The Controversy Of The Correspondence Theory

With this lesson, we begin a new unit on epistemology, which is the philosophical study of knowledge claims. In this first lesson on epistemology, we begin by examining the question “What do we mean when we say we know something?” What exactly is knowledge? We will begin with a presentation that introduces the traditional definition of knowledge. Wood then discusses some of the basic issues raised in the study of epistemology and then presents an approach to epistemology that focuses on obtaining the intellectual virtues, a point we will elaborate on in the next lesson.

The words “certainty” and “doubt” have many varying connotations and implications given a specific context. Even though the definitions of these two words are considered polar opposites of each other, there is one connection between the two that is undeniable: both certainty and doubt can be taken with a grain of salt, as they are all merely just opinions specific to the person that those concepts are presented to. Adding on to that, there is also a concept relating to this; the idea that there is always “the certainty of doubt” and that they are merely two sides of the same coin.

The skeptic is unable to investigate or form any sort of conception of their dogmatic views.(III 31) The above conclusion stems from two premises presented by the dogmatists in their argument against the skeptics ability to inquire.

In simple words skepticism means the ability to doubt.Theres a very famous argument termed as " The Dreaming Argument " by Chuang Tzu .The argument goes as Tzu dreamt of being a butterfly in his dream so now when hes awake how can he be sure that it isnt a butterfly dreaming of being a man .Its one of the greatest examples of thinking symetrically.There are two skepctical traditions that is Academic and Pyrrohonian Skepticism

‘The end goal of the Pyrrhonian skeptic is to promote suspense of judgment because they claim that it is in our opinion and personal truths that we develop desires, painful efforts, good and bad, fear, and disappointment. To accept everything as is, will bring bliss and peace of mind.’ The Pyrrhonian skeptic views skepticism as a good thing for they have the skill of finding for every argument and equal and opposing argument, this will bring suspension of judgment on any issue considered by the

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.

In Peter Elbow’s essay “The Doubting Game and Believing Game” he discusses the two types of games that an individual can use to look for the truth in a situation. The Doubting game, is when an individual believes everything is false, and prove each assertion wrong, and the Believing game, is the process where an individual believes that all assertions are correct, and go over each one separately. With both games, there are certain rules that must be followed.

My initial reaction to this text, A Critique of Skepticism, by John Hospers, held some unique technique as well with reason in regard to “Theory of Knowledge.” I think it was comprised with various, yet continuous questions. For example: What is knowing something is substantial? - Why is it imperative to isolate between what you know and do or can't know? - When do you doubt what you thought you truly knew? These questions fascinate my mind into pondering about things, substances, items, any form etc. This paper spotlights on uncertainty, and why philosophers, for instance, John Hospers challenge against this viewpoint. There are many avenues to approach what the idea of knowing- what do we know? How did we learn to know it? It can continue

Generally, skepticism refers to a process where one tends to either suspend judgment, have systematic uncertainty or criticize particular objects, various principles or occurrences. Sextus Empiricus embodied this doctrine through his book “Outlines of Pyrrohnism” where he first provided a preview on the structure of Pyrrhonian philosophy during the early days and then a vivid description on the growth of skepticism before his existence. Consequently, he gives a deep analysis of various methods used by skeptics. As such, this paper brings out a critical analysis of Sextus’s exposition of Pyrrhonian skepticism and his belief that it leads to a happy life. We will then demonstrate that suspension of judgement will hinder our individual growth

In this paper, I will first discuss what the basic argument of skepticism is all about, then I will provide the defense of the argument: the three cases (Judy/Trudy Case, Crow/Raven and Coke/ Generic Coke case). After that, I will talk about the responses to the argument, specifically about the criticisms from Descartes and Moore; how Moore feels that perceptual evidence is enough and we can reject premise 1 and how descartes thinks that we can rule out the skeptical scenarios with our evidence. Finally, I’ll provide my opinion on all this and what I personally have to say about skepticism, whether I am a skeptic or not or if I reject either of the premises.

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.

This paper will address the problem of skepticism. My focus will be exclusively on Global Skepticism as it is more controversial than Local Skepticism. The stance I am seeking to persuade you to take is one regarding the question of whether or not Global Skepticism is justified. In this paper I will discuss and analyze what other philosophers have said about the topic, my argument, how my opponents might object to my arguments, and how I respond to those objections. My hope is the conclusion to my argument will convince you that Global Skepticism is not justified and we can, in fact, come to ‘know’ things about our reality and obtain knowledge.

One of the most important branches in philosophy, is Epistemology, which means, theory of knowledge. So far, philosophers have made many attempts to discover the source of knowledge, the standards or criteria by which we can judge the reliability of knowledge. We tend to be satisfied with think what we know about almost everything, even though sometimes we are shocked to discover that something that we thought it was sure and certain, is instead proved dubious and not sure. For example, suppose that one person that you know and trust tells you that the moon landing in 1969 is only a lie, and the pictures and film were made in a laboratory. We might distrust our friend maybe or think that in fact there were no prove

In “The Value of Philosophy”, Bertrand Russell— “an important social critic and one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century”—refutes the idea of philosophy being pointless and a waste of time (The Value of Philosophy). Although philosophers have not agreed on one exact definition for this branch of knowledge, philosophy is generally understood as an “academic discipline” which aims to cover a variety of topics through arguing, inquiring, assuming, and “testing arguments for weakness” in order to gain knowledge and grasp a better sense of life (Lectures 1-2, Package). Russell makes strong arguments for philosophy being beneficial, especially when one is open to seeking a deeper understanding of life and why the universe operates the way that it does. Despite philosophy’s inability to definitively answer the questions that it seeks to understand, in Russell’s opinion, it holds a great amount of value—one of those values being uncertainty.

How do we know something?¨ Well people can know something through three ways: 1.)experiential/empirical 2.)cognitive/rational and 3.)constructed/creational. With experiential a person can know something because they have experienced it, basically through the five senses. With cognitive one knows something because it has been thought through, argued, or rationalized. With constructed a person knows something because they created it and it may be subjective instead of objective and it may be based on practice or awareness. There will be five authors that will be referenced in this essay, they are Hume, Kant, and Locke. Empiricism, A-priorism, and Skepticism will be discussed.