Thomas described as the preambula fidei. Within the preambula fidei is the rational thought of the existence of God (Van der Walt 1981:147). Thomas Aquinas was concerned about the fides quarens intellectum (reasonable faith). Although Thomas did not keep reckoning with pneumatology, it is still important to note his perspective on the reasonable faith, the process in which people are trying to make sense about faith.

Allen (1985:171) believes that modern philosophy starts with Descartes. Descartes was concerned about epistemology and also about the grounds for certainty. Descartes believed that all knowledge is infallible (Hetherington 2003:137). Mathematics was for Descartes the ideal of all knowledge (Furley 2007:123). His method of arriving at certainty is to begin by doubting everything which can be doubted until the researcher finds which facts cannot be doubted (Allen 1985:172). In this instance, Descartes wanted to free people from their dependence on sense perception and prejudices. He was sure and certain about one thing, namely cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) (Allen 1985:175). Descartes brought to the foreground that human’s minds also matter (Furley 2007:122). People know via reason. Descartes, though, did not indicate that people’s minds are really as strong and powerful as he indicated. Cartesian epistemology consists of two projects, namely identifying criteria by which we ought to regulate acceptance and rejection of beliefs in order to determine what is said to know according those criteria (Sosa 2008:538). The big question in Descartes mind was what kind of propositions are worthy of belief? The concept of justification is still also the dominant concept in modern epistemology. The concept of knowing and of cognition was a dominant thought, also in the thinking of Descartes.

Kant was concerned about the issue on how we can know the world around us (Hetherington 2003:138). Kant is famous for his ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ (Hetherington 2003:138). Kant was like Plato, also concerned with how do we know of the world around us? (cf. the description of Plato). Kant‘s view has an interesting side, namely that we know of the world around us through experience (Furley 2007:124). Experience is much more than sensations, though, because sensations also need interpretation (Hetherington 2003:138). People possess a prior ability to interpret sensations. Experience can tell people that a thing is so, but not that it must be so (Allen 1985:205). Kant distinguished between phenomena (objects as they appear) and noumena (objects as they are in themselves). Only the phenomena could be known by people (Hetherington 2003:139). Nobody can know what the world is like in itself. Knowledge or cognition of the world relies on our senses interacting with the world (Hetherington 2003:139). Kant highlighted the perspective that people are experiencing things about other people and life. Experiences must be interpreted (cognition). It is evident that the essence of cognition is also a main line in Kant’s reasoning.

In the discussion on the views of the philosophers, certain concepts were identified, namely understanding, meaning, knowledge, the tension between know and believe, knowledge, the role of human experience and the living of a moral life. Although much can be said in order to criticise the philosophers, it is evident that knowledge and the understanding of people and life were important also during the times of the philosophers. The essence of cognition, although it was not coined by the philosophers, is eminent from this discussion. The tension between knowing and believing that the philosophers experienced is also relevant in modern thinking. In the positive sense of the word two important issues were raised in this subsection, namely the knowledge of what is happening in daily life and also the process of knowing or living of a moral life. Thinking and trying to make sense (cognition) of what you are thinking is important for people. Practical Theology can link up with these two important issues in research on cognition. On the other hand the description on the philosophical roots of the process of knowing was also a danger sign for any reflection on the epistemology in Practical Theology, namely that research could be wrongly seen as merely an intellectual activity. Therefore the next subsection could be helpful in avoiding the danger of mere intellectualism.

In the opinion of Weiten (1992:270) cognition refers to the mental processes involved in acquiring knowledge. Cognition has to do with thinking. Baron and Byrne (1994:108) highlighted on their turn the need of people to think about and increase their understanding of people and events. They also indicated the fact that when people are experiencing positive feelings (affect), difficult tasks seem easier to deal with. On the contrary, people tend to cope with great difficulty to tasks and problems when they are experiencing negative feelings (Baron & Byrne 1994:115). People’s emotional experience is influenced not only by their concrete situation, but also by their cognitive observation, appraisal or interpretation of that particular situation (Eysenck & Keane 2010:571–572).

