The Origin of Judgment Introduction The guiding thesis of Experience and Judgment is that logic demands a foundational theory of experience, which at the lowest level is described as prepredicative or prelinguistic.1 Edmund Husserl pursues within that text a phenomenological elucidation of the origin of judgment in order that he might clarify the essence of the predicative judgment. He does so in the belief that an investigation into the form of prepredicative experience will show it to be the ground of the structure of predicative thought, and thus the origin of general, conceptual thought. From the beginning, Husserl takes the problematic of logic as being two-fold: on the one hand there is the question of the constitution of forms of judgment and their laws; and on the other, that of the subjective conditions of the attainment of self-evidence.2 He gives his investigation into this problematic in Experience and Judgment a tripartite structure, with each part corresponding to a different level of experience. This paper will loosely mirror Husserl’s own division, beginning with an articulation of what Husserl means by the prepredicative domain of experience. This will be followed by an examination of the origins of judgment in the prepredicative realm.
In section 18, Kant explains that particular concepts must be superadded-concepts that have an a priori origin in pure understanding. Every perception must be placed within something more comprehensive, and then it can be changed into experience. Section 20, expands that the connection of an empirical consciousness in a general consciousness that produces universal validity for empirical judgments maintains a concept that is a pure a priori concept of understanding. The concept of a cause is a pure concept of understanding that can then lead to further concepts of understanding such as causality.
The first group (with dialectic as its top-disciplina) leads to a critical reflection upon the conditions of knowledge and into the insight to reason's power of creating sciences. The second group helps carry out a metaphysical ascent from the material to the intelligible world. In philosophy, reason comprehends its ability to constitute knowledge as a synthetic capacity that points to a transnumerical unity as the main ontological feature of the intelligible world. The insight into this kind of unity reveals the meaningful interwovenness of all beings and events and, thus, leads to a refutation of all objections against divine providence. Augustine's early dialogues are works of a special sort.
Practical rationality “is defined as every way of life that views and judges worldly activity in relation to the individual’s purely pragmatic and egoistic interests and people who practice practical rationality accept given realities and merely calculate the most expedient ways of dealing with the difficulties that they present” (Ritzer & Siepnisky, 2011, p. 136). The next form is theoretical rationality, which involves a mental effort to master reality through abstract concepts rather than action, “it involves such abstract cognititve processes as logical deduction, induction, attribution of causality, and the life” (Ritzer & Siepnisky, 2011, p. 136). The third type of rationality is substantive; this type states that actions are ordered into patterns through groups of values in a society. “The substantive rationality involves a choice of means to ends within the context of a system of values” (Ritzer & Siepnisky, 2011, p. 136). Lastly, formal rationality involves calvuation, “but whereas in pratical rationality this calculation occurs in reference to pragmatic self interests, in formal rationality it occurs with reference to “universally applied rules, laws and regulation” (Ritzer & Siepnisky, 2011, p. 136).
To fulfill accuracy in this research, the main strategy that is used is the mixed methods, which lies under the post-positivist philosophy. This strategy is mainly the result of the combination of the positivist and the anti-positivist philosophies. In their book Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Creswell and Plano Clark (2011, p. 5) state that the mixed methods technique “[…] involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis of data and the mixture of qualitative and quantitative data in a single study or series of studies.” On the one hand, the positivist philosophy encompasses the normative paradigm as it recognizes that human behavior is easily detected, categorized and can simply
Thus, while analyzing the category, one can make a reconstruction of the concept scheme (in both traditions); show their functioning; and compare them to each other. It is easy to notice that in both these systems: a) analyzing is strongly connected with the way of expressing existence in a language, b) the essential problem is to which category existence belongs, c) the main question is whether existence is a predicate. Since the problem of analyzing—especially the problem of applying logic in philosophy—played an essential role both in Frege-Russell's system and Twardowski's school, the author of this paper wants to show how this was understood there (especially application of logic to some philosophical problems). I. Introductory Remarks G. Frege in the introduction of his "Grundlage der Aritmetik" formulates a general principle: "nach der Bedeutung der Wörter im Zusammenhang, nicht in iherer Vereinzelung gefragt werden mu" (G. Frege, Grundlage der Arithmetik, Darmstadt 1961, p. XXII, p. 161.
Reason is essential in determining knowledge claims, it is important that knower’s are able to pass a judgement based solely on rational evidence, this may be even more so importance when observing the practice of scepticism. In contrast, emotion can inhibit good reasoning, as expressed by the ‘James-Lange theory’; it can be influenced by external factors such as belief, which can supress logical thought processing. Albeit, this presents the argument that reason and emotion... ... middle of paper ... ...d adequacy of evidence” is truly dependent on the knowledge claim in question and the profound nature of the area of knowledge. Initially, I believed that knowledge claims made in the field of science are naturally to be questioned in the research stages and so are more reliable than that provided of the human sciences. However, I discovered that this may not be the case due to the limitations within the statement itself, the lack of distinction between theoretical and applied knowledge A sceptic may be “willing” to question a knowledge claim, but to what extent or measures taken for a sceptic to be “willing” to accept knowledge claim may be non-existent.
In order to discuss sensory perceptions, we need a definition of the kinds of things that can be perceived, and a general acceptance of the terms used throughout the dialogue. Locke, in his work An Essay Concerning Human Understanding , describes an important distinction between the different qualities that we perceive in objects. He terms the two types of qualities perceived within objects as primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are defined as those which are inherent within the object (Locke gives examples of extension and form) , while secondary qualities are those created within the mind from primary qualities . Berkley uses the term “sensible quality” to express the same concept as Locke’s primary qualities: those qualities which can be observed directly by our senses .
Comparing Locke and Hume If we are to understand the difference between Locke and Hume’s account of how ideas work, we must forth set the pertinent terms of each of their arguments. The two essential terms in Locke’s discussion of how ideas work are idea and object. Locke defines an idea as "whatsoever is the object of the understanding when a man thinks" (Cahn, 494). Locke has "used [idea] to express whatever is meant by phantasm, notion, species, or whatever it is that the mind can be employed about in thinking" (Cahn, 494-495). In other words, an idea, for Locke, is something you use in your mind to think about other things, while an object, in Locke, is what the mind is employed about when thinking.
So in comparison between Descartes and Locke, Locke helps explain how we get knowledge, understanding reality, and what is most real. Descartes defines knowledge as doubt and uncertainty. He describes that our main source of knowledge is our sense perception.