Epistemic Relativism

The topic of knowledge and belief has been a subject of investigation and a primary field in philosophical research for centuries. Whether it was Aristotle or Descartes, multiple ideas on knowledge and belief arise, such as the epistemological theories of foundationalism or coherentism, which provide philosophical explanations to this debate. For the sake of this essay, and in my own opinion, knowledge should be distinguished from belief. Everyone is subject to different types of beliefs based on upbringing, however knowledge of basic items is universal, therefore it immediately becomes apparent that there is a clear distinction between the two concepts.

In chapter 3 of Superfreakanomics, the writers mainly talk about the existence of altruism. This chapter starts with the death of Kitty Genovese, her neighbors had the chances or at least they could save Genovese’ life by just asking, “What is wrong?” instead of ignoring or acting apathetic about it. The authors move to the whole 1860’s crimes by using this case, the boom explosion in population, civil rights or even the TV shows could be a factor that caused the increase of criminal. Then the authors introduce a lab experiment called “Ultimatum” to show as long as people get some profits, they will make things altruism. However, another experiment called “Dictator” indicates that three forth of people are willing to split money instead of

Understand relativism: some things are relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture. Understand that people from other cultures might have entirely differently value systems than yours, but still not be explicitly wrong.

In Plato’s Theaetetus, the dialog between Socrates and his student, Theaetetus, sets up the argument that knowledge is true belief that is adequately justified. Although there are many examples that prove Plato’s suggestion, people such as Edmund Gettier have questioned and disproved the notion of knowledge as justified true belief. In response to Gettier’s findings, many have tried to modify or find an alternative to the Justified True Belief model in search for the true definition of knowledge. In this paper, I will outline and discuss Plato’s Justified True Belief argument, outline and discuss Gettier’s response to Plato’s argument, and lastly, present and analyze four solutions to the Gettier problems.

Relativism, defined by Rachel’s is the differentiation of cultural codes among societies, in respect to morality. Insofar the problem that is faced is whether or not there is a universal moral code all people can abide too? In explaining Rachel’s and Williams standpoint on Relativism and what they argue for, I on the other hand, will argue for relativism, in using some of Rachel’s views, in rejecting Williams conclusion of relativism. For Williams perceives no one outside of a society should impend on the social matters of a differing nation. To argue why his view is abstract, As well in many moral degrees, his philosophical conclusion could never be followed. For the axioms of morality are distinct, in varying situations, in which leads us to compare traditions, to see if they are right or wrong..

Subsequently, Miranda has proven the capitalistic visions of ownership, as the natural rights of man to be erroneous, he refocuses the chapter on the inequality that such policies generate, predominantly an imbalanced distribution of wealth, as net profits go to the property owners who hold the means of production leaving nothing for the proletariat class, who become imprisoned in wage slavery. As Miranda articulates, “The wage contract is the only path that this civilization leaves open; the workers are either are ignorant of even the existence of other paths or they die of hunger if they try to follow them” (24). In essence, workers are the slaves enforced to sell the toil of their bodies to the property owners, and are granted no alternative but to starve to death

Absolutism and relativism are polar opposites in the study of morality. Relativism, in short, is something morally open to interpretation. The context of the situation determines the right or wrong thing to do. A common ethical issue is the idea of killing being justifiable. If someone were to fire a gun at me and I were also armed I would find it difficult not to return fire. Now even this scenario is highly subjective. Who is shooting at me? Why are they shooting at me? Do they know they are shooting at me? Friendly Fire? All these questions make killing in self defense such a relative concept. I believe this because my reaction to being fired upon is “relative to time, place, persons, and situations.” (p.78)

Director Levitsky, I posit to you that we should restructure the epistemological foundations of U.S. counter-terrorism policy as it pertains to Salafi jihadism specifically, and Islamic terrorism broadly. I believe that we must fundamentally change our understanding what Islamic terror is if we are to have any hope of effectively opposing it. Current institutional dialectics and policy focus on the political and strategic aspirations of terrorist groups, as well as the tactical methods they employ to accomplish their goals. I suggest to you that existing counter terrorism polices are pursuing superficial material aims. We are attempting to destroy terrorist groups, institutions, and individuals. However the material structures of terrorism

