Examples Of Knowledge Is Innate

Knowledge is something that we know that you have facts to back up to form your argument and is justified. Knowledge isn’t something that can be created overnight but something that we form over the course of life. I feel that being raised by my grandmother I gained a lot of knowledge and wisdom because she has years and experience over me and wouldn’t tell me anything to hurt me but to help me in life. We all learn from mistakes but with mistakes gain wisdom then knowledge. We don’t gain knowledge overnight but with growth we become more aware of our worldview.

The process of apprehending true knowledge is a task unfit for those who cannot overcome the concepts that the truth is associated with. This task of discovering knowledge tests an individual and their dedication to the process. However, this process is grueling and does not always yield the expected or desired result. According to philosophers, such as Socrates and Plato, humans are born with innate knowledge that becomes accessible through reasoning and life experiences. Plato’s The Allegory of the Cave describes of a group of people, in a cave, that have been shielded from society for their entire lives and were given an alternate and limited education. One man is forced out of the cave and into the light of the real world, where he

In the Meno, Plato believes that true beliefs becomes knowledge by the grounding true belief. As mentioned before, if virtue is x, then it can be taught (because knowledge can be taught), therefore virtue (x) is equal to knowledge. Plato's expositions of elements of his own theory of knowledge, yet, the investigation of knowledge is indirect. I believe Socrates states that everyone was born with a knowledge of right and wrong, he / she needed to experience situations where he / she needed to recall this knowledge. He makes reference to the initial knowledge being in the soul.

One without knowledge can only conform to a leader or the majority’s will. A man from a cave, who has experienced the taste of enlightenment, would never return to his former dwelling with the same ideals he left behind. Plato meticulously introduced this idea in his allegory comparing the enlightenment o knowledge to a man, who found light after only recognizing darkness since birth. Despite the pain light can induce to eyes adjusted to the pitch black cave, the man was happier in the light than in the dark. Knowledge can aid in overcoming pain to find ecstasy. Knowledge would then develop into wisdom that can educate future generations of one’s own thoughts and culture. Knowledge and wisdom are inevitable assets to

Knowledge is the beginning of wisdom. Knowledge is a gift from God. Knowledge is God, God is a someone, not a something. Full knowledge concerning God can’t be explained.

I belief that saying that a person can be taught to have knowledge is the same as saying a person who already beliefs in a topic or subject has a opinion. Which we know that opinion can be taught, but so can knowledge because you are teaching an opinion that soon will become a piece of information in a person's mind and that is what the definition is for knowledge. In other words, by learning an Opinion then they also will be receiving knowledge. Again like Socrates explains what Daedalus had told him about how we all will always have knowledge but our true opinion can be lost and maybe never be thought again. For a true opinion to stay in our minds we need to practice and think about the idea or a fact and turn it into an argument.

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

Q.1 In your own words, detail the -for and against argument with regards to innate and learned behaviour. Feel free to include your own opinion, but be sure to justify it. Try to include an equal amount of information for the both sides. Use at least 500 words for your answer.

Plato and Aristotle view knowledge and the process whereby it is obtained. They both point out that many epistemological concepts which they believe where knowledge comes from and what it is actually. Most of them have been astonished me in certain ways, but I found that rationalism and "wisdom consists in knowing the cause which made a material thing to be what it is" make the most sense to me regarding the nature of knowledge. As the following, we will discuss about why these two philosophical viewpoints are superior and the others are inferior.

An intelligent person who is filled with knowledge may have the correct answers to questions being asked, rather than a person who possesses the “right opinion”. In the dialogue Meno, Plato explains “the difference, Socrates, is only that he who has knowledge will always be right; but he who has right opinion will sometimes be right, sometimes not.” (Meno np). The one who has the right opinion may be answering a question with a guess, rather than make use of a truthful information because such one does not possess the needed knowledge. Sometimes the response to a question through right opinion, if the individual is lucky, may be correct; however, it is not always the case. A person with knowledge, on the other hand, is able to proof his or her answer with facts and true information, which will explain why he or she must be right. Possession of knowledge makes one a better person because one can give true information, direction to those who seek it rather than guess and possibly give false information to the

Socrates, in skepticism, began a search for those with a reputation of wisdom. After studying men and their knowledge, he reasoned that the only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing. Although one may have extensive understanding in one area, there is way too much knowledge in the world to be contained by one man. Socrates stated, “I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish, and that some inferior men were really wiser and better” (Plato, 23). Those who believed that they knew it all could not be more ignorant, and those who admitted ignorance achieved the highest wisdom attainable on earth. Socrates accepted the idea that he, just like all men, contained very little or no wisdom at all. He was content with knowing this, and upon meeting others that lacked this philosophy, felt he was superior to them. He was unsure of the limitations the afterlife had on wisdom, but he was aware of it’s constraints on earth. This self awareness is what gifted him with the highest sense of enlightenment.

A perpetual conflict emanating throughout all mankind questions the significance of knowledge to human nature, regarding knowledge’s definition, acquisition, branches, and value. Major role models in the foundation of philosophy - specifically, in this essay, Plato and Aristotle - obsess over the significance of knowledge and its importance to and relationship with the development of human beings and their mindsets. Although Plato’s view on knowledge describes the internal predisposed essence of all Forms and the need for a superior being to extract them from the student, Aristotle’s outlook resides as more reliable and realistic due to his beliefs in the premise of knowledge in the sensation and perception, with continuing development in memory, experience, art and science, and, ultimately, true wisdom.

Plato contended that all true knowledge is recollection. He stated that we all have innate knowledge that tells us about the things we experience in our world. This knowledge, Plato believed, was gained when the soul resided in the invisible realm, the realm of The Forms and The Good.

Plato and Aristotle view knowledge and the process whereby it is obtained. They both point out that many epistemological concepts which they believe where knowledge comes from and what it is actually. Most of them have been astonished me in certain ways, but I found that rationalism and "wisdom consists in knowing the cause which made a material thing to be what it is" make the most sense to me regarding the nature of knowledge. As the following, we will discuss about why these two philosophical viewpoints are superior and the others are inferior.

The production of knowledge is a process that occurs through a sequence of related actions, these series of actions allows for the Ways of Knowing to interact in a way that works to develop the knowledge that is being produced. From the prescribed title we can claim that while the Ways of Knowing may appear to be acting in isolation when forming knowledge, they are actually working in a variety of different ways in the construction and formation. In some cases, the Ways of Knowing are interacting so closely together that it is often hard to differentiate between them, for example emotion and reason, or imagination and memory. Given the right circumstances faith can be isolated to a point where it can be acting by itself to produce knowledge. However, this knowledge is often deemed as unreliable, due to faith being seen as one of the more “subjective” ways of knowing. This inability to differentiate the ways of knowing from each other during the production of knowledge, raises the questions “Can any knowledge in any Area of Knowledge be produced by a single Way of Knowing?” and “Is it possible to distinguish between Ways of Knowing if they are working together?”. While reason is used in almost all production of knowledge, it is the other Ways of Knowing used that can determine whether the knowledge is reliable or not, as some Ways of Knowing are more subjective than others. This essay will attempt to