Probably the greatest achievement in philosophy is for an individual to acknowledge the universal nature of the thing he desires to understand. The true form of an object is the universal nature of that object. The true form of an object, such as love, should remain constant throughout infinite perceptions of that object, such that two people will acknowledge the same form of that object at any point in time. Sure, people may experiences many types of love, as depicted in the phrase "love is in the eye of the beholder", but many philosophers will believe that the nature of love can be synonymous amongst all people. The form that the philosophers are looking for is an idea or recognition of love that coincides with its true objective form. But how does a philosopher reach this level of understanding? How does he transition himself from a personal love to a universal love? The philosophers, Pierre Hadot, Fernando Savater, and Socrates all take different approaches to finding the universal nature of life.
In the book, The Questions of Life, Fernando Savater explains in his second chapter how a person can acquire a universal understanding of truth. Savater starts by defining reason not as something obtained through personal experience, but rather a technique in which he is able to organize his thoughts. Savater acquires a broad knowledge of an object by openly accepting the views and opinions that other philosophers have on the nature of that same object. After Savater has more than one perspective on the nature of an object, he can then cross-examine those perspectives and find a middle ground which coincides with each view-point. "The first thing that reason seeks is to try to harmonize my own personal or subjective point of vi...
... middle of paper ...
...mean to discover truth through accepting all particulars as true. Fernando Savater's idea of finding objective truth through a field of truths is an excellent example of how an individual is able to discover truth. Since perception is limited to the individual, one could say that the only possible way of finding a universal truth is though accepting a field of truths. An individual must accept all perceptive and subjective truths as truthful in their individual reality. Therefore, one could say that universal truth as we acknowledge it, is no more that the acceptance of an intersubjective frame of mind, the acceptance of all perceptions as indifferent in form. Since a person can change their opinion on a topic, it is impossible to conjure every person's perspective on that topic, consequentially making it impossible to find truth when perception is never constant.
"Love can affect you so deeply that it reshapes you from the inside out and by doing so alters you destiny for future loving moments" says Fredrickson but she seems to have forgotten that there always two perspectives to any ideology. It is indubitable that the experiences of love play a crucial role in molding an individual, but it is ignorant to say that only love will cause such change. The reality is that not all relationships and encounters are true "micro-moment of love" and those negative experiences also partake in what creates the identity and thought process of an individual. With the knowledge that an individual 's cell play a crucial role in deciding who to have "micro-moments of love"; such negative experience will be associated with the factual, biological notion of love. Thus causing individuals to feel that the negative experience they had to face and deal with were a result of their body and its biology. The idea that their body and brain, essentially unalterable, were capable of causing them pain and heartache, will hinder them from achieving the love and longing for others that Fredrickson describes. The idea that love is functioning by the orders registered by the individual 's body, makes love uncontrollable. Humans in nature are predisposed
Knowledge, its source and truthfulness have been under question for a long time. People have always wondered what exactly constitutes facts and if there are any defining laws that can be attributed to all knowledge or information available in the world. Many philosophers speculated on how information can be interpreted according to its falsity or truthfulness, but have not come to definite conclusions. Edmund Gettier has provided one of the key pieces in understanding and trying to figure out what knowledge really is.
Most people would say that love is a concept which will always be a mystery to man, because it is so changeable, and therefore it will always be able to fool and distort man’s thoughts. Love can both be happy and miserable, and this makes it very powerful and therefore able to control the entire behaviour of a person. Throughout a lifetime people will unavoidably experience things that will have a certain impact on the individual’s personality as well as further development. These experiences will often become memories that will follow them their entire life. This is also the case in “Mule Killers”, where a father tells his son about the memories he has of the year his son was conceived and his relationship to his father.
This passage marks the first of several types of love, and gives us an intuitive
The quest for knowledge, a topic often contemplated in philosophy, remains persistent with mankind seeking to understand the uncertainty in the world surrounding him. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that raises questions and provides answers about what constitutes knowledge and justifies belief. The main concerns of knowledge in epistemology are how it is defined, what the source is, how it’s acquired, what its limitations are, and what kind of knowledge is necessary. Three very well known philosophers of their time offer their different ideas on the subject of knowledge and epistemology.
The phenomenon of love is such that when two souls first fall into love, their passions and
As any romantic will assert, love is by far the most powerful force known to human hearts and minds. This sentiment is espoused throughout history, almost to the point of cliché. Everyone has heard the optimistic statement, “love conquers all,” and The Beatles are certain, however idyllic it may be, that “all you need is love.” Humanity is convinced that love is unique within human emotion, unequalled in its power to both lift the spirit up in throws of ecstasy, and cast it down in utter despair.