Swartz and De La Rey (2004:215) referred to the famous metaphor of Piaget that described cognition as interiorised action. Therefore thinking involves thinking by doing and to put patterns of action together. Bergh and Theron (2006:373) described cognition as the processes of knowing. The following four aspects are important, namely:

It is important to note that people in their relationship with the environment like to be active, to explore, to manipulate, to control, to create and to accomplish things (Louw & Louw 2007:23). Fiske (2004:123) although offered a different angle on this topic by indicating that cognition also constitutes the process by which people think about and try to make sense of other people, themselves and also their social situation. Eysenck and Keane (2010:35) referred to the role of visual perception for everyday which allows people to see and observe people with whom they are interacting. People rely on visual perception to be accurate to ensure their own safety. According to Eysenck and Keane (2010:36) the functioning of visual perceptions has to do with the functioning of people’s senses (people see, they hear, they taste, they feel). Louw and Edwards (1998:149) rightfully indicated that people’s observation of other people is not just a biological matter. All people have something that can be called a perceptual disposition. People’s observation of things and other people are influenced by a certain kind of framework (orientation framework). People are exposed to learning processes in which they are constantly receiving information data about their environment and about people, but in this learning process often forget about orientation frameworks based on perceptual dispositions.

The danger also exists that the observation (the utilisation of senses) of other people could be wrong (Fiske 2004:121). Therefore the role and functioning of cognition is really important, because of the fact that people continuously tend to form opinions about other people and also consider the fact if other people are making sense to them (Baron & Byrne 1994:108). It is important to realise that the process of knowing is not just an element of personality but it is the entire personality (Bergh & Theron 2006:374). People are active gatherers of information relevant to make decisions. Information from the environment comes in through the senses and is processed or coded for storage in a systematic arrangement for later use. Later on it is decoded and combined with other available information in order to guide action (Bergh & Theron 2006:375). Without acknowledging the concept of cognition as lens Practical Theology could fall short in its epistemology and in its praxis.

In their attempt to make sense of people, things, and also the social environment, people can make a floater. Fiske (2004:123–127) highlighted the following aspects that influence the acts of people:

Louw and Edwards (1998:548–549) on their turn accentuated the functioning of cognitive distortions.

The following types of cognitive distortions could be distinguished, namely:

What is the reason for the functioning and existing of cognitive distortions? One of the major reasons for this is misguided schemes (Fiske 2004:143 and also Barker & Angepoulo 2010:67). The problem with this kind of scheme is that it is been created during the early stages of childhood. These automatic thoughts about other people could be so wrong that it have a negative impact on social interaction between people and also between people from different cultures (Barker & Angepoulo 2010:68). A schema is a cognitive structure containing the attributes of a concept or type of stimulus and the relationships among the attributes (Fiske 2004:143). Schemas are helping persons to organise and anticipate the data they are experiencing. New information is understood by reference to the old, familiar schemas and expectations. Mitchell (2008:19) underlined the fact that every human experience is in interaction with a specific person, place or thing. Abstract ideas may flit through the rational processes, but the well-remembered experience of the whole person (body, mind and spirit) always begins with sense reported data (Mitchell 2008:19). Human experiences are recalled through the memory as images or pictures. The mind senses what is happening through eyes, ears, nose, tongue and touch. The chain effect of cognitive distortions is even more concerning when considering the fact that it also influences people’s ability to make or create perspectives of what they are receiving through their senses (Louw & Louw 2007:305). The ability of perspective-making has to do with the ability to view life from the perspective of other people. Within the field of Practical Theology the communicative acts that are investigated are relying on good and healthy cognition. People are seeing, hearing, smelling, touching and feeling things or acts in their lives. People are trying their best to make sense of this and try their best to give meaning to what they are experiencing (cognition), but the danger exists that their cognitions could go wrong. The ability of perspective-making is really important in practical theological thinking. The focus of Practical Theology has indeed to do with the process in which practical theologians and believers are trying to make sense about acts, people and events.

In studies on moral development it is also evident that scholars are linking up with the subject of cognition (thinking, understanding, trying to make sense) and moral values. It was also a distinct line in the subsection on the philosophical roots of the concept of cognition. To live a moral life and to develop theories in Practical Theology in order to enable people to live in a moral manner requires knowledge about people, circumstances and reality. It also requires a definite attempt to articulate theories in such a manner that it will make sense to people. It must be sensible.

Louw and Louw (2007:340–342) highlighted the fact that cognitive science is also interested in moral development of people and underlined the following important aspects regarding the relationship between cognition and moral development. They referred to Kohlberg’s theory of what he called a cognitive perspective on moral development. According to the authors the following aspects are important:

In this discussion it became clear that people are trying to make sense of their social lives, moral reasoning and also of other people. People are trying to justify their views and opinions on the ground of their own cognition and understanding of life. They are trying to find justified answers in order to help them with moral decisions. In their attempt to try and make sense of life there is also the danger of distortions. The process of trying to make sense (cognition) and also to make moral choices could go wrong because of cognitive distortions. It is important to act in all the different spheres of life and in order to do this, knowledge (grounded cognition) is needed in order to promote perspective-making. In this process moral decisions are required from people in South Africa’s society regarding moral decline and societal issues. Therefore a brief discussion on the concept of phronesis is needed.