Epistemology Paper

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.

Between the two schools of epistemology, rationalism and empiricism, I am inclined towards the philosophies of rationalism. I am persuaded towards philosophical approaches which are superior at attaining truth. Empiricism relies on observation using the five senses in reasoning to achieve truth. However, in Plato’s Thaetetus, Socrates gives strong arguments for the limitations of human perception. The Canadian legal system, also, recognizes flaws in human observation, which increases my skepticism of empiricism. Conversely, rationalism relies solely on the use of logic and deduction in reasoning. Both, Plato and Socrates stressed the value of rationalism through the ability to know and express combinations of elements through mathematics. Large

Continued inquiry implies that the process of inquiry seemingly never comes to an end. Furthermore, continued inquiry is fundamentally based on opposing appearances and ideas, instead of prior knowledge as in the case of the dogmatists. Sextus argues that it is the setting in opposition of these appearances and ideas of equal force that forms the process of skeptic inquiry. Consequently leading to a suspension of judgement. The suspension of judgement means that the skeptic neither denies nor affirms an idea when it comes to inquiry. Such a stance leads to a calmness of the soul or freedom from disturbance. There is a disturbance that arises from seeking what is true or false according to the skeptics. For the skeptics it was easier to go for a consideration pushed equally in both directions.(III 26 -

The pursuit of truth: Epistemology provides understanding for the reader to gain insight to the way that humans process and react to truth. Epistemology is the pursuit of intellectual virtue. It wants to provide an evidentiary basis for belief, rather than one of just opinion. Entwistle then brings up another important topic which is Metaphysics. Metaphysics can be defined as the philosophical investigation of the nature, constitution and stature of reality. Philosophical anthropology attempts to validate assumptions made by theologians and psychologists about human nature and behavior (Entwistle, pp119).

Pyrrhonian skeptics and Descartes’s response to skepticism are two interesting reads that make one curious. Pyrrhonian skepticism has a goal which is the suspension of judgment and tranquility, while Descartes brings reason and doubt to the senses about what one perceives and feels. This essay will inform about the Pyrrhonian skeptic and the response Decartes has to the skeptic views.

In the late 1500s to early 1600s, philosophy experience the revival of radical skepticism because of the ideology of Michel de Montaigne. Skeptics held that men cannot agree on anything, and it is almost impossible to understand if something is true, since everything can be an opinion or an interpretation (Lecture 2, 2016). However, a man named René Descartes was determined to disprove skepticism by using skepticism itself (Stewart, Blocker, & Petrik, 2013). To disprove skepticism, Descartes first doubted everything he had ever learned or believed until he discovered something that was ridiculous to doubt (Stewart, Blocker, & Petrik, 2013). Descartes resolved to doubt the core foundations upon which all of his belief rested upon: sense experience and intellectual intuition (Stewart, Blocker, & Petrik, 2013). External world skepticism was one area that lead Descartes to write his famous essays, titled Meditations, and this topic

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

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.

Socrates once said, “As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.” Several philosophers contradicted Socrates’ outlook and believed that true knowledge was in fact attainable. This epistemological view however had several stances to it, as philosophers held different beliefs in regards to the derivation of true knowledge. Rationalists believed that the mind was the source of true knowledge, while in Empiricism, true knowledge derived from the senses. Rene Descartes, a rationalist, and John Locke, an empiricist, were prime examples of epistemologists who were seen to differentiate greatly within each of their philosophies. However, although Descartes and Locke’s ideas did contrast in that sense,

Socrates once said, “As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.” Several philosophers contradicted Socrates’ outlook and believed that true knowledge was in fact attainable. This epistemological view however had several stances to it, as philosophers held different beliefs in regards to the derivation of true knowledge. Rationalists believed that the mind was the source of true knowledge, while in Empiricism, true knowledge derived from the senses. Rene Descartes, a rationalist, and John Locke, an empiricist, were prime examples of epistemologists who were seen to differentiate greatly within each of their philosophies. However, although Descartes and Locke’s ideas did contrast in that sense,

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

After its introduction into Greek culture at the end of the fourth century BC, skepticism influenced nearly all other Greek philosophies. Both Hellenistic and Roman philosophies took it as a given that certain knowledge was impossible; the focus of Greek and Roman philosophy, then, turned to probable knowledge, that is, knowledge that is true most of the time.

How many times have you said, “No way, I do not believe it!” It is our natural tendency not to believe in something that we have not seen with our own eyes or experienced it personally. There is a saying, “seeing is believing” which has led us to a world full of skeptics. We want proof so we are not gullible fools. Skepticism, or scepticism, as it was spelled back in the ancient times, was pondered by philosophers who tried unsuccessfully to figure out the thought process and how we gain knowledge. Philosophers gave deep thought to determine how we arrive at such true beliefs and knowledge of the external world. Three such philosophers were Rene Descartes, David Hume and Christopher Grau. Rene Descartes was a French philosopher in the early 1600’s; David Hume was a Scottish Philosopher in the 1700’s, and Grau an American philosopher Professor born in 1970. The timeline s important because philosophical views have evolved over time. All three men were from different eras, but they each explored, argued, and addressed the topic of skepticism from their philosophical view. This proves that they take the subject of skepticism seriously, just as we should too. There is good reason to believe that a human’s knowledge of the external world results from both a posteriori knowledge acquired through sensory experience and a priori knowledge which is innate. Descartes, Hume, and Grau through their personal views and skeptical

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.

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