Explanation, Understanding, and Subjectivity Essay

At first I was not sure what I should put, but then when I starting thinking about it, it came pretty easily. However I did have a difficult time thinking about what I can’t change because I try not to focus on that.

Throughout recorded history, man has sought explanations for the various phenomena that occur in every facet of nature, and when no obvious answer is forthcoming, still a theory is often proposed.  These explanatory theories, often taking the form of stories or chronicles, are usually linked to some sort of mysticism or divine intervention.  By ascribing that which he does not understand to the gods’ will at work, man avoids facing up to his own lack of knowledge in a given area, and also draws comfort from assuming that the universe does indeed function under the guidance of divine beings.  Thus the explanatory accounts that man crafts enhance his own security, quelling the fear of chaos that

Cahn, Steven M., Patricia Kutcher, George Sher, and Peter J. Markie, eds. Reason at Work: Introductory Readings in Philosophy. 3rd Ed. Florence, KY: Thomson Learning, Inc., 1996.

What reason engages in is always its own manifestation, be that language with its power of signification or be that harmonious numbers. In and through the sciences, reason searches for itself. Reason's true object is reason itself. Reason never simply deals with physical or historical objects as such.it manifests itself in culture and nature.

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.

Reflecting on this course over this semester, there have been many lessons learned that will be valuable, as we enter the business world. Our first lesson was to learn to work together, as a team, to prepare a short memo, long memo, letter, and email for use in the business world. This is a lesson that will experience many times as we do our daily work. Punctuation and grammar are so important to present to the client and other organizations that we are professionals. It could mean the loss of a sale or acquiring new business. It’s like dressing for work; looking professional or unprofessional.

There remains doubt in how much the human mind really knows; what is known and how the mind is capable of knowing it. In philosophical skepticism, it is asserted that we know little to nothing about the world external of our senses. Anything claimed to be knowledge retains the possibility of doubt, even that which is used as justification for obtaining that piece (or pieces) of knowledge. There is a problem that arises when considering the external world, which is of obtaining and being able to offer sufficient justification for “commonsense” belief.

People read from an abundant number of sources and retain the information presented. However, if people forgot the source of the information, would they be justified in the knowledge they have gained? Having a justification for knowledge is a necessary condition to have epistemic justification. According Earl Conee and Richard Feldman epistemic justification could be gained through internalism. Internalism should be understood as a person’s beliefs that are justified only by ideas that are internal to oneself.

In accordance with natural human behavior, we feel as though for every action there is a reaction, as well as a reason. We vie to inject logic inside our world because to accept the idea that there is not rationale for anything, including our own existence, is unthinkable. This idea that we unawarely manufacture reason to the world because in actuality, there is none, jeopardizes the very balance in our society. Our quest is not noble, rather fueled by our fear of uncertainty. Since the logic of our world is derived solely from the knowledge of

We invent our explanations, and then they invent us. It is a book about how we create our virtual worlds – the habitat of our minds – by how we explain things. It is a book about how our explanations get embedded in the stories we tell and ingest – from gossip to advertising to the pernicious “social media.” It is a book about how everything we say or do or have is an explanation. Whatever we say or do or buy explains who we are. We multifariously explain ourselves to ourselves and to others. We talk, we daydream, we do, we feel: all evolves from how we explain things. Our explanations are the seeds from which everything human and social sprouts and evolves. They are the sources and the sinks of how we live our lives. It is a book that offers a non biological and thus a superior theory of the human trajectory, of specifically human and social evolution. We have turned our lives over to our pundits our “experts,” our celebrities, our advertisers and entertainers. We invite them to tell us what’s what, and how to live. They are our predators. We are their prey. It is an unprecedented change for civilization. As our lives go, so goes our civilization. We evolve out of our explanations of things. But to what end? Everything is deserving of an explanation. Thayer says that it is dangerous. I think we should just accept what is, and use that to shape our culture. There is no wrong or

Davidson is committed to arguing for two claims in “Actions, Reasons, and Causes.” First, he says that for us to understand how a reason of any kind rationalizes an action it is necessary and sufficient that we see, at least in essential outline, how to construct a primary reason. Second, he says that the primary reason for an action is its cause.

This paper will examine the philosophical topic of particular reason and compare it to the psychological topics of conditioned learning and exposure therapy. There will be an analysis of the similarities and differences between these topics and how they can be used to validate each other in regards to human cognition and behavior or actions.

Rene Descartes believed that true knowledge could only be achieved by eliminating any beliefs that could possibly turn out to be false, and build a new system of knowledge on a foundation of beliefs whose truth could not be doubted. This way, we do not spend every moment of our day, day or our lives questioning everything; from the ground we step on to the air that we breathe. Our existence would be pointless if we had to spend every second of the day doubting our own thoughts, intuition, and experiences. In other words it is not productive to believe that any proposition requires a justification, which in tern is the infinite regress argument. In contrast, foundationalism is the theory of epistemology, which believes that beliefs can be known to be true by simply reflecting on them and that other ideas could be known to be true on the basis of reflecting on their relationship to other ideas, which provide the basic structure for a model of justification. This essay will discuss how foundationalism addresses the problem of infinite regress with respect to justification.

Greek philosophers commonly offered two types of explanations to account for natural phenomena: naturalistic and anti-naturalistic/supernatural explanations. Anaximander was a Greek philosopher who offered naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. After defining naturalistic and supernatural explanations, I will argue that Anaximander’s explanations concerning the origin of man and creation of the world are wholly naturalistic explanations.

In “The Refutation of Skepticism”, Jonathan Vogel establishes an “Inference to the Best Explanation” (hereafter, “IBE”) as a means to refute skepticism about the external world. In this refutation, Vogel acknowledges that skepticism about IBE still remains a possibility, but that this kind of skepticism would be rather outlandish in character and thus could be ignored. This paper shall both establish and evaluate Vogel’s reasoning as to why he confidently dismisses any skepticism pertaining to his IBE, and furthermore will illuminate some points as to why Vogel may have mischaracterized potential threats to his method, leaving his refutation of skepticism vulnerable to doubt that is not as