Love is different for each and every person. For some, it comes easy and happens early in life. For others, such as Janie Mae Crawford, in Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston, it happened much later in life. Oddly, after two failed marriages. Janie sought love in several different men and marriages, hoping to find true love; however, she was often left with abuse, hardship, and a broken-heart. As stated by Hoffman “Well, I think everyone struggles with self-love.” Amour Propre¹ Love for one’s parents is honorable, love for one’s child is unconditional, but self-love is often denied. Loving ourselves isn’t a one-time event. It’s an endless, moment by moment ongoing process. It wasn’t until Janie found self-love that she discovered confidence, peace, and fulfillment. Her finding of self-love helped her understand freedom and self-worth.
“Love interrupts at every hour at the most serious occupations, and sometimes perplexes for a while even the greatest minds.” – Schopenhauer1 All of us that have been in love can identify with this quote, but the real question is how do we find, and choose our lovers? Schopenhauer would argue that making a decision, about an ultimate lover is merely biological. He believes in something he calls the will to life which he defines as “an inherent drive within human beings to stay alive and reproduce.”1 We sometimes even ask ourselves why him, or why her? We have absolutely no conscious say in the partner we pick, and that our animalistic subconscious picks our lovers. Yes, humans do romantic things with their lovers, and for their lovers to strengthen the connection like: picnics, expensive dinners, and rose petals on the floor. But the main decision is ultimately based on biological factors alone. The last thing you’re thinking about when getting someone’s number at a club is having a baby, but subconsciously that’s the truth .1 I will analyze Schopenhauer’s ideas of love, giving modern evidence, as well as stories of personal experience throughout the next few paragraphs. I believe Schopenhauer hit the nail right on the head when it comes to love (besides his idea of polygamy.)
Zagzebski defines knowledge by expressing the relationship between the subject and the truth proposition. A truth claim becomes knowledge when your state of belief makes cognitive contact with reality. What it is to know that you understand something is different from having a relationship with something. Propositional knowledge, that can be known or believed, is her focus due to simplicity. The criteria required for belief is to have a thought, followed by augmentation with experience. The minimal criteria for a definition of knowledge must incorporate two types of “good”; a moral and an ethical. These truths are implemented to develop the foundation on which Zagzebski later builds her definition.
After reviewing the skepticisms that arise from the standard philosophical approach, Davidson suggests that we need a theory that will accommodate all three models while making sense of their relationships among each other; anything else will leave us with the question: how can we know the world in three completely different ways? Davidson’s argument begins with an exploration of why the three kinds of knowledge are each in their own right necessary and irreducible to the other two forms. His argument is on the basis that we simply could not go on without knowledge of the mental states of others, or knowledge of our own mental states.
mind, what one finds to be correct which is the truth. Emerson suggests that it is easy for a man to
The Symposium, The Aeneid, and Confessions help demonstrate how the nature of love can be found in several places, whether it is in the mind, the body or the soul. These texts also provide with eye-opening views of love as they adjust our understanding of what love really is. By giving us reformed spectrum of love, one is able to engage in introspective thinking and determine if the things we love are truly worthy of our sentiment.
...ectively bring together the right ideas presented by the rationalists and empiricists and strengthen the foundation of metaphysics. Kant uses the theory of transcendental idealism, the claim that gains of knowledge are based on perceptions of the mind, to prove the limitations of the human mind. Transcendental realists are proven wrong by Kant because of their inability to see that the mind is incapable of perceiving things in themselves. Kant resolves Hume’s scepticism by confirming that there are sources of reality perceived by sensations. Kant is successful in resolving the debate between rationalists and empiricists by applying a Copernican approach on understanding the human mind and its perceptions. By understanding the capacity of the human mind, we are one step closer to strengthening the foundation of metaphysics and understanding how knowledge is attained.
In this paper I will explain what objective knowledge is and why we can have objective knowledge. I will clearly define several key terms that are crucial to this discussion. With these definitions in mind, I will explain the necessity of objective knowledge for reason and reality. Then, I will outline and expound on a reduction absurdum argument, explaining the contradictory postulate and exposing a contradiction. Finally, I will describe the view of Global Skepticism, and show how the Global Skeptic lives in opposition to his or her outlook. Through these arguments, it will be apparent that logic and reality demand the existence of objective knowledge.