Internalism: Justification

Internal vs. external – Internal – is the mental struggle arising from opposing demands or impulses. External – that is a conflict between the character and someone else or the character and a conflict between the characters self.

One's knowledge of other minds come from one’s experience basically stating that base on our understanding of ourselves we could infer on other minds. Knowing that I have feelings, emotions, and beliefs I could conclude that other human beings have emotions, feelings, and beliefs. According to the Ayub article, Shoemaker stated: “one could discover that one’s own psychological states and behavioral mechanisms could provide a basis for inductive inferences for the behavioral and mental states of others” (Ayub 1). For example, if I’m cutting something and by mistake, I cut my finger I feel discomfort because of the injury, therefore; other people feel the same discomfort. Not only someone could tell other people’s minds based on their outer life, but they could tell by someone’s inner life. The inner life is the real you, not the physical you. Inner life is your core some sentiments is being glad, calm, and being at peace with yourself, you could also have a tortured or afflict inner life. I could conclude that other people have an inferior or robust inner life and that is like

Vygotsky also introduced his theory of internalisation, one of the main concepts that differentiated from that of Jean Piaget (Duchesne, S., & McMaugh, A. 2016. P.103). The theory of internalisation put forward by Vygotsky is an idea that suggests an individual is able to observe and internalise the ideas and processes of their surroundings as they partake in social interaction defined as, “new ways of thinking” (Duchesne, S., & McMaugh, A.,2016p.103). During social interaction the individuals thinking is successively transformed by interaction with others, similarly to the concept developed by Piaget, Vygotsky also characterised children as “active agents in their development”. (Duchesne, S., & McMaugh, A.,2016p.103). As explained by

First let’s take a look at justification. Justification is a word that can be used morally, ethically, in our dailies life and in this case in the courtroom. Examples of justification can been seen in cases of self-defense or necessity. For example, is justified taking someone's life if he or she had reasonably and

According to Carol Tarvis and Elliot Aronson we self justify which is the justification or excusing of oneself or one's actions due to cognitive dissonance. Cognitive Dissonance is a state of tension whenever a person holds two cognitions, which are two beliefs that are psychologically inconsistent. When Mrs. Keech’s doomsday predictions failed her committed followers experienced cognitive dissonance. Their ideas opposed one another “ I am a smart person” clashed with “ I just did an incredibly stupid thing: I gave away my house and quit my job because I believed a crazy woman.”( Tarvis and Aronson 29) When a person is out in a situation where cognitive dissonance occurs it causes the person experiencing his two cognitions, which are physiologically

Whereas "internal" or "dispositional" attribution assigns causality to factors within the person, such as their own level of intelligence or other variables that make the individual responsible for the event.

Ideas can be made internal through mentalism or accessiblism. The former is beliefs justified by occurrent or dispositional mental states. While the latter are beliefs that are justified by states an agent has some sort of special access to.

“We have a responsibility as a state to protect our most vulnerable citizens: our children, seniors, people with disabilities. That is our moral obligation. But there is an economic justification too - we all pay when the basic needs of our citizens are unmet,” stated John Lynch. The dictionary defines justification as the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. The man who stole the food clearly is justified for his actions.

We laugh about the person who says, ‘I know I’m right; don’t confuse me with arguments’. And yet there are times when we find ourselves wanting to say that too. For there are situations in which we feel sure that we know something, even though if asked to give a good argument to back up our claim we are at a loss to know quite how to do so. ‘I know you’re the person I spoke to on the bus yesterday.’ ‘I know I have two hands.’ ‘I know it is wrong to let that child starve.’ ‘I know that six minus four leaves two.’ Our experience of being confident that we are right in cases like those is often called intuition. Intuitive knowing seems to be a direct, convincing way of knowing, which needs no further argument. And it is a perfectly ordinary,

Similarly to Nozick, the response that Alvin Goldman offers to skepticism is one that highly relies on his conception of knowledge and the logical work involved with his conception. Goldman articulates his conception of knowledge in a piece titled, “What is Justified Belief”. Goldman holds that knowledge is justified true belief, but really wants to focus on the meaning of the word justified and the nature of justification. Goldman’s conception of knowledge and justification make him seemingly an externalist about justification. This externalism about justification will be at the

The internal perspective focuses on employees and their contentment with the organization, the quality of products and services, and cost management (Kinney and Raiborn 2013, 11).

* Internal Dialogue. A fear or avoidance of internal conversations and the client is fearful of ‘thinking too much’.

Psychological egoism is the proposal that humans are motivated by self-interest. A better way to understand

Throughout history, philosophers have been trying to come up with a clear way to provide the justification of our beliefs and knowledge. Noah Lemos offers readers explanations of both foundationalism and coherentism for theories of justification. These two different theories offer very different ways to explain the basis of our beliefs. For a foundationalist, they believe that all of our beliefs can be broken down until we reach a basic belief. This belief would be largely independent of other beliefs and not derived from other beliefs. A coherentist feels that a belief can be reasonably justified if it is coheres with our other beliefs.

To understand an organisation, one should first be able to appreciate the importance of an organisation’s internal and external context, suggesting a relevant definition of this term is required. The internal and external context of an organisation can be defined as “issues that are relevant to its purpose and its strategic direction and that affect its ability to achieve the intended result(s) of its quality management system.” (ISO 9001:2015, cited in Tricker, 2017, p.198). This requires organisations to consider their internal and external contexts and to manage change processes to effectively improve results (Fonseca and Domingues, 2017). The ISO 9001:2015 (cited in Fonseca and Domingues, 2017) suggest the internal contexts of an organisation