Beardsley Use Of Philosophical Questions

It is human nature to seek the truth, to want to know the reality of the facts, but this process

One’s understanding always comes with their experience in life, and because some wonders are too far-stretched to fathom, everyone ends up with different rationales for these wonders—and no definite conclusion can be

We can only do as much, or as well, as we know to do; and if that does not work, then one must ask: What am I to do? That is an excellent question, for it holds value for those who are willing and able to reveal its answer. The value of a well-formed question is found in the answer that it holds; that is, if by raising that question, we are able to behold the answer within it. Although I consider philosophical, theological, and rhetorical questions to be valuable when seeking insight and understanding, these are questions that are not meant to illicit a response, and therefore, they have no practical value. The only value of such questions is that they leave us open to other questions which may hold the answer. For example, when wondering

and can use this reason to find truth. We can doubt these "truths" as Descartes

I've always wondered why I know certain things, but never tried to open that “locked door.” I was afraid to know the real reason as to why we know things without having an explanation for them. Therefore, I allowed the "locked door" to remain a mystery of how our minds

Humans are naturally curious creatures. One’s inquisitive mindset might lead to all sorts of discoveries or answers to cosmic questions. However, the world and the life one lives inside the world are not always as they seem to be at first glance. What one does know about the world is based solely on their perception of reality and one person’s perspective will differ from the next. How does one know when they look at the blue sky or the green grass that the other people around them are witnessing the same scene they are experiencing? Should the stranger on the street fear another stranger simply because they are unable to know for absolute certainty that other is not a deranged, cannibalistic murderer?

It helps folks if they can latch onto a reason.” Thus leading to Dolphus’s belief; it is easier for people to handle strange behavior when they have a reason to explain

The essence of the "why" in society can be seen through many cultures and time periods. From many of people in westernized grade school, children are taught the 5 "W's:" who, what, why, where, and when. Starting in basic education, people are taught and encouraged to be inquisitive creatures. Not that they need to be. Even from prehistoric times, there have been many instances of Pagan cultures, and gods being created to explain certain natural events, such as rain gods, or a god's wrath may explain a volcano eruption. For, when a child is writing about a ladybug, they will want to know why the bug is there. When humans question their own existence, they want to know why they themselves are there. In any instance, a human will always ask the question "Why?" Furthermore, with any instance, a human will always find an answer to their why.

In the time before the Declaration, great men like Benjamin Franklin took what they believed, what had been believed for hundreds of years, and questioned it. That doesn't seem such a big deal now, but when the Puritans were in charge, questioning your beliefs was wrong. Rationalists, however, felt the opposite. To delve into the mysteries of the world, to explain

His central thesis revolves around the consequences of over- generalization in a society. He embodies this point with the quote, “It doesn’t work to generalize about a relationship between a category and a trait when that relationship isn’t stable” (Gladwell 4). This claim is backed up through the use of statistics and

points to the nature of truth to be unchanging. Despite all the advances a society may

Have you ever been driving in a car with a child who asked a million questions starting with “why”? Regardless of how well you think you answered their question, they will ask why the answer to that question is what it is, and so on and so forth. This is characteristic of all human beings; children just are not as restrained and willing to ask whatever questions comes to their minds, while adults are more inclined to accept the first level answer and question it no further. However in the back of our minds we all want to know the truth, and we will eventually conjure up a reason why what we accept as truth, in fact, the truth. Two very prominent philosophers, René Descartes, and William James were concerned with truth and how people come to believe and accept something as true or false. They believed that there is a very definite truth, but they mapped out different routes in order to get to the place where truth could be found.

use of reason. This is a very, very difficult subject to discuss, as one is

Jonathan Vogel wrote Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation as a solution to accept the real world hypothesis over any skeptical hypothesis. Vogel presents a compelling argument for a definitive reason to accept that the world we are experiencing is in fact the real world. I believe that Vogel’s argument falls short of proving a reason for accepting the real world hypothesis over a skeptical one. In this paper I will clearly explain Vogels argument, explain some important concepts to understand, and attempt to refute the argument.

There are so many topics people question about the world. Whether its conspiracy theories, superstitions, ghost, religion or even supernatural experiences. Everybody has their own beliefs. Why don’t we all just believe in one… Logic! People are scared to question what they believe, because they never really know if it’s real or fake, so they might as well do the right thing “just in case”. Why don’t they test their theories to actually really find out for themselves? Honestly, one can be scared of the truth which is why they avoid it, but anything can be proven logically.