Three Varieties of Knowledge- a Critque Essay

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world” (Mandela). In discussions of education, Newman argues that there should be a common shared knowledge between people. According to statistics, there are 70% of Americans who do not hold a college degree. Newman’s ideas revolve around the belief that everyone should go to college and pursue a higher education. If Newman’s ideas are implemented in today’s society, there will not only be short term difficulties like a greater demand for teachers and supplies but also long term difficulties with America’s economy. Although Newman’s system sounds like it would create a better world in the surface, it would be one which is hard to apply in today’s American society.

Aquinas and Descartes have different ideas on how humans gain knowledge in the world. Both philosophers need to define what the human body is composed of in order to determine how we gain knowledge.

Q1A) In what ways does the biological constitution of a living organism determine, influence or limit its sense perception?

The idea that mental states are non-reducible properties of brain states is the central tenant of a theory of mind called property dualism. However, before we can assess the theory we must be aware that the question assumes the existence of mental states and as such we cannot answer this question from some perspectives (e.g. eliminative materialism)

Other people do not have minds. At least, I cannot know for sure that they do, and will argue for this case in this essay. The problem of other minds (that is, can we know that other people have minds) is a problem that (like all classic philosophical problems) seemingly has no provable answer. The problem is such; I do not know for sure that other people actually have minds; I only know what my own experiences are like through direct experience (i.e. I know my experiences because I experience them), but I cannot have direct knowledge of other people’s experiences, as I cannot experience their experiences alongside them. Therefore, I only have information about people’s behaviour to go on; e.g. I cannot know that someone is happy, but I can experience them behave in such a way that would lead me to the conclusion that they’re happy, as that is how I would act if I were happy. The problem with this, however, is that behaviour is not equal to mental states, and therefore I have no knowledge of other people’s mental states, only that they seem to experience mental states based on their behaviour. Of course, I cannot know that they experience mental states for sure, as I cannot experience other’s mental states, I can only draw conclusions from their behaviour, which does not prove that they do have minds.

he comes to term with three certainties: the existence of the mind as the thing that thinks,

It is often thought that the reality that is being expressed in spoken word is the very same as the reality which is being perceived in thought. Perception and expression are frequently understood to be synonymous and it is assumed that our speech is mostly based on our thoughts. This idea presumes that what one says is dependent of how it is encoded and decoded in the mind. (Badhesha, 2002) In any case, there are numerous individuals that trust the inverse: what one sees is reliant on the talked word. The supporters of this thought trust that thinking is reliant on language. Linguistic Edward Sapir and his understudy Benjamin Lee Whorf are known as far as concerns them in the promotion of this very guideline. Their aggregate hypothesis, known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, also known as theory of linguistic relativity, relativism, determinism, Whorfian hypothesis or even Whorfianism. Initially talked about by Sapir in 1929, the speculation got to be prominent in the 1950s after post mortem production of Whorf's works on the subject. After incredible assault

Prinz publication “Is the mind really modular?” demonstrates a various examples and explanations, highlighting each and everyone one of the modular systems that Fodor created. The number of descriptions created for the modules is composed by individuals who share different points of view. This doesn’t prove that the theory is wrong, it will simply state that there is no certainty of being a hundred percent sure. My position on this essay will be in contradiction to the approach that Prinz argues to disapprove the “Modularity of the mind” theory.

In the article “Lost in Translation”, the author, Lera Boroditsky, maintains as her thesis that the languages we speak not only reflect or express our thoughts, but also shape the very thoughts we wish to express. Boroditsky begins the main section of her essay with the history of the issue of whether or not languages shape the way speakers think. Charlemagne was the first to think that languages do in fact shape the mindset of speaker, but Noam Chomsky rebutted this idea with his thought that languages do not differ much from each other, thus in turn proposing that linguistic differences do not cause a difference in thinking. Now with scientists

Many are disconcerted by the idea that humans and Minds can be described as systems which operate based on interpretations of symbols, much like machines, computers, and robots: things that we have created yet do not think of as being “thinking,” themselves. We, as human beings, are comforted in the notion that we are born into this world with a fully capable Mind, a soul or spirit, and are, thereafter, free to choose our fate as we will. Although it seems plausible that we are born with Mind, I cannot subscribe to such a simplistic version of thinking about our true capacity for affecting outcome.

The Problem of Other Minds is said to be first introduced by John Stuart Mill in his 1979 works “An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy, and of The Principal Philosophical Questions Discussed in his Writings” (Mill, 1867) in which Mill talks about his “fellow creatures” and his belief that there are other minds beside our own. The idea behind the problem of other minds is whether or not we can justify our belief that there are other minds beside our own. It is often claimed that the Problem of Other Minds was in fact first introduced by Rene Descartes, his interpretation of minds as separate entities gives rise to not only his problem of mental causation but also the Problem of Other Minds. Descartes theory that dogs cannot

Descartes’s theory of knowledge is essentially based in skepticism. He argued that in order to understand the world, first a person has to completely suspend their judgements of the world around them. This is the impression that the world makes on their mind. In this way, the physical world is not what leads to knowledge. Instead, the mind finds rationally seeks knowledge. The question is, essentially, “should we believe beyond the evidence?” (Kessler, 2013, p. 332). In this way, the ideas are rooted in the nature of doubt. This is an inherent nature of the mind, which is the result of the nature of man as made by God. In this way, the mind is guided by god towards knowledge in its infallible ability to reason about reality. In this way, the mind’s reasoning ability, even in the absence of physical reality, can ultimately lead to knowledge. I don’t fully agree with Descartes’ proposition that only the mind can produce certain knowledge and that our senses are constantly under the attack and being deceive by some evil deceiver. In order to go against Descartes propositions concerning about doubt I will use Locke to oppose it.

or that death is not the end. There is no way to prove that this is

Knowledge, as we all understand, can be general or specialized. We are able to gather knowledge about certain aspects of reality, branches of science, skills, traits and phenomena observable in nature. But there is another kind of “knowledge”, which is the sum of every subcategoric, specific knowledge. This knowledge is what we know about the “world” - how knowledgeable we are, how well can we navigate the seas of reality because of our knowledge about its currents, flows and hidden reefs.

Knowledge is defined to be facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education. There are two categories that fall under knowledge; personal knowledge and shared knowledge. Shared knowledge refers to what “we know because.” It can also be defined as communicated and constructed knowledge; within culture, social norms, and semiotics. Personal knowledge refers to “I know because.” An expanded definition of personal knowledge refers to personal experiences, values, and perceptions. Shared knowledge changes and evolves over time because of methods that are continuously shared. It is assembled by a group of people. Personal knowledge, on the other hand, depends crucially on the experiences of a particular individual. It is gained