Protagoras’s relativism said that morals are just social traditions, or mores, of a society or group. That our culture, conditioning, experience and biopsychology influence our values. It is impossible to form a culture free or context free belief according to Protagoras. For example, I’m from Texas, so I have a vastly different culture than a person from Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Socrates concluded that the truth was relative and that knowledge is based on specific qualities of the person as in the place you were born, age, religious affliliation, and family habits. He argued that we should only accept what seems to be true at the moment. He also believed that each culture only believes that it’s ways are best, but the person who is studying

Protagorean relativism states that “If each person is the determiner of truth and falsity, then any judgement any person makes is true.” (McKirahan, 389). This means that regardless if two people have opposing opinions on a matter they are both correct in their opinion, and this is due to perception. If someone perceives something differently there is very little that will change that. Perception is based on sensation and science so even though two perceptions about a single matter may seem contrary, both are correct meaning they cannot contradict. Protagoras uses the example of taste in a healthy person and a sick person to make his case. Honey will generally taste sweet, but if you are sick it will more than likely taste bitter instead (390). It is the same honey in each scenario, so knowing that one tongue belongs to someone in good health and the other to one in bad health how can you say that either if them is wrong? This does not mean that someone who perceives honey as bad should remain in the state they are in, if someone is sick they should seek treatment.

Unless the relativist could somehow distinguish communitarian factors affecting the status of something as knowledge, and the endorsement of a village elder as a factor affecting the status of something as knowledge, the relativist would have to admit that the sorts of things that could be considered within the same sense of “knowledge” can possibly be applied to anything merely depending on the epistemological education that people have been exposed to. Indeed, the “universal core to “folk epistemology”” that WNS believe their results show in response to the “special feeling” case is limited to the environment where WNS have conducted their studies and cannot be suggested to be universal.

Epistemology, or the study of knowledge, requires the scholar analyze the what, how, and why’s of their own knowledge. Asking these questions of themselves is essentially applying that which they have learned. There are different origins of knowledge as conceptualized by philosophers, educators, and scientists. Early philosophers defined knowledge as “justified true belief” (Cooper, pg. 23). In order for an individual to know something it must be true, he or she must believe it, and the belief in it must be justified or rationally reasonable. Later, early modern philosophers required knowledge to be proven and absolute. The scientific

Quine’s naturalism stands in stark contrast to the prevailing epistemological climate of his day. Traditional epistemology prides itself on the distinctive method of a priori reflection on our preexisting concepts. The goal of traditional epistemology is to formulate necessary and sufficient conditions for justification. Traditional epistemologists often attempt to analyze justification by proposing criteria and testing said criteria with thought experiments. Successful criteria for justification must include every case that we can intuitively consider to be an instance of knowledge and exclude every scenario in which our intuitions tell us that knowledge is lacking. A famous example of this method of includes Gettier cases.

Various thoughts have been given the name “ Relativism ”, and the term has been utilized to pillory a wide range of perspectives (some of the time for good reasons , infrequently for awful ones ). It is insignificant acting to say that you are for or against "relativism" unless you say what you mean by the term. Here I need chiefly to talk about (and to condemn) a perspective I have experienced among students in theory courses, who say things like this : " What anybody accepts is valid for that individual. What you accept is valid for you? , what I accept is valid for me ?" We can call the perspective communicated in such proclamations "Relativism" in light of the fact that it denies that there is any such thing as " outright " truth, holds that all truth is with respect to the individual who trusts it.

Epistemic modality. The word “epistemic” came from Greek, meaning `knowledge'. According to Palmer (2001), speakers use epistemic modality in order to express their judgments about the facts, they use it in when they utter or write their attitude. Epistemic modality concerns what is necessary or possible based on