Finnis Counter-Argument Analysis

679 Words2 Pages

As it has been said previously, knowledge is one of Finnis’ seven basic goods that are intrinsically valuable, and is acquired by means of whatever process one must endure in order to obtain the truth about something. Though the value of knowledge varies subjectively, the objectivity of knowledge is relative and only adds to knowledge being self-evident. The core of what makes knowledge an underived principle encompasses not only the fact that it cannot be further deduced nor attributed to another principle in order to add to its validity, but also that its goodness is an antecedent to all skeptics’ counter-arguments, therefore invalidating any and all skeptical arguments. Finnis considers knowledge to be a underived principle because it …show more content…

they are either directly self-contradictory or entail their contradictory, 2. are performative consisstancies, where statements and the facts are not consistent, and 3. a statement that is falsified by its assertion (Finnis 74). All of these arguments are forms counter-arguments that can be conjured up by skeptics in attempts to invalidate the argument that knowledge is not a good worth pursuing. However, knowledge as a good to be pursued defeats all of the mentioned forms of rebuttals. “ ‘…Knowledge is not a good’ is operationally self-refuting” (Finnis 74). By asserting that knowledge is not a good worth pursuing, one is also asserting that truth is not a good worth pursing, which contradicts one’s belief in the truth of the statement. With this, Finnis proves that knowledge as a good to be actively pursued is presupposed, or assumed prior, in all of the previously mentioned rebuttals. Knowledge cannot be falsified by means of contradictory, inconsistent, or operationally self-refuting because of its presupposition of the pursuit of truth being good. Therefore, all skepticism about the basic value of knowledge is

Show More
Related

  • Defense of the Closure Principle

    2572 Words  | 6 Pages

    ...ermore, the line of questions that the skeptic constantly appeals to in shown to be logically flawed in their form and through the fact that they violate the three conditions. Finally, when the skeptic attempts to sidestep these defenses by claiming they are irrelevant to what skepticism intends to prove, it is the skeptic’s argument that is shown to be irrelevant instead. This final piece of the puzzle against the skeptic’s stance against the Principle of Closure can only be upheld by Vogel’s three conditions, otherwise, it would undoubtedly lead to further random series of questions by the skeptic’s which serve no real epistemological purpose. This is how, the very conditions that hold up the most genuine counterexamples available to skeptics demonstrates both why their own argument fails and that there are no real counterexamples against the Principle of Closure.

    Read More

  • Edmund Gettier Problem Essay

    669 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • A Spiritual Journey In René Descartes's Six Meditations

    983 Words  | 2 Pages

    Descartes was the first western philosopher to attempt to educate others on a puzzling question: how can one know with certainty anything about the world around us? “I realized that it was necessary, once in the course of my life, to demolish everything completely and start again right from the foundations if I wanted to establish anything at all in the sciences that was stable and likely to last” (Med 1, 12). In writing this meditation Descartes freed his mind of all information, and encourages the reader to do so as well, so that he could destroy established opinions. In order to determine whether there is anything we can know with certainty, he concludes that we must disregard all we were taught and then rebuild our knowledge into new and exciting philosophical foundations. If there was any notion that cannot be questioned, we should, for the time being, pretend that everything we know is disputable. However, Descartes did find the possibility of fully doubting absolutely everything unachievable, as one cannot truthfully fake all studied knowledge. However, he suggested that we, as skeptics, should doubt individual principles and think for ourselves.

    Read More

  • On Certainty

    2567 Words  | 6 Pages

    In his essay “An Argument for Skepticism”, Peter Unger makes the case for the “universal form of the skeptical thesis”. He is arguing for the position that any type of knowledge is impossible for any person. His argument seems to be a simple one, derived from two very clear hypotheses, but that is not the case. This paper is an attempt to show that while philosophically interesting, Unger’s attack on knowledge is not nearly so damaging as he contends.

    Read More

  • On Epistemology and Skepticism

    1682 Words  | 4 Pages

    Epistemology is purposed with discovering and studying what knowledge is and how we can classify what we know, how we know it, and provide some type of framework for how we arrived at this conclusion. In the journey to identify what knowledge is the certainty principle was one of the first concepts that I learned that explained how we, as humans, consider ourselves to know something. The certainty concept suggests that knowledge requires evidence that is sufficient to rule out the possibility of error. This concept is exemplified in cases like The Gettier problem in the instance that we suppose (S) someone to know (P) a particular proposition. As Gettier established the Justified True Belief as a conceptual formula for knowledge, certainty can be understood with the proper perspective and background. The certainty principle explains that knowledge requires evidence to be “sufficient” to rule out the possibility of error. This means that what we determine to be acknowledged as “knowledge” must present justification in order to be accepted believed as knowledge. This is important because Skepticism doubts the validation of knowledge and how we come to any such conclusion of justifying what we “know” indubitably as knowledge. This is the overarching problem with skepticism. Instead of having a solid stance on how to define knowledge, skeptics simply doubt that a reason or proposition offered is correct and suppose it to be false or flawed in some manner. See the examples below as identifiers of the skeptic way of life.

