From an early age I considered myself to be a skeptic of all different subjects. My mother said that I was always asking “why?” in order to find clarity as a child. I believe that this kind of skepticism lives in all human beings, and that a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing. According to Paul Kurtz, “A skeptic is one who is willing to question any knowledge claim, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic and adequacy of evidence.” With that being said to what extent does clarity in definition, consistency in logic, and adequacy of evidence validate a claim in the areas of knowledge such as ethics and history? What does it take to validate a claim to the point where it becomes a personal truth? I can ask “why?” as much as I would like but when will my skepticism be satisfied and is Paul Kurtz process enough to find truth in different knowledge claims? In my opinion, Paul Kurtz has a great system of evaluation but he is leaving out a key component and that is experience. Before the effectiveness of Paul Kurtz process can be evaluated, it is necessary to define skepticism apart from what Paul Kurtz believes. In simple terms a skeptic is anyone with a questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere? By this definition a skeptic could doubt and question something without being willing to receive any clarity on the subject. What I have gathered from the quote by
Critics propose that just because something cannot be confirmed, does not mean that it is not acknowledged or that there is no reason in trusting it. Rene Descartes wanted certain knowledge to be absolute, although this is not the only option, and others would claim that justified knowledge is adequate. Other philosophers claim skepticism is imperious because a skeptic cannot know that skepticism is absolute.
Zagzebski 2 In chapter 2, of the book Epistemology by Zagzebski, the author concentrates on scepticism and analyses how modern contemporary philosophers reacted to it. She explains that scepticism is an example of an issue regarding us, humans (p.25). We apparently have a curiosity try to find things out even if we aren’t guaranteed to be successful in finding out the truth in it, nor could we know if we failed it. She states scepticism to be most of the time concentrated on realising the meaning of “true belief, knowledge, or justified belief.
Do you ever wonder if you know anything? In his argument for skepticism, Peter Unger, states that “nobody ever knows anything to be so” (Unger, Pg. 42). If this were to be true, can one be certain that one knows things about oneself, the world one lives in, and about others? In fact, through the use of different methods, one can indeed know things about oneself, the world one lives in, and about others, which is why Peter Unger’s argument for skepticism can’t be true.
Have you ever had a feeling of doubt? In the play Doubt by John Patrick Shanley the reader is left with a lot of doubt because Father Flynn, one of the main characters, is being persecuted for sexually harassing a young boy in his class. In this play a pastor by the name of Father Flynn is being investigated because Sister Aloysius is suspicious that he has been sexually harassing a young boy by the name of Donald in their school. Based on the evidence in Patrick Shanley’s play, Doubt: A Parable, I conclude that Father Flynn is not guilty, because Sister A does not like Flynn and Sister A doubts all of her wrong doings after all of this commotion. There are also a lot of small reasons why he should be not guilty.
John Shanley’s “ Doubt” is a story illustrating a nun concern over a priest suspicious behavior inside the church. The nun sister Aloysodid is worried about the problem not being fixed as it can cause more problem s in the future. Sister Aloysius is determining to solve the problem but the priest Father Flynn is not being corrapertive to solve the problem. In the story we learn sister alyonsis cannot solve the problem by herself because of her ranking in the church. Father Flynn is uncomfortable because he has been open with the boys and is nervous of Sister Aloysius.
The verification principle is known to be one of the most discredited and flawed theories of the 21st century. The major flaw
Without knowing that there are philosophies that try to explain the idea of Skepticism, I have always tried to not claim anything or accept anything that could not be proven to me in some way (Detrick, “In Search of Truth: Western Philosophy”). This can be a problem for some people when it comes to religion, but the facts that have been produced, have me able to accept the idea of Christianity in most instances. That being said, I now know that I am also a little agnostic because, I believe, “that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty (Detrick, “In Search of Truth: Western
“Its very easy for someone to take sides when they only know one of them” (Pinterest quote). One may say this quote expresses the position of the Father Flynn in the story Doubt by John Patrick Shanley very forcefully. After analyzing the countless perspectives on whether Father Flynn is guilty or innocent, one may lean more towards one side.
In Doubt: A Parable by John Patrick Shanley, There is a battle between morality and progression into a new political and spiritual place. In this detailed book, Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn are in a full-blown, doubtful battle to discover the truth about if Father Flynn is paying too much attention to the school’s only black student.
Perception of actions is a main theme throughout Doubt by John Patrick Shanley. All actions can be interpreted differently by every person which is what leads me to believe that Father Flynn is innocent.
In the late 1500s to early 1600s, philosophy experience the revival of radical skepticism because of the ideology of Michel de Montaigne. Skeptics held that men cannot agree on anything, and it is almost impossible to understand if something is true, since everything can be an opinion or an interpretation (Lecture 2, 2016). However, a man named René Descartes was determined to disprove skepticism by using skepticism itself (Stewart, Blocker, & Petrik, 2013). To disprove skepticism, Descartes first doubted everything he had ever learned or believed until he discovered something that was ridiculous to doubt (Stewart, Blocker, & Petrik, 2013). Descartes resolved to doubt the core foundations upon which all of his belief rested upon: sense experience and intellectual intuition (Stewart, Blocker, & Petrik, 2013). External world skepticism was one area that lead Descartes to write his famous essays, titled Meditations, and this topic
In the reading of The Practical Skeptic written by Lisa J. Mclntyre , section one “ The Promise” written by C.Wright Mills talks about the idea of sociological imagination and what sociological imagination looks like. Sociological imagination, defined in the book, can be stated as a different way to see life. Most people have daily routines and those routines become their life. The same with thinking, people come to know one way of thinking and they live their life thinking that way. Sociological imagination, teaches the average person how to think outside of the bubble or thought process they have come to know and live.
Who am I? What is the meaning of life? What happens after death? Since the beginning of time, humans have pondered these and other grand questions of life. Some of the most significant attempts at explaining life were undertaken by philosophers in ancient Greece during the 6th century BCE. Two key figures contributing to Greek philosophy were Socrates and Aristotle who both developed fundamental ideals: idealism and materialism. Socrates explained through idealist logic that the truth of life is relative to each individual’s ideas and reasoning, while Aristotle believed through materialism that life is
Skepticism is something that we all have to one degree or another. Some of us who carry some Limited (Local) Skepticism might question whether we can really know if the news anchor is giving us correct information or if the five day forecast is really on track this time regarding the rain it is predicting. Others subscribe to the Global Skepticism view; that is, they would argue that we cannot know anything at all, and, therefore, we can’t have knowledge of anything (Feldman 109). As a global skeptic, we would not only challenge the same things that limited skeptics confront, but we would challenge the very essence of our being. If this form of skepticism is valid, we would have to reexamine
One of the most important branches in philosophy, is Epistemology, which means, theory of knowledge. So far, philosophers have made many attempts to discover the source of knowledge, the standards or criteria by which we can judge the reliability of knowledge. We tend to be satisfied with think what we know about almost everything, even though sometimes we are shocked to discover that something that we thought it was sure and certain, is instead proved dubious and not sure. For example, suppose that one person that you know and trust tells you that the moon landing in 1969 is only a lie, and the pictures and film were made in a laboratory. We might distrust our friend maybe or think that in fact there were no prove