    Read More

  • Virtue Epistemology Essay

    1101 Words  | 3 Pages

    Almost all epistemologists, since Edmund Gettier’s 1963 article, have agreed that he disproved the justified-true-belief conception of knowledge. He proposed two examples

    Read More

  • Gilgamesh Greed Quotes

    1382 Words  | 3 Pages

    “Knowledge is power. Power to do evil...or power to do good. Power itself is not evil. So knowledge itself is not evil.” - Veronica Roth, Allegiant

    Read More

  • Coherentism And Foundationalism Analysis

    1370 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this paper, I will first define knowledge and explain how we reach epistemic justification for our beliefs. I will then briefly explain the Gettier Cases and use his argument to introduce the Agrippa Trilemma and discuss two epistemological theories. After, I will define and explain Coherentism and Foundationalism and finally offer my own argument on why Coherentism is the better account for epistemic justification.

    Read More

  • Kripke Vs Quine

    2139 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...lating a phrase or sentence. My response is that even if you are unable to interpret the speaker’s intention, by stating that there is no fact about meaning is fallible. Regardless of one being able to interpret the speaker’s intention does not necessarily mean that there is no meaning behind the utterance of, say for example “gavagai.” Whatever the meaning of “gavagai” may be is solely dependent upon the speaker’s use and intention. Hence, the argument of the skeptic will not go through, and so this line of response to my argument fails.

    Read More

  • The Justified True Belief Theory Of Knowledge

    1519 Words  | 4 Pages

    Some of the objections, such as the ones made by Edmund Gettier, claim that three conditions are not nearly enough to justify a true belief, and that at the very least a fourth must be added. Gettier presents a very valid criticism of the JTB theory of knowledge, and his counter examples highlight flaws in the JTB theory that make it an inadequate theory of knowledge. Gettier claims takes an issue with the third part of the JTB theory, which states that proposition P must be true. Gettier makes the interesting observation that person S may very well be justified in believing in proposition P even if P is false

    Read More

  • The Nature of Faith

    1299 Words  | 3 Pages

    In many aspects of our lives, the use of faith as a basis for knowledge can be found. Whether it is faith in the advice of your teacher, faith in a God or faith in a scientific theory, it is present. But what is faith? A definition of faith in a theory of knowledge context is the confident belief or trust in a knowledge claim by a knower, without the knower having conclusive evidence. This is because if a knowledge claim is backed up by evidence, then we would use reason rather than faith as a basis for knowledge . If we define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, it can be seen that faith, being without justification, can never fulfill this definition, and so cannot be used as a reliable basis for knowledge. However, the question arises, what if a certain knowledge claim lies outside of the realm of reason? What if a knowledge claim cannot be justified by empirical evidence and reasoning alone, such as a religious knowledge claim? It is then that faith allows the knower to decide what is knowledge and what is not, when something cannot be definitively proved through the use of evidence. When assessing faith as a basis for knowledge in the natural sciences, the fact arises that without faith in the research done before us, it is impossible to develop further knowledge on top of it. Yet at the same time, if we have unwavering faith in existing theories, they would never be challenged, and so our progress of knowledge in the natural sciences would come to a standstill. Although I intend to approach this essay in a balanced manner, this essay may be subject to a small degree of bias, due to my own non-religious viewpoint.

    Read More

  • Question No Knowledge Can Be Produced By A Single Way Of Knowing

    1695 Words  | 4 Pages

    Question No. 5 “No knowledge can be produced by a single way of knowing.” Discuss.

    Read More

  • Essay On The Gettier Problem

    1758 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...feasibility' and 'Causal' theories, and knowledge as 'warranted true belief' require us to take a certain 'leap of faith' when considering the question of knowledge at times. In order to avoid scepticism, I hold that knowledge does not necessarily need to be infallible, but rather probable. This does not mean that a proposition does not need to be true, it means that something we hold as knowledge is not one which is beyond reasonable doubt, but one which it wouldn't make sense to doubt. Yes, we have an obligation to avoid doxastic errors by reflecting on our belief-forming processes and by adjusting them in pursuit of reliability, but we also need to make a reasonable link between reality and truth to the extent that a proposition becomes senseless to doubt. So, although Gettier problems may be inescapable, this does not mean we are starved of knowledge completely.

    Read More

  • To What Extent is Knowledge Provisional

    1335 Words  | 3 Pages

    We gain knowledge in through our ways of knowing which are mainly perception, reason and language. We use them to find knowledge because we justify our claims and beliefs by their use, thus, our evidences, because they get us closer to the truth. To accept something as knowledge, it must be considered true, one must believe it and there must be justification why the person knows it, therefore these ways of knowing aid in the process for our quest for knowledge. In conclusion, in order to obtain knowledge all of these three attributes have to be integrated in some type of way, and due to the changing nature of all three of them, knowledge is always changing and it is dynamic, leading to the fact that knowledge can be discarded. The questions b...

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Augustine And Al Ghazali

    1881 Words  | 4 Pages

    The argument that is used in the idea of skepticism has comparable and incompatible views given from Augustine and Al-Ghazali. Both monologues cover and explain the doubts one should have, due to the

    Read More

More about Finnis Counter-Argument Analysis

Open Document